The Laptop

[Cloudbuster]

You know I don't think RG gave a crap about the battery life -the case-or perpherials. The man needed that laptop and was Brillant. He knew he was meeting with someone that day and he was pulling out brillant ideas to work with. Drop the meticious at least on 4-14 and mainly 4-15. You gotta think like he did. If the stakes was high and risks involved he knew he had to come up with some good ammunition then think LAPTOP, then decide if the laptop had something on it that he stumbled on or is it Ray's ruse????

BTW all county laptops would be hooked up into a network right? If there was something important on it could the head of the network account somehow have obtained his password ect. Im curious? Or who pays the network tab-server? Example if someone new got emplyed at the courthouse ect and they forgot their password then what????

[Cloudbuster]

LW I think our posts came out about the same time lol. I did not intend my post at you at all.

[Cloudbuster]

LW thanks for understanding!!! Its funny how that stuff works. I read it after it went up cause I like to count my spelling and grammar mishaps roflmao and when I saw your post above mine I lost it cause it made me look like a nasty irrogant person. I just get passionate at times and my stuff might come out weird but in this case it just came out at the same time and looked that way lol.

:rose:

[slaphappy]

:chicken: A little nervous posting here (feel like I'm in a room full of seasoned verterans = newbie doesn't have anything new to add)


But, here is my 1$ worth (inflation ya know) :


Ray Gricar taking the laptop with him points away from suicide and walk-a-way. My reasoning is that there are hundreds of places along the way to get rid of it. Places where it would never be found. Why (if there was something on it he wanted lost forever) take it, throw it in the river where you decided to end your life only to be found later? Do you know how many dumpsters he would have passed along the way? Every business from small restaurants to garages have them. Just remove the hard drive, put it in a seperate garbage bag than the laptop, and throw each one away in dumpsters at different locations. In small rural communities here in Pa. there aren't homeless people rummaging through dumpsters. Bigger cities, yeah, but not in the rural areas. If either suicide or walk-a-way was Ray's intention, don't you think he wold have planned this all out a little ahead of time? ( I know you guys are scratching your head at my logic)


The empty case in the closet bothers me......my SO has a laptop. Takes it with him every morning inside the case (even though he drives in a car, J.J. [hee hee]. Not because he is meticulous like Ray is reported as being, but because it is just more convenient to carry. I won't say it is awkward carrying it without the case, but not as easy. Also, it does protect it.

Does anyone really know if the laptop was inside the case before Ray went missing? We are relying on Patty's words here. Maybe the laptop hadn't been inside the case for quite awhile. Like mentioned by other posters........the case was there inside the closet, one would just assume the laptop was there also. The reason I ask this is because Sherrijean brought up some good questions a few pages back ( I thought so anyway)........ Questions about whether they had a housekeeper or laborers around before Ray vanished. She mentioned a recent patio addition............... okay this is way out there ( I'm talking 'porn buddy' out there) .....what if one of the court cases that Ray was dealing with just happened to be a friend or relative of one of the laborers/plummers/whatever they find the laptop, take it, leave the case to buy time. Afterall, the case is still there where it was, therefore the laptop must be, also. ( I know I know FAR FETCHED) I'm sorry, just can't see 'meticulous' Ray taking the laptop without the case! I really believe the laptop was planted where it was found! I think that Ray was set up. In my mind that laptop held the key to all of this.

Sorry for such a long convoluted first post. It is just that I do care about Ray Gricar. Never met him or any of his friends or family (infact I live in northwestern pa.) His case is one of the ones that I carry with me. Such a sloppy investigation...he deserved so much more!!!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by slaphappy
:chicken: A little nervous posting here (feel like I'm in a room full of seasoned verterans = newbie doesn't have anything new to add)


But, here is my 1$ worth (inflation ya know) :


Ray Gricar taking the laptop with him points away from suicide and walk-a-way.


I would say it could point to two different things:

1. He was planning to use it for something.

2. He was planning to destroy it (and even then, he might have been planning to use it first).

In small rural communities here in Pa. there aren't homeless people rummaging through dumpsters. Bigger cities, yeah, but not in the rural areas. If either suicide or walk-a-way was Ray's intention, don't you think he wold have planned this all out a little ahead of time? ( I know you guys are scratching your head at my logic)


I lived in State College in the mid 1980's and Cambria County (in a smaller town) after that. In both cases, I've seen people going through garbage, especially if something valuable or usable is there. The laptop would fall into that category.

The drive could have been precaution. Nobody knew, until July that it wasn't in the laptop. Even sitting in the river for a week, it would be unlikely that data could be recovered.

I can understand why someone intent on destroying the data would do it in that way.


The empty case in the closet bothers me......my SO has a laptop. Takes it with him every morning inside the case (even though he drives in a car, J.J. [hee hee]. Not because he is meticulous like Ray is reported as being, but because it is just more convenient to carry. I won't say it is awkward carrying it without the case, but not as easy. Also, it does protect it.


I think the issue is convenience. If RFG was planning on using the laptop in or near the car. Beyond taking it to and from the car, he's not carrying it. If he wanted to use it in the car and it be a bit harder to remove it from the case.

UTR, two points. We don't know that RFG did not make a backup of that data; he could have put it on CD and kept it in the case. Nobody knew it existed (if it did) and it could be at the bottom of the Susquehanna. I doubt if PEF could keep track of every CD.

As to the "listing job performances," I'm thinking along the line of notes. It's an ideal system, because there is a history of when the entry is made. There are other things, of course, of a personal nature, which would not be limited to pornography.

Now, all that said, I think the possibility of a "porn buddy" are very low. One problem I have is, why wouldn't a "porn buddy" take the case as well? It seems easier and quicker just to grab the case and leave, instead of removing the laptop first.

[slaphappy]

gstickley,


Thank you for responding.

Wow, I did get hung up on that cleaning lady/plumber tangent. Only because of my experience as a cleaning lady ( hey, single parent of 2 for 18 years without child support the whole time. Did what I could to get us by!) You would not believe the personal stuff people leave out in the open. Bank statements, check books, pay stubs, etc. Yet, I had total access to the houses I cleaned. Mr. & Mrs. were both at work. That's not saying that Ray or Patty would let important papers on desks or table tops. Just saying that when you have the whole house for a few hours every week, it wouldn't be too hard to learn things. But like you said, we don't even know if there was a housekeeper. Boy, I can see how easy it is to get wrapped up in theories about this.;)


logicworks,

Thank you, also, for responding.

I am like all of you. So many different scenerios go through my head. Here is another bizarre one for you....What if Ray did know his 'vanisher'? What if Ray didn't leave the house that morning by himself, like everyone thinks? If it was someone he knew, there wouldn't be a struggle. The cigarette ashes on the passenger side bothers me, also. When they say a "minute" amount.....how small of an amount does that mean? Somebody was in that car besides Ray. If this friend or associate caught him off guard at home, I can see this 'meticulous' man getting the laptop out of the case in a hurry. When Patty said he didn't sound any different than usual on the phone.... that doesn't mean he was alone while on the phone. I know, it's implausible....just thinking out loud.

I have tried to keep up with you guys on these threads over all of this time. You have thrown some very intelligent ideas out there. I feel like mine are just so silly.

All I know is how I feel. I just don't think the suicide or walk-a-way is the answer to Ray's case. :seeya:

[slaphappy]

J.J. Thanks for your response.

I admit I know absolutely nothing about the State College area. My SO owns a car repair garage and happens to have a dumpster. It just entered my head one day (the idea about Ray getting rid of his laptop) when I was watching the garbage truck pick it up. Watching all that debris falling out of the dumpster into the truck.....I thought " Geez, anyone could put anything in one of those and no one would be the wiser.) That stuff all gets taken to the local county landfill and just dumped. Forgotten , burried waste.

It was just a thought.:seeya:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by slaphappy
J.J. Thanks for your response.

I admit I know absolutely nothing about the State College area. My SO owns a car repair garage and happens to have a dumpster. It just entered my head one day (the idea about Ray getting rid of his laptop) when I was watching the garbage truck pick it up. Watching all that debris falling out of the dumpster into the truck.....I thought " Geez, anyone could put anything in one of those and no one would be the wiser.) That stuff all gets taken to the local county landfill and just dumped. Forgotten , burried waste.

It was just a thought.:seeya: [/*]

It wasn't a bad thought at all, SH. I've lived in Centre County for decades and have never in my life here seen anyone going through dumpsters. So I'm not sure it's exactly an every day occurrence in the area. To be honest, like you, I've frequently thought that there were many better ways to destroy a hard drive than to dump it in the river right near your car if you were the one leaving it.

[Cinderella]

Slaphappy you have very great ideas. Thank you for being on board, you have to stay now. As meticious as Ray was, I highly doubt it that he would take the laptop without the case and all the accessories. He appears to be someone who is totally together and is prepared for anything.

I am wondering if someone was putting stuff on his computer. I am sure that being a DA his computer has many programs on it. I don't necessarily think that someone has to do it with his computer. I think that they can tie into it. There are ways that you can share information. Someone possibly could have put porn, threats, whatever and maybe he noticed it. Ray might have thought that people would not believe that he didn't visit those sites, so he wanted to get rid of it. Did they ever really say that the hard drive was really Ray's?

Someone could have been at the house and took the computer, although I think that that thought would terrify PF. I am sure that Ray might have seen something on it and maybe that was what was really bothering him. I don't know if the outer case has Centre County written on it or not, but if it is something to tie it to Ray then maybe that is why he didn't take it. He might have thought that if he also took the case, then that would give it away. Maybe the information had been on there for some time. Maybe that is a reason that he bought a computer for the house. Maybe he didn't want Patty to see what was on it. It would be nice to know when the last time was when he did use it.

Someone could have stolen it and he went to retrieve it. It could have had picture of him and someone else on it. You can do anything with cut and paste anymore. You can put a picture together that never even existed.

I don't think that Ray committed suicide either. One of the reason being that when I visited the SOS and I saw how much debri was in the water, I am not as meticulous as Ray and I wouldn't even get in the water, let alone walk out to the edge of the bank.

JMO, MOO

BTW, someone may have met with Ray with some information or pictures that were damning for someone and they found out and somehow got Ray to get the computer so they could destroy evidence. I am thinking of someone who is well known, like BJL and taking information and giving it to Ray and then someone close finding out that BJL did that. Then they both had to be taken out.

JMO, MOO

[slaphappy]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


It wasn't a bad thought at all, SH. I've lived in Centre County for decades and have never in my life here seen anyone going through dumpsters. So I'm not sure it's exactly an every day occurrence in the area. To be honest, like you, I've frequently thought that there were many better ways to destroy a hard drive than to dump it in the river right near your car if you were the one leaving it. [/*]

:D UndertheRadar,

Thank you for posting back to me! Forgive my excitement.... but this is just so :cool: . The VETERANS on the Ray Gricar thread are posting with me!!! Honestly, I've been following all of your combined thoughts and hard work on this case.
Once again, I thank you posters for keeping Ray's case out there. It has been said so many times before, but I just wish there could be some kind of closure for him.

Well, I'm out of here tonight. My daughter is home from college this weekend! :) Don't want to be too groggy to spend time with her tomorrow.

[Cinderella]

Slaphappy,

Have a great weekend with your daughter. Enjoy the time.

[slaphappy]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Slaphappy,

Have a great weekend with your daughter. Enjoy the time. [/*]

:seeya: Cinderella,

Thank you so much...I just caught your post right before turning in.

I bet you guys didn't know that someone out there holds so much respect for all of you. I guess that is why I feel so intimidated about posting. You really know your stuff and I am just a novice! Scary place to jump into, but I have to admit the water, so far, is fine. And you all couldn't have been more welcoming!

[Cinderella]

I don't know that much. I try to talk to people about Ray. Lots of people will talk about him. Hopefully some day I will find an answer to something.

Thanks for your compliment. It has been a long journey for all of us.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by slaphappy
J.J. Thanks for your response.

I admit I know absolutely nothing about the State College area. My SO owns a car repair garage and happens to have a dumpster. It just entered my head one day (the idea about Ray getting rid of his laptop) when I was watching the garbage truck pick it up. Watching all that debris falling out of the dumpster into the truck.....I thought " Geez, anyone could put anything in one of those and no one would be the wiser.) That stuff all gets taken to the local county landfill and just dumped. Forgotten , burried waste.

It was just a thought.:seeya: [/*]

Please continue to post.

Unlike UTR, I have seen people going into dumpsters in State College and taking things from garbage put out for the trash man.

In Cambria County, outside of Johnstown, I had been doing some cleaning and put out an old GI Joe (I kinda outgrew it). It wasn't good shape. A middle aged man, stopped his car, and got out, looked at it and took it.

I have a friend that lives in Montgomery County, not the inner city by any stretch of the imagination. She and her teenage daughter have been known to go out on trash hay and get stuff; I will occasionally refer to her "Fred" and her daughter as "Lamont," or "Sanford and Daughter." ;) She'll either clean it and use it, or she'll sell it at a flea market.

If I were living at any place in Centre or Union Counties, and I wanted to throw out a computer, I would, without question, destroy the hard drive first.

Now, all that said, if RFG wanted to destroy the hard drive, why not just remove it and put the laptop back in the case? That leads me think someone took it out to check the battery with the intent to use it out of the house (possibly destroying it after that).

Enjoy your daughter's visit. :)

[Politigal]

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3801.html

"I can't recall a time where he took it anywhere," Fornicola said.

What we *haven't* heard....is whether Fornicola ever took it anywhere.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks



IMO, if RG was taking the laptop for a meeting, it would have been in it's case. The meticulous are not meticulous 'sometimes'. The only way I can believe it was taken to meet someone is by taking the meticulous man out of character therefore I don't buy it.

There is NO one else who would have any way of knowing whether the info on the laptop wasn't also in other records in the office or with LE, other than the two residents of the house where the laptop was kept. Since RG didn't normally take it with him, who else knew he had it, let alone what was on it?

The only person who would have a reason to destroy the laptop for info reasons would be someone who knew what was on it, and that the info on it wasn't on any other files elsewhere.

Even a fool is not going to risk carrying evidence around if they aren't positive the info is nowhere else, and IMO, there are only two people who would know what was on it....... the residents of the house.

What was on it might include nothing at all, because it may not have been about destroying info, but rather about creating a scenario for LE to follow.........nowhere, a blind lead whereby RG was made to look like he was hiding something in the river before he ran into hiding or before he jumped in the river. I personally don't believe either.
JMO [/*]

I don't believe "both" residents of the house knew what was on Ray's work related computer. I think both might have done internet searchesm, planning a retirement together, internet shopping, etc., but I don't believe Ray would have stepped out of his position as DA and allowed PF in to his private work related info. JMO

Even if Ray transferred all the info to hard copy, his other computer at the office or his new home computer, would he have deleted all info on the work laptop when he put it in the closet or was it all still on it?

[Politigal]

We don't even know when the last time Gricar ever used the laptop was.

It's already been stated that it was rarely ever used and that he mainly used his work computer.

Patty said they *weren't* using the laptop.

Any case info that might have been on the laptop could have been a year or two old.

Patty said they previously used it for internet searches, and considering her laptop use at the office, IMO, she probably used it way more than Gricar ever did.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by slaphappy
:chicken: A little nervous posting here (feel like I'm in a room full of seasoned verterans = newbie doesn't have anything new to add)


But, here is my 1$ worth (inflation ya know) :


Ray Gricar taking the laptop with him points away from suicide and walk-a-way. My reasoning is that there are hundreds of places along the way to get rid of it. Places where it would never be found. Why (if there was something on it he wanted lost forever) take it, throw it in the river where you decided to end your life only to be found later? Do you know how many dumpsters he would have passed along the way? Every business from small restaurants to garages have them. Just remove the hard drive, put it in a seperate garbage bag than the laptop, and throw each one away in dumpsters at different locations. In small rural communities here in Pa. there aren't homeless people rummaging through dumpsters. Bigger cities, yeah, but not in the rural areas. If either suicide or walk-a-way was Ray's intention, don't you think he wold have planned this all out a little ahead of time? ( I know you guys are scratching your head at my logic)


The empty case in the closet bothers me......my SO has a laptop. Takes it with him every morning inside the case (even though he drives in a car, J.J. [hee hee]. Not because he is meticulous like Ray is reported as being, but because it is just more convenient to carry. I won't say it is awkward carrying it without the case, but not as easy. Also, it does protect it.

Does anyone really know if the laptop was inside the case before Ray went missing? We are relying on Patty's words here. Maybe the laptop hadn't been inside the case for quite awhile. Like mentioned by other posters........the case was there inside the closet, one would just assume the laptop was there also. The reason I ask this is because Sherrijean brought up some good questions a few pages back ( I thought so anyway)........ Questions about whether they had a housekeeper or laborers around before Ray vanished. She mentioned a recent patio addition............... okay this is way out there ( I'm talking 'porn buddy' out there) .....what if one of the court cases that Ray was dealing with just happened to be a friend or relative of one of the laborers/plummers/whatever they find the laptop, take it, leave the case to buy time. Afterall, the case is still there where it was, therefore the laptop must be, also. ( I know I know FAR FETCHED) I'm sorry, just can't see 'meticulous' Ray taking the laptop without the case! I really believe the laptop was planted where it was found! I think that Ray was set up. In my mind that laptop held the key to all of this.

Sorry for such a long convoluted first post. It is just that I do care about Ray Gricar. Never met him or any of his friends or family (infact I live in northwestern pa.) His case is one of the ones that I carry with me. Such a sloppy investigation...he deserved so much more!!! [/*]

Hi, Newbie! You might reconsider the inflation amount. Think it is going up again on the "my two cents" or "penny for your thoughts". :) Welcome to our world, nice to have a new view.

I think there were a lot more people who knew RG had a laptop at home. If someone in the courthouse was having a problem with RG, they knew who had laptops, could have been who was in the office on 4/14, forcefully closing doors in RG's office looking for it. Someone in the commissioners office would know who had computers since they keep records of the serial numbers, right? Do they, as someone else suggested, keep a record of the passwords used?

Also his personal friends might know about the computer being at home. Did SS and RG ever work at home on cases? Was RG keeping SS informed of cases while SS was out sick? If so it is another person knowing the laptop was at home? And before it starts a war, I am not saying SS did anything!! Just saying his friends could know the laptop is at home.

As to the question on a housekeeper I had mentioned before, as my job as homemaker/companion with 2 elderly people, there wasn't an item in their home I didn't know about. It was part of my job to know it, due to the fact the one was almost blind and was always misplacing things, the other was very sentimental and wanted to look at everything in the later years - both in late 80's. We cleaned closets, basements, etc. I say we because both were very active and they enjoyed going through their things.

And yes! Housekeepers do have access to all areas of a clients home, even when they are not there. With a personal key! A closet was accessible because I did ironing and hung clothes up. I helped the lady dress, ect, ect. So did anyone have a key to their home for any reason?

We recently had a water problem in our kitchen. At least 4 men were in our home and were for 3 - 4 days. I imagine they noticed things in my home, where things were. A closet off the kitchen and my bedroom closet were checked for water damage. They shared a wall with the kitchen.

Another thought, was there an oil company in to clean the furnace, read a meter in the previous months? Usually one would come to our home every year for cleaning.

[J. J. in Phila]

If RFG had something that he only wanted to be read by him, he could have have it password protected (on Windows at least).

The question is, could RFG have used it without PEF's knowledge? Sure, and vice versa.

I will admit, I have a problem with a K going to the house, only taking the laptop (and any specific backup CD's), without knowing if the information was on the office desktop or the home computer.

Something that K saw loaded into the laptop before RFG returned to the home/office is different.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by slaphappy
J.J. Thanks for your response.

I admit I know absolutely nothing about the State College area. My SO owns a car repair garage and happens to have a dumpster. It just entered my head one day (the idea about Ray getting rid of his laptop) when I was watching the garbage truck pick it up. Watching all that debris falling out of the dumpster into the truck.....I thought " Geez, anyone could put anything in one of those and no one would be the wiser.) That stuff all gets taken to the local county landfill and just dumped. Forgotten , burried waste.

It was just a thought.:seeya: [/*]

SH, that was a thought I also had. Just want to say, don't throw anything in a Uni-Mart dumpster!!. They do know. They pull it out, go through it and you will be arrested.

JJ, I also know about the dumpster divers in State College. They used to do it in State College when the students were leaving (they now donate to a lg yard sale bldg on campus). They found almost new items (furniture, appliances, rugs, etc.). Know many people who built their first homes on students throw aways.

Still, if someone wanted to throw it in water, why go to Lewisburg? Just make another deposit in the Quarry near Bellefonte that is closed. A lot easier and maybe never found if weighted down.

I wonder if the person who threw it in the Susquehanna thought it would float away or sink into to the muck at the bottom of the river never to be found?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I wonder if the person who threw it in the Susquehanna thought it would float away or sink into to the muck at the bottom of the river never to be found?

OTOH, the hard drive was found in an area that was accessible by wading to when the water had receded.

Another possibility is that it was thrown by someone who *wanted it to be found* and was thrown where it would likely *would* be found when/if the water line went down.

Does the river there tend to recede every summer when it's a dry summer? I know certain creeks that dry up completely just about every year.

Just a thought.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal
We don't even know when the last time Gricar ever used the laptop was.

It's already been stated that it was rarely ever used and that he mainly used his work computer.

Patty said they *weren't* using the laptop.

Any case info that might have been on the laptop could have been a year or two old.

Patty said they previously used it for internet searches, and considering her laptop use at the office, IMO, she probably used it way more than Gricar ever did. [/*]

Then again, if RG took days or even part days off, PF might not know of RG using it during thoses times out. Since the laptop is not readable it is all speculation anyways, but it could have been used in the recent past without her knowledge.

Wonder if he took it to his meetings at the Women's Resource Centre or even kept info on it from clients he helped there? It was a big part of his life.

[J. J. in Phila]

They only have to throw it in so it won't be found for about a week, if the purpose is data destruction, and everyone is kind of assuming it's still in the laptop.

If the purpose isn't data destruction, why toss it? Even I agree that it could have been thrown in at a later date and it doesn't come close in itself, to proving RFG was in Lewisburg. I don't list that as some of the evidence that he was there.

???

If I were the killer, and there was nothing incriminating on (like a bloodstain or my fingerprints) or in the laptop, I'd leave it and let LE spend time searching the Internet for RFG surfing patterns. While they are trying to figure out the connection to the laptop, they wouldn't be looking for me.

If I were murdered or went missing, and there were no other clues, who would be some of the people they would be looking at? UTR, SJ, S1, TonyGricar, LW, Cind, and Poligal (but don't worry, there would be a few hundred others).

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, what makes you think Gricar spent time posting on message boards?

A lot of people do internet searches and never go ANYWHERE NEAR message boards, list serves, chat rooms, etc.

Though you are right. If you ever go missing, LE should look at me, LW, Pgal, GS, and others. For sure. :santa:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


Shhhhh, UTR, I wasn't going to be a suspect . . .
:lol: [/*]

Criminy! Too late! I blew the plan! :lol:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981

Still, if someone wanted to throw it in water, why go to Lewisburg? Just make another deposit in the Quarry near Bellefonte that is closed. A lot easier and maybe never found if weighted down.



Okay, here is a possibility. I think it is unlikely but possible.

Assume that there is a porn buddy and that isn't PEF (and it could be).

Buddy hears on 4/16 that RFG is missing. PEF is out of the house and possibly no one is home. Buddy has a key and takes the laptop.

Now Buddy doesn't know what happened to RFG any more than any one of us. RFG might be up in a cabin, just to get away for a while; he might show up on Monday morning. Buddy doesn't know, so he hides the laptop at his residence.

During the week it becomes clear that RFG isn't coming back, and the Mini was found in Lewisburg. Sometime in the next few weeks, Buddy decides not to turn it over to LE (Buddy would look exceptionally guilty). He knows the Mini was found in Lewisburg and figures that tossing someplace else will effectively leave a false trail if found. Since RFG was in Lewisburg, it doesn't put him in a different location. He goes to Lewisburg and completes his mission.

Now, what if PEF is "Buddy." She takes the laptop to her car Friday night, before calling LE. She doesn't know if the Mini is off the road and RFG is dead or alive or if he's gone to a ballgame or up in a cabin. A week later, when LE isn't around, she goes to Lewisburg and completes the mission. She obviously knows wher RFG was last seen.

Now, in both cases Buddy is pretty sure that the laptop is not related to a murder, and don't to explain it to LE. (PEF passed the polygraph, which lowers the odds on her a bit.)

Now, the thing with "Buddy," either one, is that they'd have to be convinced that the laptop didn't play a role in what happened. Both would have to value the promise they made to RFG more than LE wanting to see it. Either one could simply say that they borrowed it and turn it over.

I would suspect that anyone who was close enough to be RFG's "buddy" would not want to misdirect LE.

Also, and this is the big one, why does Buddy not just grab the case and take it, instead of removing it.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Okay, here is a possibility. I think it is unlikely but possible.

Assume that there is a porn buddy and that isn't PEF (and it could be).

Buddy hears on 4/16 that RFG is missing. PEF is out of the house and possibly no one is home. Buddy has a key and takes the laptop.

Now Buddy doesn't know what happened to RFG any more than any one of us. RFG might be up in a cabin, just to get away for a while; he might show up on Monday morning. Buddy doesn't know, so he hides the laptop at his residence.

During the week it becomes clear that RFG isn't coming back, and the Mini was found in Lewisburg. Sometime in the next few weeks, Buddy decides not to turn it over to LE (Buddy would look exceptionally guilty). He knows the Mini was found in Lewisburg and figures that tossing someplace else will effectively leave a false trail if found. Since RFG was in Lewisburg, it doesn't put him in a different location. He goes to Lewisburg and completes his mission.

Now, what if PEF is "Buddy." She takes the laptop to her car Friday night, before calling LE. She doesn't know if the Mini is off the road and RFG is dead or alive or if he's gone to a ballgame or up in a cabin. A week later, when LE isn't around, she goes to Lewisburg and completes the mission. She obviously knows wher RFG was last seen.

Now, in both cases Buddy is pretty sure that the laptop is not related to a murder, and don't to explain it to LE. (PEF passed the polygraph, which lowers the odds on her a bit.)

Now, the thing with "Buddy," either one, is that they'd have to be convinced that the laptop didn't play a role in what happened. Both would have to value the promise they made to RFG more than LE wanting to see it. Either one could simply say that they borrowed it and turn it over.

I would suspect that anyone who was close enough to be RFG's "buddy" would not want to misdirect LE.

Also, and this is the big one, why does Buddy not just grab the case and take it, instead of removing it. [/*]

Maybe it was already out! Maybe RG had been using it just prior to disappearing? Maybe he had put on it where he was going, what he was going to do, but Buddy didn't want PF to know? Then again, maybe RG gave it to his Buddy before his disappearance and told him what and when to do with it?

Wasn't it SS that said he could see RG walking away? He just didn't know why.

[UndertheRadar]

Here is a possibility. Maybe it's not likely, but it's within the realm of possibility.

There is no more loyal "buddy" to any man than his dog.

When Honey heard that RG was missing, maybe she hid the computer. She didn't know if RG was merely away for a few hours or if he was gone for good (dogs having difficulty telling time). When Monday came and she realized that RG was not going to return, she followed his scent to Lewisburg, carrying the laptop in her mouth. It was too bulky to carry the protective case AND the laptop, which explains why the computer was not in its case. Carefully holding a screwdriver between her paws, she popped the set screw and removed the hard drive with her teeth.

As luck would have it, she found a young lad on the banks of the river and stood with the hard drive in her mouth, wagging her tail and imploring him with her eyes. Yes! He got the message. The lad tossed the drive and said, "Fetch!" but Honey picked up the laptop between her teeth instead. "Oh, you want to play with that instead?" asked the boy. As with the hard drive, the boy launched the laptop into the water.
Honey wagged her tail appreciatively.

Hitching a ride back to Bellefonte, she was able to slip back into the house without drawing any attention to herself and settle on to the couch, where she took a well deserved nap.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Here is a possibility. Maybe it's not likely, but it's within the realm of possibility.

There is no more loyal "buddy" to any man than his dog.

When Honey heard that RG was missing, maybe she hid the computer. She didn't know if RG was merely away for a few hours or if he was gone for good (dogs having difficulty telling time). When Monday came and she realized that RG was not going to return, she followed his scent to Lewisburg, carrying the laptop in her mouth. It was too bulky to carry the protective case AND the laptop, which explains why the computer was not in its case. Carefully holding a screwdriver between her paws, she popped the set screw and removed the hard drive with her teeth.

As luck would have it, she found a young lad on the banks of the river and stood with the hard drive in her mouth, wagging her tail and imploring him with her eyes. Yes! He got the message. The lad tossed the drive and said, "Fetch!" but Honey picked up the laptop between her teeth instead. "Oh, you want to play with that instead?" asked the boy. As with the hard drive, the boy launched the laptop into the water.
Honey wagged her tail appreciatively.

Hitching a ride back to Bellefonte, she was able to slip back into the house without drawing any attention to herself and settle on to the couch, where she took a well deserved nap. [/*]

Are you always so sarcastic?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Are you always so sarcastic? [/*]

About this whole "Porn Buddy" idea, yes.

Here's a man who as you readily say found the idea of working toward bettering the lives of women who had been exploited and abused to be **very important** to him.

Now we've got a theory hinging on the same man harboring pornography on his computer, an industry that is the very pinnacle of exploitation and abuse of women.

And it's not just that RG might have occasionally looked at some photos of women on the web. No, it's such an important part of his web searching that he's got to create a "Porn Buddy" to cover his tracks should anything ever happen to him.

I find that whole scenario demeaning to Ray Gricar.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Maybe it was already out! Maybe RG had been using it just prior to disappearing? Maybe he had put on it where he was going, what he was going to do, but Buddy didn't want PF to know?


Buddy, in this scenario finds out when the rest of us find out, or shortly before. PEF was home so if the laptop was out, she probably see it.


Then again, maybe RG gave it to his Buddy before his disappearance and told him what and when to do with it?


In a walkaway, it's possible, but RFG could do it just as well in that case. He could have tossed it on Thursday as well.

If he were suicidal, and he called Buddy, I can't see Buddy saying, "Yeah, go ahead and kill yourself. I'll destroy your laptop." Now, a note left might on the laptop might be possible.

Buddy would likely be a friend who might stop him, or report it.


Wasn't it SS that said he could see RG walking away? He just didn't know why.

I'm not sure SS doesn't have a theory; I just am not entirely sure on what he bases his opinion.

I can't imagine "Buddy" as a casual acquaintance, but someone close and trusted (with a key). But I have a hard time with Buddy as someone close and trusted, not reporting it.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


About this whole "Porn Buddy" idea, yes.

Here's a man who as you readily say found the idea of working toward bettering the lives of women who had been exploited and abused to be **very important** to him.

Now we've got a theory hinging on the same man harboring pornography on his computer, an industry that is the very pinnacle of exploitation and abuse of women.

And it's not just that RG might have occasionally looked at some photos of women on the web. No, it's such an important part of his web searching that he's got to create a "Porn Buddy" to cover his tracks should anything ever happen to him.

I find that whole scenario demeaning to Ray Gricar. [/*]

Oh NO You Don't!!! You will not put words in my mouth!! I never said he had porn on his computer!

TG explained what is meant by that term, a term I had never heard before being on this forum, and that meaning of the term is why I went into a scenerio with JJ. It had nothing to do with porn.

Talk about twisting words and putting words in people's mouth's. The pot calling the kettle black!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Buddy, in this scenario finds out when the rest of us find out, or shortly before. PEF was home so if the laptop was out, she probably see it.



In a walkaway, it's possible, but RFG could do it just as well in that case. He could have tossed it on Thursday as well.

If he were suicidal, and he called Buddy, I can't see Buddy saying, "Yeah, go ahead and kill yourself. I'll destroy your laptop." Now, a note left might on the laptop might be possible.

Buddy would likely be a friend who might stop him, or report it.



I'm not sure SS doesn't have a theory; I just am not entirely sure on what he bases his opinion.

I can't imagine "Buddy" as a casual acquaintance, but someone close and trusted (with a key). But I have a hard time with Buddy as someone close and trusted, not reporting it. [/*]

Actually I was thinking RG was walking, not jumping, in that scenerio. Which he could have discussed with Buddy.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Oh NO You Don't!!! You will not put words in my mouth!! I never said he had porn on his computer!

TG explained what is meant by that term, a term I had never heard before being on this forum, and that meaning of the term is why I went into a scenerio with JJ. It had nothing to do with porn.

Talk about twisting words and putting words in people's mouth's. The pot calling the kettle black! [/*]

Whoa, SJ! Where did you get the idea I was responding to YOUR scenario? The Porn Buddy thing is pure JJ. The only thing I did was respond to your question.

[J. J. in Phila]

First, UTR, I've gone to fairly great lengths to say that it would not necessarily be pornography, but could include things like comments about coworkers, records on LG's birth parents, a diary, things not related to sex.

Second, we have TG noting that such things do happen, that it is not uncommon. He didn't find it a "demeaning" topic. I'll add the poster who mentioned it to me didn't find it too "demeaning" either.

Third, I've never referred to "some photos of women on the web." It's possible, but did you ever consider that the photos may not have been from the web, but tasteful, consensual, and intimate photos of the SO, or both SO's in this relationship?

I assume that you've been a relationship. If you had intimate photos of your SO, or SO of you, would you really want the BPD and PSP to be pawing over them? I wouldn't.

Yes, it could have been "some photos of women on the web" and potentially a few dozen other things, all things RFG (or PEF) wouldn't want displayed in front of various members of LE.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Actually I was thinking RG was walking, not jumping, in that scenerio. Which he could have discussed with Buddy. [/*]

A helper is possible, in a number of ways.

And yes:

TG explained what is meant by that term, a term I had never heard before being on this forum, and that meaning of the term is why I went into a scenerio with JJ. It had nothing to do with porn.

Talk about twisting words and putting words in people's mouth's. The pot calling the kettle black!

I went straight out to explain while term is "porn buddy," it does not necessarily involve anything pornographic, or anything off the web.

[Cinderella]

UTR, I loved the idea about Honey. Honey could also have been in heat or lonely and wanted a male friend. Honey might have gotten online when PF and Ray were away and looked to see if there were any good looking males at the SPCA.

What about this, Ray took his laptop to the office. He had some work related information on it that was damning to someone. Someone might have possibly sent him a CD. Someone found out somehow that he had this information on the laptop. Many people have keys to the courthouse. People are in there during the night, since the book showed up on Mark Smith's desk why not say that someone from the courthouse stole his laptop?

Ray was supposed to be a witness about drugs in the court on Monday. Someone knew this ahead of time and they might have wanted to see what he knew. This might be why that Ray was upset and depressed. He had some information and knew that someone else knew and his computer went missing. I would say that it is a better chance that someone stole it from the courthouse than took it from Ray's house. Maybe on of his co-workers was keeping it in case something happened to Ray.

I don't believe that Ray would have been so stupid as to look at porn on it. Although someone might have put porn on it. Maybe someone was blackmailing Ray for a while. Since we don't have his bank records or his cell phone records, we don't know what was going on. Ray might have taken it to Lake Raystown and put it in the water. He might have gone there maybe because he thought that no one would recognize him.

Possibly Ray was e-mailing the mystery woman. A lot of men and women are in their homes even married and having an online affair. Ray might have used the laptop at the courthouse at night or when PF went to the gym.

Maybe someone just thought that Ray had something damning information on his computer and stole it. Maybe they couldn't find what they were looking for and wanted to get rid of it so they hid it in water behind their house and when they harmed Ray they tossed where Ray went missing.

I wonder if anyone tested the yuck that was on the computer to see if it was placed somewhere else first.


Just speculating.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, when you put the idea of "Porn Buddy" out on the boards, it is *inclusive* of the idea that the buddy is there to remove the computer in the event LE would find porn. It is in fact the primary reason you brought it to the board, and it is the one I find demeaning.

It is immaterial what some "other" poster thinks or even what TG thinks when I offer my opinion. It is MY opinion. A little group of you think it is wrong to mention a single word about PF. That is YOUR opinion. This is a discussion board, where we offer opinions on things.

My opinion is that your idea of "tasteful photos" of PF and RG is bunk and a way to weasel out of the generic porn concept. In that case, PF would be the {{coughcough}} "Porn Buddy," not some third party RG would drag into the situation, except perhaps as some last ditch contingency where both PF and RG were killed in a plane crash. And since there is absolutely nothing illegal about a couple (I was going to say a married couple, which is what I really mean, but an unmarried couple living together will have to do in this situation) having tasteful photos of **themselves** for their own private use, the idea that anyone would drag a third party in to "hide" those photos from LE in the event of their disappearance or death is **in my opinion** preposterous. LE wouldn't "paw" over them. They would treat them professionally and discreetly and probably just **yawn.**

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella


What about this, Ray took his laptop to the office. He had some work related information on it that was damning to someone. Someone might have possibly sent him a CD. Someone found out somehow that he had this information on the laptop. Many people have keys to the courthouse. People are in there during the night, since the book showed up on Mark Smith's desk why not say that someone from the courthouse stole his laptop?


The only problem that I have here is how dooes the thief know that the information is only on the laptop.

Our thief, even if he was there when RFG put the CD into the laptop, would have to know that RFG didn't copy the data afterward, to some other location. Even the laptop is out of sight for an hour, RFG could:

*Copy the data to a CD.

*Transferred it one or both of the other computers.

*Put it into an online storage site.

He probably could do all of these things in less than an hour.

(UTR and GS, that probably means that JKA was not the office thief.)


Ray was supposed to be a witness about drugs in the court on Monday. Someone knew this ahead of time and they might have wanted to see what he knew. This might be why that Ray was upset and depressed. He had some information and knew that someone else knew and his computer went missing. I would say that it is a better chance that someone stole it from the courthouse than took it from Ray's house. Maybe on of his co-workers was keeping it in case something happened to Ray.


The information would have to be unique to the laptop. He didn't carry it the night before.


I don't believe that Ray would have been so stupid as to look at porn on it. Although someone might have put porn on it. Maybe someone was blackmailing Ray for a while. Since we don't have his bank records or his cell phone records, we don't know what was going on. Ray might have taken it to Lake Raystown and put it in the water. He might have gone there maybe because he thought that no one would recognize him.


I've thought a lot about blackmail, but I can't see a blackmailer killing his victim. He want the victim to pay him.

I have thought about RFG blackmailing someone, but so far as we know, there is no unaccounted for incoming money. Also, RFG isn't stupid and would keep the information in a safe place, not carry it with him; he'd probably have copies and could have it on multiple computers (which LE checked).



Possibly Ray was e-mailing the mystery woman. A lot of men and women are in their homes even married and having an online affair. Ray might have used the laptop at the courthouse at night or when PF went to the gym.


Yes, and he wouldn't be likely to copy those emails.


Maybe someone just thought that Ray had something damning information on his computer and stole it. Maybe they couldn't find what they were looking for and wanted to get rid of it so they hid it in water behind their house and when they harmed Ray they tossed where Ray went missing.


Yes, but why was the laptop out of the case, why didn't K steal the other computers.

Now something that the had a good idea that didn't have time to be copied to disk or stored someplace else would be very possible (that was in the "Murder Scenario).

Now, there is another possibility. RFG lent the computer to someone, immediately after loading the data. I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.


I wonder if anyone tested the yuck that was on the computer to see if it was placed somewhere else first.


Just speculating. [/*]

Not speculating, LW suggested a while back that LE might be able to determine if there was power in the battery when it went into the water.

Here is speculation. Was the outside checked for physical evidence, e.g. blood stains, hair, prints. It's not too likely it would survive the water, but not impossible.

I can come up with two solid (but speculative) reasons why the laptop was not in the case:

1. Whomever took it wanted anyone looking at where it was stored to see the case and assume that the laptop was still in the case. The person most likely making that assumption would be PEF. A lot would depend on if the case was readily visible. If it was in the back of a closet, under a bunch of stuff, it wouldn't be necessary, and the theory would go down.

2. Whomever took it out of the case did so to check the power, for use.

PS: Good to see you post.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


More smoke & mirrors. We can't mention PF, but it's okay to throw Ray Gricar into porn!



And THAT, GS, is what was making me so nauseated about the whole situation. Here's RG, a man who worked to keep women from being exploited and abused. We're going to drag HIS name through the mud by exploring a theory that has him SO involved in an industry that exploits women that he has a CONTINGENCY PLAN for the event of his disappearance or death to cover up his connection to that industry.

And THAT is "okay." But we can't mention PF.

Go figure.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
I admit I'd never heard the term "Porn Buddy" until it was introduced by JJ in relation to the disappearance of RG. I thought it was an insult to the memory of Ray Gricar, since I'm of a "kinder, gentler generation". I saw an explanation of "Porn Buddy" given by "TG"; not being a young adult male, I was prepared to give the explanation a possibility.


I checked with a couple young adult males in my area; none of them had ever heard the term "Porn Buddy". Most advised they could imagine what it meant but didn't know.



Thjat's interesting since TG heard of it, and after a PM from a poster, I Googled it and found 11,000 plus hits.


Then, of course, JJ appeared to be a wiffle-waffling on the term "Porn Buddy" to make it something other than what was first posted.


Oh, what part of "not necessarily pornography" dare you having a conseptual problem with. Ah, do consider RFG's notes on employees to be "pornography," his diary, or LG's adoption records, or even intiminate pictures of people in a relationship, all things mentioned as potential data.

Oh, and here are some interesting comparisons.

I guess to a woman, a Tweezer Buddy is like the Porn Buddy to a man (Porn Buddy being the guy who will go to your place if you die suddenly to remove all the porn so that anyone going through your effects won't be shocked).

I wish I had a Tweezer Buddy when I was in the hospital. My eyebrows and upper lip were crazy when I was finally able to go home.

http://qcreport.blogspot.com/2007/09/not-by-hair-of-my.html

So, I need some sort of “porn-buddy” for dishes.

http://blog.mommyfiles.com/



I just now looked up the definition of "Porn Buddy". I was right in my opinion, unless "TG's" definition & the one JJ is now trying to imply, is beyond #20 on the "Porn Buddy" website.

[quote]
FYI, the "Porn Buddy" relates to strictly porn. You should check it out yourselves, because I'm not about to give examples.


I had no idea you considered dishes and facial hair removal by ladies to be pornographic.


More smoke & mirrors. We can't mention PF, but it's okay to throw Ray Gricar into porn!


Yes, a lot of smoke and mirrors. People that are witnesses not coming forward, spreading false information and innuendo that points to someone that objectively to someone that could not have done it, and doing it for over a year. A former DA claiming she wants answers and when called, not wanting them.

A lot of smoke of mirror and very suspicious smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately, the smoke and mirrors started about 2 weeks after RFG disappeared.

A very good question is why?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, if you knew who raised the term "porn buddy" first, you'd be choking on your mouse.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, the Queen of England could have raised the theory for all it would matter.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Read both of your listed sites. Both refer to Porn Buddy as someone who will go & get all your PORN if something happens to you. Forget the facial hair & whatever else you can think up. The fact remains you referred to Ray Gricar possibly having a Porn Buddy, the definition of which is someone who will go & get all your PORN. Ray Gricar & porn in the same sentence. Pretty sorry. [/*]

I think comparing a "porn buddy" to a "tweezer buddy" and a "porn buddy for dishes" in a site relating to motherhood and homemaking speaks for itself. :rolleyes:

Yes, I did use the term "porn buddy," but noted that was the name of the term and didn't have anything to do with pornography, unless you consider a diary, LG's birth parent's records, or notes on personnel at the Centre County DA's office to be pornographic[/i.] (If you think so in the latter case, that would [i]REALLY raise questions about JKA.)

Yes, there are a lot smoke and mirror, but they seem to be coming from a few posters and from JKA. The question is, why?

[Cloudbuster]

Okay this may mean not much to me but here is what Im getting.
These words:
"I pulled over and I tossed it".

Now surly someone had to see that mini do something like that?
I will with hold my opinion on that one.

[Cloudbuster]

This goes out to a person that will know by reading this that it pertains to that person only.

You and you know who you are, went to a place and was very upset and angry YOU said to them "you lied, your murders". They handed you a lie and told you "we're not". You said "your not". You listened to that lie and believed them, but make no mistake after you left they started a machine and he is where you was at. You was so close but yet so naive. You should have followed your instincts cause you was correct with what you told them. Problem is your still closed minded.

[Cloudbuster]

Another thing I think I hear is:
The "southside" Whatever that means is not known to me but could be that the laptop was later tossed from the southside or he meant he pulled over and tossed it from the south side. I don't know. It also sounded like in the ceiling (could have been where the drive was kept till later on). Its just a guess on that.

LW please pick up if you get anything.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Now we have 2 "definitions" of "Porn Buddy", which are the same as the one given by "TG". The writers of both articles definitely distinguish between a " . . . Buddy" and a "Porn Buddy".

Wonder why "Porn Buddy" was brought into the discussion of Ray Gricar, unless it was on someone's mind.


As I've said, someone asked me about it; I hadn't hear the term "Porn Buddy" either, but it a term for destroying data, and one that TG has heard and agrees that it does not necessarily refer to pornography.


It's obvious to me that LG's birth certificate, RG's notes on office personnel, or anything else relating to RG, ought not to be remotely discussed in this light. If it appears to be demeaning to me, I'm sure there are other "unenlightened" people who feel the same.


Not LG "birth certificate," but information on her birth parents, which might be far worse than anything pornographic, unfortunately. Likewise, RFG may not something like a private diary and I sure as heck wouldn't want contemporaneous notes on performance on employees (or on me) to see the light of day.


"Laptop Removing Buddy"---well, maybe.


"Laptop Removing Buddy" doesn't show up on Google. Just because you don't like the word, does not mean it isn't valid. I've tried to use the word "buddy."


But since RG only had 2 best friends, perhaps one of them should have been checked to
ascertain if he was the buddy. Wait . . . there was nothing suspicious about them for LE to even question them about.


I think there is no disagreement that the movements should be traced.


However, since KA worked in the same office & it's "open season" on her, KA's being included in the "Porn Buddy" discussion. Oh, well, I guess after everything else we've heard, maybe it's a matter of "killing 1 bird with 2 stones" or something like that . . .

This absolutely boggles the mind!!!


It does boggle the mind that you would find it in any way derogatory to include JKA on the list of potential buddies. A "Buddy" is a trusted friend that is responsible enough to remove the data. I've suggested PEF in that role as well.

Now, I'm sorry if you don't feel that JKA could be either trusted or responsible enough for that role. :rolleyes:

Now, all that said, I think there is a very low likelihood for her being a "buddy," largely because of the timing.

[UndertheRadar]

Come on baby let's do the twist
Come on baby let's do the twist
Take me by my little hand and go like this
Ee-oh twist baby baby twist
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the twist

My daddy is sleepin' and mama ain't around
Yeah daddy is sleepin' and mama ain't around
We're gonna twisty twisty twisty
'Til we turn the house down
Come on and twist yeah baby twist
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the twist!

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Come on baby let's do the twist
Come on baby let's do the twist
Take me by my little hand and go like this
Ee-oh twist baby baby twist
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the twist

My daddy is sleepin' and mama ain't around
Yeah daddy is sleepin' and mama ain't around
We're gonna twisty twisty twisty
'Til we turn the house down
Come on and twist yeah baby twist
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the twist! [/*]

yep, Chubby's been here more than once. :D

[J. J. in Phila]

More sarcastic nonsense from UTR. :rolleyes:

[Cinderella]

I love it! Thanks for a good Sunday night laugh. :santa:

BTW, is Santa doing a twist laying down? :santa:

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
This goes out to a person that will know by reading this that it pertains to that person only.

You and you know who you are, went to a place and was very upset and angry YOU said to them "you lied, your murders". They handed you a lie and told you "we're not". You said "your not". You listened to that lie and believed them, but make no mistake after you left they started a machine and he is where you was at. You was so close but yet so naive. You should have followed your instincts cause you was correct with what you told them. Problem is your still closed minded. [/*]

Also wanted to add that I believe you are the reason this case started out with the echo's of runoff. That is because that's what you was lead to believe. I think it's just easier for you to believe that.

[Tree_of_Life]

Has anyone ever determined to what degree or if Gricar stored any case information on his laptop? Or is this just one of the other many details to which we do not have access?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
Has anyone ever determined to what degree or if Gricar stored any case information on his laptop? Or is this just one of the other many details to which we do not have access? [/*]

If the accounts are correct, none, recently. It was suppose to be unused, except for conferences.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ this time I believe they will find out something was on it. After listening to I pulled over took it out and tossed it. Words preceed that and they are "your a murderer". Perhaps it held something pertaining to a upcoming future case. One involving what RG saw as a murderer. I know that may even pertain to Vargas case. I can't be certain but just throwing out there anyway with a disclaimer.:read:

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
JJ this time I believe they will find out something was on it. After listening to I pulled over took it out and tossed it. Words preceed that and they are "your a murderer". Perhaps it held something pertaining to a upcoming future case. One involving what RG saw as a murderer. I know that may even pertain to Vargas case. I can't be certain but just throwing out there anyway with a disclaimer.:read: [/*]This content seems to be popping up in most every thread now. I'll go out on a limb and assume (I know...) that this is pertaining to your tape? Any chance that these types of posts can be in there own thread, such as the "unexplained phenomena" one, or one dedicated to your tape? One reason I make this suggestion is that non sequitur's such as this can come across as something fact'ish in nature when no context is set, especially for any new visitors. Thanks.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
Has anyone ever determined to what degree or if Gricar stored any case information on his laptop? Or is this just one of the other many details to which we do not have access? [/*]

still a good question...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


still a good question... [/*]

And answered. :)

Kroll might be able to determine that.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by logicworks...snipped from elsewhere
IMO, no one is going to go in the daylight to 'plant' evidence, whether it be RG or someone else. I seriously doubt that area was under heavy surveillance a month after disappearance, using your example of May, 2005. I agree. And I can say, without fear of being contradicted, that there was absolutely NO surveillance whatsoever in Lewisburg at any time post-disappearance. That does not come from my longtime and faithful companion, General Knowledge...it comes from my own personal observations.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I agree. And I can say, without fear of being contradicted, that there was absolutely NO surveillance whatsoever in Lewisburg at any time post-disappearance. That does not come from my longtime and faithful companion, General Knowledge...it comes from my own personal observations. [/*]

But the real question is, if RFG decides to, in May or June 2005, drive to Lewisburg and get out any walk around, doesn't it become very likely that some one will spot him?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



Not if it was after dark, which IMO, would be the only time someone who didn't want to be seen would likely show up somewhere to 'plant' anything.
JMO [/*]

Yes, even after dark. The bridge is a major route, in a populated area. Added to that that he can't drive up to the river bank and throw the drive into the river.

Under this mini scenario, RFG has to drive out of town, stay out of town for perhaps a month, come back, hoping never to be seen, and then, still unseen, get out of Lewisburg, again.

Now, it isn't impossible, but it is unlikely, and if RFG doesn't want to be identified, risky.

Is it possible that RFG is hiding in attic, Anne Frank style, someplace in Lewisburg. Sure. Is it likely, no.

Now, if RFG expressed in interest in situations where folks hid in attics, talked about them, I might say differently.

I mentioned to someone earlier this evening how much I liked living in my particular neighborhood; that would make it unlikely that I might wish to walkaway.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



I find that rather strange, considering it has often been noted people will return to the scene of a crime. That is not to say there was a crime committed, because we don't know yet whether that is a fact.

I wonder why there was no surveillance camera put in place immediately 'after the fact' to see if there were any visits of 'interest' to the lot and park area. I would have taken that stance immediately following finding the car if I were a member of LE.



You are forgetting something very important. Neither the park nor the bridge were, on 4/17-4/18/05 directly related to the disappearance. Yes, the parking lot was, and yes, the bridge, park, gravel pit across the river, railroad bridge, bridge in Milton, or some other location could have been. At the time, however, it was just the lot.

I've also never heard of cameras being set up for just the specific purpose of seeing if someone returned to the seen of the crime (unless it was to retrieve something).

TG noted that the press got there, which kind of makes i


1. to see if he returned? AND if so, were they intending to process it for prints, and vacuum for evidence on-site, or
2. did LE basically take the stance 'he just went off somewhere and will return so no need to do anything until we see if he returns? OR
3. did LE want the car to remain there until the canine unit arrived the next day, before processing the car, which would have been the wisest choice, IMO.


In answer to your questions, respectively:

1. TG noted that the press was already there, which kind of makes it impractical.

2. It was suggested, by JKA, that "perhaps other longer-term DA staff" suggested that RFG might be with the LMW.

3. That would NOT have been the wisest choice, because there possibly could have been something time sensitive in the Mini, e.g. medication, a note. There may have been evidence, not readily visible, that might have been acted upon, e.g. evidence of a murder or a kidnapping, or even a sexual encounter.

Since the car was likely to have been in a heavily traveled area for hours, it is unlikely that it would made a difference.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


1. Impractical if the only reason for leaving it there was to see if he returned. Very practical if it was to wait on the canine unit to arrive before opening or moving.


Very dangerous if RFG's dropped his heart or diabetes medication and was ill, or if he left a suicide note and was off some place just swallowing all those sleeping pills. Before they checked the car, LE had no idea if any of those things could be ruled out.

Also, I question if moving the car would affect the dogs, especially since the car was probably in an active parking lot for 24+ hours.


2. Who 'introduced' the LMW theory?


It's not too much of a stretch when given the witness report and the description. It might have been wrong.


I don't blame a coworker when confronted with the information that RFG was seen with a woman who sort of matched a description of a longstanding friend, possibly an old girlfriend, that "other longer-term DA staff" might have said, **Boy, that sounds like ____ Ray's old girlfriend.**


3. Any particular reason why the dogs weren't brought in immediately after the car was found? Even if they had to travel an hour or so, why not? Only one canine unit in the State that would suffice? I find that hard to believe.
JMO [/*]

I'm looking at the oft cited Scott Peterson case, where the dog was brought in three days after the investigation started. Here the dogs were brought in within 18 hours after the car was found. A cadaver dog was used within 72 hours after the car was found. There are some differences of course, Modesto has more resources than Lewisburg or Bellefonte and the area is larger.

One thing I won't do is fault the first weekend of LE's investigation or the reactions. For everyone except TG and CG, and that on a personal level, this was unprecedented.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


1. Are the possible medical emergencies you speak of based on fact? I would think the first thing LE would be told was 'possible medical emergency' or 'suicidal' if either had any basis for fact.
I never had that impression from what I read in the news, so how do you arrive at either conclusion?


Barbara Gray thought it was possible; she mentioned mini-strokes. My point, which you don't seem to get, is that at 6:30 PM on 4/16/05, LE does not know if RFG has a medical condition or was suicidal. There is know they can know.

Suicide jumped up in the minds of TG and CG as soon as the words "Water Street" were mentioned.

Likewise, there might have evidence of a crime.

You are actually in the position of saying that because LE checked and didn't find anything, that they shouldn't have checked.


2. Where did the description of the LMW originate? And in that 'origination' was the sighting in the lot, in the shop or both?
Did the dog back up the sighting in the lot and/or in the shop that conclusively proved RG was with a LMW?


It seems to have been there by the morning of 4/17/05 according to JKA.

The dogs tracked RFG's scent in the parking lot. Witness reports put him in the area


3. Questioning to understand the reasoning behind procedure followed has nothing to do with finding fault. It is viewing it to see how serious the situation of the missing DA was taken in those beginning hours, and why LE went in the direction they did, which was to begin knocking on doors, looking for a LMW. Based on what?

[quote]
Example.......If this was instead a bank robbery and a large amount of money was taken, would LE wait until Sunday afternoon to track the robber?
AND if someone saw the robber arrive in a certain vehicle which was still parked across from the bank in a parking lot would LE tow the car away before a tracking dog arrived?


I doubt if the would be able to get the dogs that quickly and, I've frankly only rarely heard of them every being called in in a bank robbery.

Your bank robbery analogy is a bit poor. The car in the robbery analogy was near the bank, the place where the event was known. This is a situation where the last the car was thought to be was 15-30 miles away on Route 192. Generally in a bank robbery, the first thing LE does (if the owner wasn't the robber) is ask witnesses if they've seen the person driving the car. Second, they take the car in to gather evidence.

Frankly, I lived in Western and Central Pennsylvania from birth until I was about 30, and Phila for the remainder. I have heard of cars being towed in for evidence. I have never heard of them leaving the car for the dogs.

We've seen another case where dogs were used, the Peterson case, and no, there were not brought in immediately.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



In either case, medical emergency or suicide, there was no prior known reason to believe either was the case; no evidence of either possibility having prior incident/threat to back it up. In fact, there was more evidence that he possibly went to a ballgame considering there had been a previous incident.


And we have "no know prior reason" to think it was murder. You'll not that I've included evidence of a crime, like unseen blood stains in that as well.

As two medical or suicide, you have reports that RFG was "tired," "very distraught," "wasn't with it." Those all could be signs of a medical problem, inclusive of depression. LE knew about some of those things prior to the Mini being found. Then you consider that depression can be genetic, Roy Gricar suffered from it, and it isn't exactly "no known prior reason."



IMO, the biggest problem that could arise would be contamination of evidence in the event a crime was committed, and IMO, that should be the FIRST consideration. If anywhere along the line it was proven to be any of the other 'possibilities' only then should the possibility of a crime be eliminated.



So if you find someone laying in the street, you should check for poison before seeing if he's having a heart attack, right? The car was moved to a "clean environment," where it could be checked for evidence. LE had know idea what, if any, evidence was in there, but it might have been crucial to RFG's health and wellbeing to find that evidence quickly. And your suggestion is, wait?


In so far as an example........here is one.....and there are many others like it. They caught the guy before he could even drive away.

CASE: WARREN V CITY OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
864 F. 2d 1436 (1989) Eighth Circuit



20 years earlier (4/13/85)One of the officers who responded to the call was teamed with a police dog, which tracked the intruder's scent east from the crime scene to Jackson Warren's parked car four and one-half blocks away.
and 2000 miles away. :rolleyes:

That isn't standard procedure used by LE. I think we both know that.

And, had you read it, you would have realized that they didn't "bring in" a team. One of the responding offices had a dog with him:



One of the officers who responded to the call was teamed with a police dog, which tracked the intruder's scent east from the crime scene to Jackson Warren's parked car four and one-half blocks away.


http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/864/1436/239764/

Now, I'll agree, if LE just happened to have a scent dog with them, they could have, and should have, used it. Most police officers do not travel around with scent dogs.

Want to try again?

[UndertheRadar]

My computer is [sort of] working today, so I'll toss this out. It makes little sense to attack Logic's twenty year old example as not SOP when a quick google search can turn up dozens of current examples of the same. Here's one from an attempted robbery at a credit union, July 2008:

At 5:33pm, another JSCO investigator located a suspected get-a-way vehicle parked at the edge of a wood line in an abandoned motel parking lot, west of the credit union. The vehicle registration was obtained and a suspect was developed. the registered owner of the vehicle was known to local law enforcement and matched the description of the suspect given by the victim.

Local and state responding officers were deployed around the perimeter awaiting the arrival of K-9 tracking dogs.

The K-9 tracking dogs from JCI and ACI arrived on scene at approximately 6:10pm and began tracking the suspect through a wooded area to the north and west of the credit union.

The suspect Bryndyn Neel age 18 was apprehended at 6:53 pm, without incident, in a swampy area just off Highway 90, east of the Merritt's Millpond Bridge.

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/25453319.html

Half an hour to get the dogs on scene and less than 45 minutes thereafter to apprehend the suspect.

Logic seems merely to be asking why possible criminal reasons for the disappearance were initially put on the back burner in favor of 1) voluntary walkaway ("We thought Ray was just off having a wild weekend") followed by 2) potential suicide. And that is a "logical" question.

Hello all, by the way.

[Politigal]

WOW!!!

Wonderful to see you back UTR. :)

[Serendipitous1]

Well, hell yes...welcome back Radar.

O/T for the laptop thread...but I thought I would post something from an email I received long ago. Keep in mind that there are all kinds of resources available. "...no local SAR teams have been permitted to search for Ray from day one. Only LE related organizations were there, regardless of how hard us 'locals' tried to help."

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


More than happy to try again.......

No reason to open the car door or move the car prior to the dog's arrival. The risk of contamination is too great .
In the case of lack of meds, do you honestly think a medical patient leaving his meds behind will leave directions to where he will have an attack? Pray tell how finding that medication would direct LE anywhere that likely wouldn't be the very first place checked to begin with, meds or no meds. BUT I am curious here as to why you think there was some medication.


I do honestly thing that someone might drop his medication, or that it might fall out of his pocket, yes. It might also have been removed, in order to take it, and then forgotten. The risk there [u]alone[/i] is sufficient to look.

I don't think there was medication, only no way to know on 4/16/05.



I can see how one might prevent a suicide if in a known location at the time, but it appears the car may have been there for a full day and a half, so if a suicide emergency, seems LE might be a bit late to prevent anything.


Maybe not, RFG could have taken a room close by, and then taken some over the counter pills or poisons. That obviously is time sensitive.


I continue to see nothing other than the SO's opinion that points toward anything actually holding any possibility. Without a body, most unlikely.


Then vou didn't read JKA's Googlepages. According to her, she told LE that there was something that seemed to be wrong, before noon that day.



I was asked if I had noticed anything unusual about Ray's behavior that week, and told him that Ray had seemed distraught about something earlier that week. I was told that he had already talked to various other staff members before calling me and that "everyone is telling me the same thing".


http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/gricardisappearance

She gives the time between 11:00 AM and 11:30 AM on 4/16, so yes, it wasn't the SO, unless you are suggesting that JKA was another SO.


And what would one expect the nephews to say when confronted with such a familiar scenario?
That is called 're----action', something one would expect to hear from trauma revisited, and IMO, nothing I believe RG would do to his loved ones, therefore out of character.


The circumstances triggered the reaction, but the action was triggered.


Your example of someone laying in the street has nothing to do with anything that actually occurred in this case.


Nor does most of what you've posted. You seem to expect LE to be able to be able to divine the contents of the Mini without opening it. It's a bit like saying, **RFG didn't walk away, so we should check it out the possibility that he did.**


If a police officer HAPPENED to have a dog? Curious here.........
According to this article, Union County sheriff's office has had a K-9 unit since 2000.
http://www.unioncountypa.org/residents/government/courts/sheriff/k9.asp
Same with Sunbury, Pa.
Same with
http://www.strikek9.org/
(notice------24 hours a day, any weather)
WHY Sunday afternoon? WHY after the car was moved?
JMO [/*]

Did it occur to you that Iro, the dog in question, does air scenting and checking for drugs and explosives, not necessarily ground scent tracking? Ah, it should have:

http://www.unioncountypa.org/residents/government/courts/sheriff/abilities.asp

There is a rather substantial difference between "air scenting," detecting skin rafts in the air, and "ground scenting," detecting skin rafts on the ground.

I hate to point this out to you, but County Sheriff's departments rarely patrol in PA.

Are you going to try again?

[gstickley]

Radar, I'm so glad you came back. I've missed you so much & hope you can stay.

[J. J. in Phila]

It is good to hear from you.

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
My computer is [sort of] working today, so I'll toss this out. It makes little sense to attack Logic's twenty year old example as not SOP when a quick google search can turn up dozens of current examples of the same. Here's one from an attempted robbery at a credit union, July 2008:

At 5:33pm, another JSCO investigator located a suspected get-a-way vehicle parked at the edge of a wood line in an abandoned motel parking lot, west of the credit union. The vehicle registration was obtained and a suspect was developed. the registered owner of the vehicle was known to local law enforcement and matched the description of the suspect given by the victim.

Local and state responding officers were deployed around the perimeter awaiting the arrival of K-9 tracking dogs.

The K-9 tracking dogs from JCI and ACI arrived on scene at approximately 6:10pm and began tracking the suspect through a wooded area to the north and west of the credit union.

The suspect Bryndyn Neel age 18 was apprehended at 6:53 pm, without incident, in a swampy area just off Highway 90, east of the Merritt's Millpond Bridge.

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/25453319.html

Half an hour to get the dogs on scene and less than 45 minutes thereafter to apprehend the suspect.



You are still talking about potentially dozens of examples nationwide over 23 plus years and, so far, all out of state, but it's at least 17 years and 1200 miles closer than LW's. :)


Logic seems merely to be asking why possible criminal reasons for the disappearance were initially put on the back burner in favor of 1) voluntary walkaway ("We thought Ray was just off having a wild weekend") followed by 2) potential suicide. And that is a "logical" question.

Hello all, by the way. [/*]

1. The state of the car. No evidence of a crime though some evidence of someone else being in it (cigarette smoke and ask). No evidence of it being in an accident or driven in a remote area (mud splatters for example). Nothing initially apparent in the terms of evidence of a crime (and still nothing for that matter).

2. Location of the car. It was in the parking lot, in full view of fairly well traveled streets, in a populated area. It's not impossible for something to have happened unnoticed, but it is unlikely.

3. When the witnesses reports came in (and that was in the Post Gazette on 4/18), the reports were that either RFG was alone or was was with the LMW, in the area of the parking lot, not being dragged into a van or a car.

[Serendipitous1]

I know nothing about dog-scenting. But there was apparently all manner of trained dogs and qualified handlers available, literally minutes from the SoS. Yet they were not "permitted to search for Ray".

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I know nothing about dog-scenting. But there was apparently all manner of trained dogs and qualified handlers available, literally minutes from the SoS. Yet they were not "permitted to search for Ray". [/*]

The one that LW cited, however, was not type used to determine a scent trail laid on the group. The Union County unit deals with airborne scent.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
The one that LW cited, however, was not type used to determine a scent trail laid on the group. The Union County unit deals with airborne scent. You appear to be talking about LE units. But I am referring to private organizations...and their capabilities.

More to the topic of this thread though - After the laptop was found there was another search by LE. All of the brush and flood debris was then removed from the park bank and channel along the river, presumedly to facilitate this search. And the water along the park bank was extremely shallow then. Yet no hard drive or other evidence was found? Incredible...unless, of course, the hard drive was not then there.

Ray Gricar did not return from some getaway or suicide to salt the water. The laptop...or at least the found hard drive...was planted, after the fact, by an idiot. That is my opinion.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
You appear to be talking about LE units. But I am referring to private organizations...and their capabilities.

More to the topic of this thread though - After the laptop was found there was another search by LE. All of the brush and flood debris was then removed from the park bank and channel along the river, presumedly to facilitate this search. And the water along the park bank was extremely shallow then. Yet no hard drive or other evidence was found? Incredible...unless, of course, the hard drive was not then there.

Ray Gricar did not return from some getaway or suicide to salt the water. The laptop...or at least the found hard drive...was planted, after the fact, by an idiot. That is my opinion. [/*]

And IMO, it's the same idiot who was most likely involved in his death.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Time and space are your forms of measurement, not mine.
Just pointing out to you that what you claim to have never seen in your lifetime has been happening for decades without your knowledge.


I am watch Dr. Who, but for those of us who are not Time Lords, time and space are important. We're looking at a specific time at a specific place.

Is the very first thing that should cross the minds of LE at that point is, **Gee, we should just leave any potential evidence sitting in the Mini and wait for a few hours to bring in the dogs,** or, maybe, **We should check to see it there is any evidence of where RFG is or what happened to him in the Mini?** I'd say the second is very poorly thought out, especially since the bloodhounds could find the scent the next day.

On 4/16/05, there was no way for LE to know what was in the Mini.


#3. I don't recall any report of RG in the parking lot area with a LMW. Could you point out where to find that info? I must have missed it in reading.
JMO [/*]

He was seen with LMW in the area of the parking lot. The witness reports put him in that area, within about a 75 yards of where the Mini was found. With the exception of McKnight's witness, all Lewisburg witnesses put him in that range (that includes the Street of Shops). You missed something.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


The dogs aren't hours away, JJ........they are minutes away and by all means, protecting the evidence from contamination is vitally important as proven in this case.


The "dog" you cited does airborne scent tracking, not trails that have been laid on the ground.


From what I have read, there is no backup proving RG was in the SOS with a LMW, let alone in the parking lot with LMW. It was my understanding the dog(s) never left the lot, meaning whomever got out of the car didn't go anywhere but to another vehicle. Are you saying they both got out of his car and went to another car? Did someone see them do so? I don't recall reading that anywhere.
JMO [/*]

First, the LMW was seen in the area of the parking lot, not "in" the parking lot, within 75 yards of where the Mini was found. That includes the Street of Shops. :rolleyes:

No, it means that this is where the dogs lost RFG's scent. That might have been the only part of the scent remaining; the dogs are not talking. It might mean that RFG got into another vehicle, and that might have been witnessed.

The LMW might or might not have been with RFG, but it seems that the report that LE heard. JKA noted:



Ray's absence at that point was to my perception clearly being theorized to be volitional and likely in the company of an individual personally known to me to have had a long-standing friendship and admiration for him, and to be a smoker.



She noted that she thought the scent of smoke was a "red flag." She was also aware that the woman was a smoker.

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/gricardisappearance

A number of people, possibly including CG and BG may have known about the friedship between the HW and RFG or the nurse and RFG.




that this seems to be

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar

My computer is [sort of] working today, so I'll toss this out.

Hello all, by the way. [/*]

Welcome back UTR!
I am going through computer problems too, so know what you are dealing with.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Welcome back UTR!
I am going through computer problems too, so know what you are dealing with. [/*]

Wish I was closer to you guys, I work on computers in my spare time. It's one of my favorite hobbies.

I've been having problems too...but not with my computer.

Totally off thread topic.....

I went on vacation to Colorado & cracked my tailbone on a log see-sawing with my granddaughter & my nephew. Dam*....it hurts like he** to sit down now. And on another note....I wanted to share the wonderful news --- my oldest son & daughter-in-law (who lost baby Gavin to the heart defect) found out they are expecting again!!

[gstickley]

Originally posted by Politigal



I went on vacation to Colorado & cracked my tailbone on a log see-sawing with my granddaughter & my nephew. Dam*....it hurts like he** to sit down now. And on another note....I wanted to share the wonderful news --- my oldest son & daughter-in-law (who lost baby Gavin to the heart defect) found out they are expecting again!! [/*]

Sorry to hear about your broken butt but very happy to hear about 'our' new baby!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


Wish I was closer to you guys, I work on computers in my spare time. It's one of my favorite hobbies.

I've been having problems too...but not with my computer.

Totally off thread topic.....

I went on vacation to Colorado & cracked my tailbone on a log see-sawing with my granddaughter & my nephew. Dam*....it hurts like he** to sit down now. And on another note....I wanted to share the wonderful news --- my oldest son & daughter-in-law (who lost baby Gavin to the heart defect) found out they are expecting again!! [/*]

That is wonderful news about your expecting a new grandchild. Wonderful they are having another one.

Sorry about your tailbone. I lived in Bellefonte when I was walking backwards to see if my ex was coming behind me and fell on the corner of a step. I thought I would pass out from the pain. You might have problems with it for a while. Good luck!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


Wish I was closer to you guys, I work on computers in my spare time. It's one of my favorite hobbies.

[/*]

You aren't by any chance coming to Central Pa on Vacation are you? Maybe you could make your rounds working on your hobby at each of our homes? :D

[Politigal]

Has there been any news on the laptop?

Surely Kroll (or whatever it was called) has finished their exam of the harddrive.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Has there been any news on the laptop?

Surely Kroll (or whatever it was called) has finished their exam of the harddrive. [/*]

I think the first attempt took about six weeks. They might have a backlog as well.

It's called Kroll Ontrack.

[Politigal]

I sure wish we could get an update on the harddrive.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, they are still working on it, which means it's not impossible.

[Cloudbuster]

A blast on the laptop from the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgATCLcd8kk&feature=related

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, Kroll might be successful. If someone else tossed the laptop, unrelated to the disappearance, it might be good time to contact LE. Any secret may come out, if the data is even partially recovered.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Actually, Kroll might be successful. If someone else tossed the laptop, unrelated to the disappearance, it might be good time to contact LE. Any secret may come out, if the data is even partially recovered. [/*]

JJ, RG would not need a buddy to destroy his laptop. I have spent a few 3 hours reading on how to wipe out a hard drive. If the drive was destroyed by a program, that in itself is a clue. If it was its possible RG destroyed it because it says requires no skills.

If we have a killer instead of a walk away situation then our killer is computer smart. I also have info included on the DOD way of using 1s. and Os. overwritten 7ral or more times to overwrite the whole drive deeming it inpossible to read the drive.(this may yeild a government tie depending on Kroll's findings). Before we are given a answer or if we are at all given one, I think we all should be briefed on how hard drives are destroyed completly and it is my understanding in reading, this is not accomplished by water!!!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/20/virtuitys-backstopp-destroys-data-if-laptop-leaves-dmz/
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?id=1010
Think twice before putting your data at risk.
When in doubt, call DriveSavers. Our professional data recovery engineers handle more damaged, dropped, drowned and destroyed drives in a day than most companies handle in one month. We have the highest success rate in the industry and can recover from all data storage devices, all operating systems and all types of data loss scenarios.
http://www.drivesavers.com/company-info/choosing-the-right-data-recovery-firm.html


Data crisis counselors help avoid computer catastrophes

Nikki Stange, data crisis counselor at DriveSavers, is a lifeline for the company's most frantic customers



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

[Cloudbuster]

The Waterlogged Laptop
Remember the ex-juggler on the Amazon? That story made a name for Stange and DriveSavers.

The call came in Feb. 26, 1993, the day the World Trade Center was bombed. "A real weird day," Stange recalls. It was the former juggler on the line, frantic. She'd been enjoying an Amazon cruise in Brazil, writing her memoirs, when the ship struck an underwater barge and sank in 20 feet of water. The 270 passengers got off safely, but the former juggler's Apple PowerBook, floppy disks and heirloom diamond ring went down with the ship. In addition, she had lost her financial data, correspondence and travel journal. Undaunted, she rented scuba gear, dove to the ship, smashed a window with a flashlight and found her way to her stateroom. When she resurfaced, she had her ring, computer, disks--and a data recovery quandary. How does one recover data from a soaked hard drive? The woman took her machine to a Florida repair shop, which referred her to DriveSavers. Stange took her initial call, calmed her down and convinced her to ship the waterlogged computer to DriveSavers. And sure enough, her finance history and memoirs were recovered, albeit never published (at least not that anyone knows--Stange and her colleagues have lost touch with this client, who could not be located for comment).

Soon after this incident, Stange noticed the woman's water-damaged computer sitting around DriveSavers' office, and she said to Gaidano, "This story might be interesting to the press." To that point, publicity had never even occurred to Gaidano. The company existed entirely on advertising and referral. But on a whim, Gaidano decided to bring the damaged computer to a computer trade show, where he displayed it at DriveSavers' booth. "The press loved it," Gaidano says. Today, DriveSavers travels to trade shows with what Gaidano calls an entire freak show of burnt, crushed and mutilated computers whose data has been recovered.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/09/08/drivesavers.crisis.manage.idg/#5

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

The department of defense standard operations for destroying data is:

The Department of Defense, concerned about truly eliminating classified computer files, has established a standard titled DOD 5220.22-M. In general terms, this standard can usually be met by overwriting the specified file with random data, five-to-seven times. It takes that much overwriting to completely obliterate traces of the original information on the disk.

Here is a link to the matrix of clearing and sanitation of clasified information

http://www.killdisk.com/dod.htm

More info..



NOTE: Each byte is first overwriten with 01010101. The second overwriting pass uses 10101010. This cycle is repeated three times. The final overwriting pass is performed with random bytes generated with an ANSI X9.17c keystream generator. Disk caches are flushed after each overwrite, and the final overwrite is read-back verified. This method meets or exceeds the Purging requirements of NAVSO P5239-26, AFSSI-5020 and AR380-19. It is approved in DOD 5220.22-M for any reclassifying of Classified hard drives in secure Automated Information Systems, even those certified and accredited for Special Access Programs, but is not approved for Purging disks at any level above Secret. Due to the residual magnetization necessarily left to hold the disk tracking servo data, the only way to truly destroy disk data is through degaussing and destruction of the disk. However, the residual magnetization recovery techniques used by intelligence services require expensive laboratory equipment and are only practical for very small amounts of targeted data, as opposed to scanning entire hard drives for possibly interesting files.



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

http://www.uberreview.com/2008/04/hard-drive-crusher-destroys-hdds-to-keep-your-data-safe.htm

[Cloudbuster]

http://www.infopackets.com/news/gadgets/2006/20060627_this_stolen_laptop_will_self_destruct_in_ 5_seconds.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removable hard disk cleaner program completely wipe out used and unused space from your computer hard disk or external USB storage media. Shareware data cleaner service uses destructive or non destructive mode to delete data for better system performance and computer privacy. USB hard disk cleaner software removes traces of various application files including Microsoft access, excel, power point, paint, word and many more. Meta data cleaner tool provides easy installation and uninstallation support on all windows operating system platform including Windows 98, 2000, 2003, NT, ME, XP and windows Vista. Software can permanently wipe off your personal data which you do not want other to see. Storage media cleaner application supports all type of system hard disk and external USB storage media such as USB drive, memory stick, pen drive of different capacities. Notebook files wiper utility completely deletes data from FAT or NTFS file system partitioned hard disk. Laptop hard disk data wiper has highly interactive graphical user interface, provides an inbuilt step by step help manual for user assistance. Hard drive cleanup program is an easy tool to operate, user ((((does not require any technical skill to operate it.))))

Features:
* Files cleaning tool uses nondestructive mode to wipe out unused space of hard disk partition.
* External hard drives cleaner program cleanup entire hard disk drive including existing and non-existing data.
* Disk files sanitation utility permanently erases clipboard contents, administrator's files and network folders.
* Storage media cleaner software removes unused clusters not linked with FAT or NTFS supported file.
* Application has various secure wiping algorithms to provide maximum level of security

[Cloudbuster]

Public Records Act: government officials should not destroy public records
Playing Hide and Seek With Public Records

It’s not unusual for newspapers, or lawyers in Public Records Act or Freedom of Information Act cases, to accuse the government of trying to “hide” things. Now a San Bernardino County case has revealed what may be a criminal attempt at hiding public records, just in time for a Fourth of July reminder about the importance of access to information about government.

San Bernardino County officials June 30 arrested Adam Aleman, a 25-year-old assistant assessor in that county. Aleman was charged with six felony counts – among them a count for destruction of public records. That count alleges that he destroyed the hard drive of a laptop computer that had been issued by the county to Assessor Bill Postmus during Postmus’ tenure on the Board of Supervisors.

The link to Postmus is significant. He was the central figure in a Public Records Act lawsuit brought by the California First Amendment Coalition and the San Bernardino Sun claiming that Postmus should have disclosed calendars and e-mails relating to a two-week period in the summer of 2006 when fires raged in San Bernardino County and Postmus, then the chairman of the Board of Supervisors, was mysteriously absent.

http://www.firstamendmentlawyerblog.com/2008/07/public_records_act_government_1.html

[Cloudbuster]

A unskilled approach to destroy a hard drive

How to erase a hard drive? Take one hard drive and place it on a brick in the garage. Take one oxy acetylene torch and one cigarette lighter. Light and make nice blue oxidating flame. Aim at hard drive till you observe small pool of metal and smell a funny smell. Job done. With software tools you're just playing. I never had anything on the hard drive worth erasing like this, but it's more fun this way....

.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/06/before_you_get_rid_of_that_har.html

[Cloudbuster]

Verity Systems debuts new hard drive destroyer
The VS7000 renders hard drives useless in less than 15 seconds
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?id=16129&siteSection=436

http://www.krollontrack.com/data-recovery/
http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.com.au/hard-drive-history/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOW Industries, Incorporated
"Manual Hard Drive Destroyer"
"Model MHDD"


FEATURES
EXTREMELY Rugged Design
Tested and used by NSA & DOD for destroying hard drives
The GREEN solution to hard drive destruction - NO POWER required
Designed for emergency & normal destruction
of hard drives
FAST, SAFE and RELIABLE (10 seconds or less)
Easy hand crank operation
Optional motor drive for hands off operation
Compact and transportable
Universal Mounting Kit Available
Affordable

http://www.bowindustries.com/Manual%20Hard%20Drive%20Destroyer.htm

If the drive was left at the scene I would say this method was used to destroy in a hurry and no power is needed. I don't think RG had one of these machines on hand but still worth knowing about.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


BOW Industries, Incorporated
"Manual Hard Drive Destroyer"
"Model MHDD"


FEATURES
EXTREMELY Rugged Design
Tested and used by NSA & DOD for destroying hard drives
The GREEN solution to hard drive destruction - NO POWER required
Designed for emergency & normal destruction
of hard drives
FAST, SAFE and RELIABLE (10 seconds or less)
Easy hand crank operation
Optional motor drive for hands off operation
Compact and transportable
Universal Mounting Kit Available
Affordable

http://www.bowindustries.com/Manual%20Hard%20Drive%20Destroyer.htm

If the drive was left at the scene I would say this method was used to destroy in a hurry and no power is needed. I don't think RG had one of these machines on hand but still worth knowing about. [/*]

CB, I am impressed with you and your ability to "dig" around for information. Great job finding this.

I wonder if county governments use anything like this or only top government?

Sounds like every government building (top office in the county) should have one if they are reasonably priced and good for getting things to the trash without worry of anyone reading the drives.

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks SJ!!! I just thought we should see all the ways that a hard drive can be destroyed and water is not a way to do it. It tells me that something else had to be done to the drive if knoll can't glean anything from it. Im curious if a software program destroyed the data, cause that means even RG could have used it or even someone else. But if they find it went thru a machine like one of the above, I just don't see Ray doing that. Also I wonder if the DOD dept of defense method was used like 010101 then 101010 way? If they used that method it also will destroy all of the drive so it's not readable but sometimes they only do certain parts of the drive. Which if they only did parts thats also a clue. As far as internet searches and emails they are always retrievable from the servers. If nothing is significant in internet mail or searches, I would then be looking at case file information. If a case is missing or all of them. If all of them then you might think RG did it or if only certain ones are missing then Id look at a perpetrator. Also its possible that just who he was meeting with might be missing, a calender type of thing. We need specific information from knoll. Hope it happens soon. :rose:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


JJ, RG would not need a buddy to destroy his laptop. I have spent a few 3 hours reading on how to wipe out a hard drive. If the drive was destroyed by a program, that in itself is a clue. If it was its possible RG destroyed it because it says requires no skills.



First, I think I should explain the "buddy system" here.

The guy who owns/has the computer says to the buddy, "If anything happens to me, like I have a heat attack or get hit by a bus, go to my house and destroy my computer (or these things in my files or the stuff in the box in my closet)." He tells him where the stuff is and gives him a key to the house.

In this case, if there was a buddy, he hears that RFG is missing and goes to the house prior to 4/17, and takes the laptop. Maybe he keeps it for a while, then tosses it. Since he would be a friend of RFG, he might look to see if there was some clue about the disappearance, like an email that says "Meet me in Lewisburg."

If RFG tossed it, he might have taken it out of the case, connected to the Internet, sent or received something, or just reviewed something, and then removed the drive. Just knowing when the last time the computer was accessed would help.

The juggler's computer was in the water for less than a week. The drive in this case was in the water for at least 30 days (possibly for 5 months).

[Politigal]

The "buddy" closest to Gricar who knew more about computers/laptops than he did was .....Patty Fornicola.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
The "buddy" closest to Gricar who knew more about computers/laptops than he did was .....Patty Fornicola. [/*]

What do your base your premise that "PEF knew more about computers/laptops than he did?"

Also, how does knowing about computers/laptops help her pass a polygraph?

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


First, I think I should explain the "buddy system" here.

The guy who owns/has the computer says to the buddy, "If anything happens to me, like I have a heat attack or get hit by a bus, go to my house and destroy my computer (or these things in my files or the stuff in the box in my closet)." He tells him where the stuff is and gives him a key to the house.

In this case, if there was a buddy, he hears that RFG is missing and goes to the house prior to 4/17, and takes the laptop. Maybe he keeps it for a while, then tosses it. Since he would be a friend of RFG, he might look to see if there was some clue about the disappearance, like an email that says "Meet me in Lewisburg."

If RFG tossed it, he might have taken it out of the case, connected to the Internet, sent or received something, or just reviewed something, and then removed the drive. Just knowing when the last time the computer was accessed would help.

The juggler's computer was in the water for less than a week. The drive in this case was in the water for at least 30 days (possibly for 5 months). [/*]

Problem is the buddy would be breaking the law. It's illegal to enter Ms Fornicola's premises without her knowledge. Im sure Ray would not put someone in that situation. I still think a buddy is just a loose end for RG. If anything Im curious to see if a do it yourself software program was used to erase everything from the laptop. If it was it certainly raises a brow or two.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


Problem is the buddy would be breaking the law. It's illegal to enter Ms Fornicola's premises without her knowledge.


Not if he was given permission by one the occupants, RFG, and a key. If the was a buddy, RFG could have even given him written permission.

I actually think the most likely person to have removed the laptop was RFG.



If anything Im curious to see if a do it yourself software program was used to erase everything from the laptop. If it was it certainly raises a brow or two. [/*]

If Kroll could just show that, it would be worth it. If they could determine the last time the laptop was powered up, I'd be happy.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


What do your base your premise that "PEF knew more about computers/laptops than he did?"

Also, how does knowing about computers/laptops help her pass a polygraph? [/*]

*Anyone* can pass a polygraph....and the polygraph has squat to do with the laptop.

Ask the employees at Centre County about Patty's laptop use.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


*Anyone* can pass a polygraph....and the polygraph has squat to do with the laptop.


Both wrong. The question was asked about the laptop during the polygraph.

We've even heard Bob Buehner discuss the uses of the polygraph.


Ask the employees at Centre County about Patty's laptop use. [/*]

Ah, there is a HUGE difference between typing on a computer and any type of erasure. The skill needed to remove a hard drive, however, is possessed by most sixth graders, and RFG.

[Cloudbuster]

I still believe believe PF knew something was going on but, I don't think RG may have been frank about what it was that went on.

I do believe for my own reasons that RG planned to return to the house to tell her something about what he knew was going on. I also believe he wanted to call Lara but wasn't supposed to make no phone calls out. He needed to tell Lara something because it didn't make no sense it could of been a lie. I Think that was in regard to his call with her Thursaday, then friday comes around and he is not to make calls out. he has permission to call PF only.

Don't ask but it's something heard similiar in my ghost tape.

"I pulled over and took it out and I tossed it" "then the murderer pulled out".
Those words are heard. I wish someone would verify seeing Ray pull over, because who ever pulled out was the murderer.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Politigal
The "buddy" closest to Gricar who knew more about computers/laptops than he did was .....Patty Fornicola. There are problems with the "buddy" scenario. First, there is the difficulty (and risk) for a "buddy" (other than PF) to spirit the laptop away from the house, unnoticed, after RG was reported missing. The second problem is that the case and peripherals were left behind. The only reason for that, which seems even close to being nefarious, is that whoever removed the laptop wanted to leave the appearance that it was still there...which seems illogical if it was done by a "buddy" (especially PF) after RG was reported missing, given that its disappearance would be (and was) quickly discovered. And the third problem is that the laptop (and a hard drive) resurfaced at all. If a "buddy" was instructed to make the laptop disappear, why didn't it?

If the laptop was removed on or before 4/15, probability suggests it was done by RG or PF. If it was removed after 4/15, probability suggests it was PF. But PF supposedly passed a rigorous polygraph test, which would certainly have included questions regarding the laptop. If PF indeed passed the polygraph, probability suggests that RG removed the laptop from the house.

We do not know when, or how, or by whom, or why RG's laptop (and a hard drive) came to end up in the river at Lewisburg. But if RG committed suicide, the probability is that the laptop and hard drive were deposited in the river that weekend. For the reasons I have stated before, I believe they were not...that they were planted there after the fact. But if RG (or more likely an accomplice) deposited the laptop and hard drive after the fact, there has yet to be put forward any convincing reason why RG would walk away and feign suicide or foul play.

Personally, in the absence of a credible theory of suicide or walk away, I have always believed that the circumstances surrounding the laptop and hard drive are most likely indicative of foul play. And this has been reinforced by the fact that no body or other personal items have been found (outside of his car).

It has never surprised or concerned me that there has been a disproportionate "focus" on a voluntary disappearance and, to a lesser extent, on suicide...these are theories which do not involve a potential criminal prosecution...the theories about which LE would be most forthcoming with information in hand.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'd give the odds on it being a "buddy" at about 25%.

I'd also say that it is about 75% likely that the laptop was taken by RFG. I can very easily see RFG taking the laptop out of its case, checking the power, and going off with it.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
I'd give the odds on it being a "buddy" at about 25%.

I'd also say that it is about 75% likely that the laptop was taken by RFG. I can very easily see RFG taking the laptop out of its case, checking the power, and going off with it. [/*]

JJ Im giving a 98.6% to Ray took the laptop out and he tossed it at some point in route to where he was heading. my other1.4% goes on someone came into the house to steal the laptop and tossed it to the murderer after Ray left the house that day.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
I'd give the odds on it being a "buddy" at about 25%. I'd also say that it is about 75% likely that the laptop was taken by RFG. I can very easily see RFG taking the laptop out of its case, checking the power, and going off with it. Zero chance of a "buddy" spiriting the laptop out of the house and depositing in the river. It would make no sense whatever. Whoever disposed of the laptop and that hard drive....is a complete idiot.

[Cloudbuster]

Thats the key S1 the idiot has alot of ba..s. We can rule BJL out he wasn't around (regrets to his family) to have brought that laptop back.

If nothing is found on the laptop then that person had to know FULLY that they suceeded in destroying the data on it. So if that's the case they get cocky and plant it knowing at some point it would be found.

The person had to know the terrain to do that. They had to know that there was no survillence cameras in the area.
Someone also had to know that where Ray's car was parked that no survillence cameras zoomed out to the parking lot.

I think the person who planted the laptop was someone actually close to the investagation up in Lewisburg. The person would know who was who by then and felt comfortable knowing they coulld easily toss the laptop. They knew when nobody was around and they knew there was no cameras.

I would think to look at someone involved in the actual searching in Lewisburg. Who knew the terrain and camera info?

just some points.

[J. J. in Phila]

Zero chance of a "buddy" spiriting the laptop out of the house and depositing in the river. It would make no sense whatever. Whoever disposed of the laptop and that hard drive....is a complete idiot.

The problem with this theory is that, yes, it does make some sense. The "buddy" has no idea what happened to RFG. He takes it and holds it for maybe 30-60 days, then disposes of it.

The buddy, on 4/16-17, hears that RFG is missing. How? At worst he watches the news. At best, he's one of the people DZ called.

The buddy doesn't know if RFG is away for a "wild weekend," if he's killed himself or been murdered. If it's the first, when RFG comes back, buddy hands him the laptop. When he doesn't, buddy might have looked to see what was on it.

[Cinderella]

J. J.,

A buddy doesn't make sense. If you have something on your computer that you are ashamed of, what makes you think that someone is going to tell someone else about it and if anything happens to get rid of it. Ray Gricar wouldn't felt that he was in harm or he wouldn't have done what he did. I will give the buddy system 0%.

BTW, Do you have a buddy that is going to do that for you? Where did this buddy thing come from anyway? :confused:

If Ray was using his work laptop then he would know better than to have porn on it.

[Cloudbuster]

It makes no sense for Ray to have used a buddy. If what was on the laptop was so aweful do you really think Ray wanted a loose end? Another person to know his private business? :confused:

[Cloudbuster]

When did the laptop become discovered missing from the closet????? Was it after the family arrived and was at PF's? Just a thought but maybe Ray never took the laptop at all. I don't believe that personally but I still am thinking about it.

[J. J. in Phila]

J. J.,

A buddy doesn't make sense. If you have something on your computer that you are ashamed of, what makes you think that someone is going to tell someone else about it and if anything happens to get rid of it. Ray Gricar wouldn't felt that he was in harm or he wouldn't have done what he did. I will give the buddy system 0%.

BTW, Do you have a buddy that is going to do that for you? Where did this buddy thing come from anyway? :confused:

If Ray was using his work laptop then he would know better than to have porn on it.

Who said "ashamed." It could have been something private. I don't believe it was very likely, about 20%-25% likely, but it is possible. Buddies do do this type of thing. Even TG, IIRC, noted that it wasn't uncommon.

I don't have one, but I have several close friends that would do; I'd do it for them, too. We Googled the term "porn Buddy" and found numerous reference, including non porn ones.

[sherrijean981]

When did the laptop become discovered missing from the closet????? Was it after the family arrived and was at PF's? Just a thought but maybe Ray never took the laptop at all. I don't believe that personally but I still am thinking about it.

It was found missing when LE went to get the computer and PF ask if they wanted the laptop too.

By the way. I love the new look of In Session. So much easier to read and work with. Good job tech team!!!

[sherrijean981]

Who said "ashamed." It could have been something private. I don't believe it was very likely, about 20%-25% likely, but it is possible. Buddies do do this type of thing. Even TG, IIRC, noted that it wasn't uncommon.

I don't have one, but I have several close friends that would do; I'd do it for them, too. We Googled the term "porn Buddy" and found numerous reference, including non porn ones.


No one said porn was on it either!

[J. J. in Phila]

It makes no sense for Ray to have used a buddy. If what was on the laptop was so aweful do you really think Ray wanted a loose end? Another person to know his private business? :confused:

Why do you assume privacy is something "awful?" Some of my friends know my "private business."

Assume that he had photos of an old girlfriend on his computer. Not necessarily pornographic. Maybe he didn't want PEF coming across them. He could have had things relating to his divorce on there.

One other person knows my main password to my computer, so if something happens to me, she can get my data. If there was something on my computer that I didn't want seen, I just as easily could have given her instructions to destroy my drive.

I don't think it's too likely, only because it was out of the case, but I'd still give it 20-25% chance.

BTW, it was discovered missing on 4/17, late afternoon or beyond.

[Cloudbuster]

Why do you assume privacy is something "awful?" Some of my friends know my "private business."

Assume that he had photos of an old girlfriend on his computer. Not necessarily pornographic. Maybe he didn't want PEF coming across them. He could have had things relating to his divorce on there.

One other person knows my main password to my computer, so if something happens to me, she can get my data. If there was something on my computer that I didn't want seen, I just as easily could have given her instructions to destroy my drive.

I don't think it's too likely, only because it was out of the case, but I'd still give it 20-25% chance.

BTW, it was discovered missing on 4/17, late afternoon or beyond.

Thanks JJ that's what I wanted to know (the actual date it was discovered missing). So there was people in PF's home that weekend correct???

I don't think Ray had personal stuff on his COUNTY owned laptop. The laptop could be audited for checking if personal activity was on it. Also county owned cell phones run a risk for a audit too. Im saying he might have had something personal on it but highly unlikly. I think if anything it was something he as looking into which would pass a audit as being somehow work related. Any investagating of corruption would pass as work related files.

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks JJ that's what I wanted to know (the actual date it was discovered missing). So there was people in PF's home that weekend correct???


The house was "empty" at times on Saturday, when PEF left to go to the press conference, and on Sunday morning when everyone trekked up to Lewisburg.


I don't think Ray had personal stuff on his COUNTY owned laptop. The laptop could be audited for checking if personal activity was on it. Also county owned cell phones run a risk for a audit too.

Walking Honey was not county business. :) RFG used his phone for that.

The laptop was used in place of a home computer, an audit of that time would be unlikely unless RFG ordered it. He could just clean it prior to returning it.

[Cloudbuster]

Walking Honey was not county business BUT saying he took a half day off was. His reason for the call was because he wasn't going to make it in. ;)

[sherrijean981]

Thanks JJ that's what I wanted to know (the actual date it was discovered missing). So there was people in PF's home that weekend correct???

I don't think Ray had personal stuff on his COUNTY owned laptop. The laptop could be audited for checking if personal activity was on it. Also county owned cell phones run a risk for a audit too. Im saying he might have had something personal on it but highly unlikly. I think if anything it was something he as looking into which would pass a audit as being somehow work related. Any investagating of corruption would pass as work related files.


I don't think the counties do audit the computer/internet use on county issued computers. I receive dozens of emails with different counties government office addresses and they are not government related emails. They should audit for the waste of time and money being used, because there are too many being used for personal use. :shrug:

[Cloudbuster]

Many people will use their work computers for personal use BUT they run the risk of an audit. It's highly unlikly that a audit will happen but I sure wouldn't keep anything I didn't want the auditor to know on it. If you had a nasty boss that had it in for you and he secretly orders a audit then bamm your fired for anything personal being on it. I've seen it done before. Here's to nasty bosses----------->barf lol

[J. J. in Phila]

Many people will use their work computers for personal use BUT they run the risk of an audit. It's highly unlikly that a audit will happen but I sure wouldn't keep anything I didn't want the auditor to know on it. If you had a nasty boss that had it in for you and he secretly orders a audit then bamm your fired for anything personal being on it. I've seen it done before. Here's to nasty bosses----------->barf lol

RFG {i]was{/i] the boss. It would be hugely unlikely that someone else would have "audited" the laptop.

[J. J. in Phila]

Walking Honey was not county business BUT saying he took a half day off was. His reason for the call was because he wasn't going to make it in. ;)

According to PEF, it was Honey.

[Cloudbuster]

According to PEF, it was Honey.

I know she said Honey but she also said he wouldn't make it back in time and I would think that meant at work too don't ya think?:punch:

[Cloudbuster]

RFG {i]was{/i] the boss. It would be hugely unlikely that someone else would have "audited" the laptop.


It's a county owned laptop subject to the county auditing it commissioners style.:cool:

[J. J. in Phila]

It's a county owned laptop subject to the county auditing it commissioners style.:cool:

Doubtful. It's county owned, but in the custody of the DA's office. The PA (and the other row officers) are not answersble to the Commissioners.

[sherrijean981]

Doubtful. It's county owned, but in the custody of the DA's office. The PA (and the other row officers) are not answersble to the Commissioners.

Commissioners are doing auditing in Centre County government, with Sheriff Dennie Nau's office being targeted again, but they are paying at least $10,000 to have it done, maybe more. Seems to me by the article it should be the Commissioners being audited since they took the money originally from the Sheriff's department by this article.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/835250.html

[J. J. in Phila]

Commissioners are doing auditing in Centre County government, with Sheriff Dennie Nau's office being targeted again, but they are paying at least $10,000 to have it done, maybe more. Seems to me by the article it should be the Commissioners being audited since they took the money originally from the Sheriff's department by this article.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/835250.html

They are also not walking into the sheriff's office and saying, **Hand over your hard drives, we want to check them.**

[Cloudbuster]

I think it's strange that they are willing to pay $10,000 to have the audit if they didn't believe something was wrong?

[J. J. in Phila]

No data was recovered from the drive, but there still might be useful information, like if the drive was erased or when was the last time the computer was turned on.

[Cloudbuster]

I knew it JJ and I said before I don't think it's Gricar's drive. If they say it is then how was it destroyed what method would help. I will stick with it's not his but a planted one.

[J. J. in Phila]

I knew it JJ and I said before I don't think it's Gricar's drive. If they say it is then how was it destroyed what method would help. I will stick with it's not his but a planted one.

Maybe maybe not. I think it is his drive.

[Politigal]

what a shame....

but IMO, someone wiped the hard drive before they tossed it anyway

Wonder what Madeira will say about it in his upcoming announcement

http://www.whptv.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=fbc57d55-9f02-490a-a71d-7efbbeb5ac11&rss=51

[J. J. in Phila]

what a shame....

but IMO, someone wiped the hard drive before they tossed it anyway


You opinion is not a good substitute for evidence. Kroll might be able to tell if it was wiped prior to tossing, but being in the water for up to six months would be sufficient to destroy the data (and so would one month).

[Politigal]

You opinion is not a good substitute for evidence. Kroll might be able to tell if it was wiped prior to tossing, but being in the water for up to six months would be sufficient to destroy the data (and so would one month).


hmmmm, just like you have no evidence Gricar was fascinated with "walkaway"

bada bing bada bing

[J. J. in Phila]

hmmmm, just like you have no evidence Gricar was fascinated with "walkaway"

bada bing bada bing

No, sorry, it doesn't point in any direction. The last time the laptop was turned on, might. If it was actually erased, it might. There is an outside chance that they may.

I might add that there is evidence, in terms of what of friends and coworkers saw, that RFG was interested in walkaway cases.

[sherrijean981]

No data was recovered from the drive, but there still might be useful information, like if the drive was erased or when was the last time the computer was turned on.


Has the report on the hard drive come back from Kroll? Wasn't that the purpose of sending it to them to begin with? How do you know they didn't find anything on it if it hasn't come back yet?

[sherrijean981]

Sorry, I replied to your previous quote and had not seen Pgal's link to the outcome of the hard drive. What a disappointment.

[J. J. in Phila]

Sort of, SJ. They cannot get the data, but they might find some clues, i.e, was the drive erased prior to it being dropped, when was the last time the laptop turned on?

[gstickley]

No, sorry, it doesn't point in any direction. The last time the laptop was turned on, might. If it was actually erased, it might. There is an outside chance that they may.

I might add that there is evidence, in terms of what of friends and coworkers saw, that RFG was interested in walkaway cases.

Which friends? Which co-workers (other than SS)?

[J. J. in Phila]

Which friends? Which co-workers (other than SS)?

I like how dismiss his best friend. Young, I believe, would be an example, with "split bar" comment. Same with PEF and "holding out hope," comment.


Now, if you want a list, send your resume to the CDT, maybe they'll hire you and let you write the story.


Want to try again. :rolleyes:

[gstickley]

I like how dismiss his best friend. Young, I believe, would be an example, with "split bar" comment. Same with PEF and "holding out hope," comment.


Now, if you want a list, send your resume to the CDT, maybe they'll hire you and let you write the story.


Want to try again. :rolleyes:

Sure. Which friends? Which co-workers (other than SS)? I don't see how "holding out hope" relates to RG's "interest in walkaway cases".

Other than SS, which other co-workers said he had an "interest in walkway cases"? Which other friends?

[J. J. in Phila]

Sure. Which friends? Which co-workers (other than SS)? I don't see how "holding out hope" relates to RG's "interest in walkaway cases".

Other than SS, which other co-workers said he had an "interest in walkway cases"? Which other friends?

And I repeat:

I like how dismiss his best friend. Young, I believe, would be an example, with "split bar" comment. Same with PEF and "holding out hope," comment.


We have Wiley being discussed at eight years afterward.

[gstickley]

And I repeat:

I like how dismiss his best friend. Young, I believe, would be an example, with "split bar" comment. Same with PEF and "holding out hope," comment.


We have Wiley being discussed at eight years afterward.

Can you tell me where you found that Ray Gricar discussed Wiley 8 yrs. afterwards? So far, all I have found is his "best friend" Sloane & a drunken college student.

[J. J. in Phila]

Can you tell me where you found that Ray Gricar discussed Wiley 8 yrs. afterwards? So far, all I have found is his "best friend" Sloane & a drunken college student.


Try reading PB's blog. I should have said at least 8 years after the fact.

Since Sloane didn't start at the a the DA's office until 1992, and had the misfortune of being laid off almost immediately, so it is consistent with at least eight years. His layoff was mentioned in the Collegian.

[J. J. in Phila]

Year's ago, Gricar brought up the case of missing Ohio police Chief Mel Wiley to Sloane. It didn't occur to Sloane until he and I spoke recently that Gricar was talking about this case at least eight years after the fact.


http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/5891

Now, eight years is a very long time to be talking about a case that occurred more than 200 miles away and didn't have any ties to Centre County. Sloane didn't have any ties to Wiley or Hinckley Township.

[gstickley]

Sloane is supposedly best friend & is co-worker.

Who are the other friends & co-workers who say RG had an interest in walkaways?

[Politigal]

Sloane is supposedly best friend & is co-worker.

Who are the other friends & co-workers who say RG had an interest in walkaways?

We still don't even know why Patty didn't call that "best friend" or if she tried....when Gricar didn't come home.

[Cloudbuster]

PGL what about PF getting mad at SS everytime he did any talking to CDT? Did SS say that?

[Politigal]

Ok, I'm a little miffed that this news is just now coming out...that shortly after Gricar disappeared that Patty told police she had seen a box of hard drive erasing software at the home.

WHY was this info not immediately released to the public? Computer store operators might have recognized Gricar if he had purchased it. Or someone might have recalled that Patty herself purchased it.

What a screwed up case IMO.

Edited to add --

I'd like to know when Tony was made aware about this software, or *if* he was made aware.

[J. J. in Phila]

Ok, I'm a little miffed that this news is just now coming out...that shortly after Gricar disappeared that Patty told police she had seen a box of hard drive erasing software at the home.


Ah, why do you have the idea it was "shortly after" RFG disappeared?


WHY was this info not immediately released to the public? Computer store operators might have recognized Gricar if he had purchased it. Or someone might have recalled that Patty herself purchased it.


From the description, the software being seen occurred well before RFG disappeared. If he did buy it, it might have been six months to a year prior to his disappearance, if not longer.

For me, if RFG purchased erasure software is not nearly as important than him discussing erasure with other people.

[J. J. in Phila]

Are you saying that PF failed to mention the 'box' to LE until after the LD test?

My guess would be, nobody asked about it. When she was polygraphed, nobody knew where the laptop was (though IIRC, she was asked if she knew where it was).

[J. J. in Phila]

The timing remains interesting.

Three months after RG goes missing, a LD test is given to the SO.
Two weeks later, the laptop is found in a location where it is practically guaranteed to have been found. Who needed that guarantee?
{quote]

You make an assumption, that whomever put the the laptop in the river knew when it would be found, that whomever found it would report it to LE, and would know when the polygraph would take place. The laptop was badly damaged by the water; it wasn't tossed in a few days before (or after) the polygraph.

[quote]
The hard drive was found in a location where it was almost guaranteed to be found.


How do figure that?


LG passed her test the beginning of September. Hard drive found end of October. No similar match there. The chances of someone seeing something under the bridge are equal to someone seeing the hard drive in a dried up area. Who needed that guarantee during September and October? The next one to be LD tested? Someone to be re-tested?
Who is behind the 'guarantees'?


Again no "guarantees." You are now expecting both the planter and LE to be prescient.

[Cloudbuster]

Destroying Electronic Data

To protect individuals who may have private or confidential information stored in an electronic format, data must be obliterated, or "wiped" from hard drives and portable devices. Deleted records can be recaptured. They have not been wiped. Special software programs wipe records to make them permanently irretrievable and inaccessible. Disks must also be properly destroyed.

Chapter 7:
PROCEDURES FOR DESTROYING PUBLIC RECORDS

http://www.wvculture.org/HISTORY/rmpb/crmmanual7.html

[Cloudbuster]

A latop hard drive looks similar. but is 2.5" in size:



This drive is easily removed with a small screw driver - most laptops are designed with easy to remove drives. Look at your manual for more information, but there is normally a screw and a hard drive symbol on the base. Laptop drive platters tend to shatter when hit.

(2) Download and run a Shredder Program. Some of these programs are free, most of the decent shredder programs need to be purchased. They work on the basis of replacing the contents of the hard drive with a useless data - overwriting everything so that nothing can recover it. Technically you can delete files - but the computer only removes them from the hard drive's "table of contents" or index. The files are still there and can be recovered by someone with even a basic computer knowledge. The shredder program writes over those files with useless data.

(3) If you know what you are doing and want to reuse your computer or give it away, then you could remove the partition on the hard drive, re-partition and format the whole drive before reapplying your software. You will need the original Windows CD and drivers disk supplied by your manufacturer. Failing that, make sure you take notes of all your hardware, download the drivers and create a cd of the drivers BEFORE you wipe the PC.

STAY SAFE, DESTROY YOUR OLD DATA!

http://www.brightcity.co.uk/how_wipe_your_old_hard_drive.htm




idn't they say the platters was destroyed???

[Cloudbuster]

Prosecutions of public employees or officials for destruction of public records are highly unusual, although the legal authority for doing so seems quite clear. Government Code section 6200 makes it a crime (punishable by up to four years imprisonment) to “willfully . . . destroy . . . alter or falsify” any “record . . . filed or deposited in any public office.”

Public records, as the California Supreme Court explained last year, can expose “corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice and favoritism.” The alleged destruction of a laptop computer here can only lead people to wonder what the records on the laptop would have revealed.
http://www.firstamendmentlawyerblog.com/2008/07/public_records_act_government_1.html

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

Government specifications require that in an emergency situation a hard drive needs to be destroyed so that a person or persons can not spin the drive. This must be able to be done quickly and reliably. The MHDD meets this requirement. It takes less than 10 seconds to destroy each hard drive. All one needs to do is insert the proper drive height adapter (if applicable), insert the hard drive into the slot and crank the handle 8 rotations. The internal workings of the unit press down on the drive, bending it approximately 90 degrees. Then the MHDD pushes the destroyed hard drive out for easy disposal. To keep the speed at an optimum, the MHDD does not require the handle to be cranked backwards to reset the "bender". It resets automatically, requiring the operator turn the handle in only one direction. The bend will render the hard drive useless by bending the platter, damaging the heads, motor and circuit board.
http://www.bowindustries.com/Manual%20Hard%20Drive%20Destroyer.htm

[Cloudbuster]

JJ, RG would not need a buddy to destroy his laptop. I have spent a few 3 hours reading on how to wipe out a hard drive. If the drive was destroyed by a program, that in itself is a clue. If it was its possible RG destroyed it because it says requires no skills.

If we have a killer instead of a walk away situation then our killer is computer smart. I also have info included on the DOD way of using 1s. and Os. overwritten 7ral or more times to overwrite the whole drive deeming it inpossible to read the drive.(this may yeild a government tie depending on Kroll's findings). Before we are given a answer or if we are at all given one, I think we all should be briefed on how hard drives are destroyed completly and it is my understanding in reading, this is not accomplished by water!!!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/20/v...op-leaves-dmz/
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?id=1010
Think twice before putting your data at risk.
When in doubt, call DriveSavers. Our professional data recovery engineers handle more damaged, dropped, drowned and destroyed drives in a day than most companies handle in one month. We have the highest success rate in the industry and can recover from all data storage devices, all operating systems and all types of data loss scenarios.
http://www.drivesavers.com/company-i...very-firm.html


Data crisis counselors help avoid computer catastrophes

Nikki Stange, data crisis counselor at DriveSavers, is a lifeline for the company's most frantic customers
09-05-2008, 09:46 PM

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, RG would not need a buddy to destroy his laptop. I have spent a few 3 hours reading on how to wipe out a hard drive. If the drive was destroyed by a program, that in itself is a clue. If it was its possible RG destroyed it because it says requires no skills.


He would if he were dead.


If we have a killer instead of a walk away situation then our killer is computer smart. I also have info included on the DOD way of using 1s. and Os. overwritten 7ral or more times to overwrite the whole drive deeming it inpossible to read the drive.(this may yeild a government tie depending on Kroll's findings). Before we are given a answer or if we are at all given one, I think we all should be briefed on how hard drives are destroyed completly and it is my understanding in reading, this is not accomplished by water!!!


It can be by long exposure, say 30 days or more. A killer could have tossed the laptop and drive, but there are two questions:

1. Why, and I don't buy t0-make-it-look-like-walkaway/suicide story?

2. What's the laptop doing in out of the house? No, I don't by the theory that a killer drove back to Bellefonte and picked it up.

[Cloudbuster]

He would if he were dead.



It can be by long exposure, say 30 days or more. A killer could have tossed the laptop and drive, but there are two questions:

1. Why, and I don't buy t0-make-it-look-like-walkaway/suicide story?

2. What's the laptop doing in out of the house? No, I don't by the theory that a killer drove back to Bellefonte and picked it up.

Your number 2.) question is simple RG took the laptop with him and he tossed it knowing nothing was on it. The person (killer) pulled over and took it.

I don't believe that is RG's real hard drive. Just because it fits his PC does not make it his. I do believe he replaced with the fitting one only after erasing it. I am very convinced his hard drive is still out there in hiding. Thats where your porn buddy comes in. RG gave instructions to the porn buddy on where that hard drive is located. Question is if the porn buddy was for RG or part of the setup? I do believe I know who was supposed to end up with the drive (heard on my tape) paranormal but that's okay with me. It's someone close to RG that was to know where the drive is located. Question is was it told to her?

[Serendipitous1]

Ah, why do you have the idea it was "shortly after" RFG disappeared [when PF told police she had seen a box of hard drive erasing software at the home]?Ah, why do you have the idea it was recent? Come to think of it, why have people (including PB) ascribed a nuance which, so far, I have not seen published?

The CDT reported, "A box for such software was seen at Gricar's home sometime after January 2004..." But The Daily Collegian included the quote..."Madeira said Gricar's girlfriend at the time, Patty Fornicola, remembered seeing 'what she thought was a box for that type of program' at the house..."

In the CDT, MM is quoted as saying, "There was some discussion of having seen Mr. Gricar expressing an interest in getting software to erase the hard drive of the computer." And SW added, "He talked about, or expressed an interest in, cleaning up his county laptop prior to retirement so he could return it without any personal information on it."

None of which do I find surprising, especially given the fact that he had announced his retirement in early January 2004, and had apparently shelved the laptop...as in, stopped using it. None of which do I believe necessarily points to a planned walkaway...in fact, just the opposite. The bigger question to me is, if he did erase the hard drive and did not use the laptop afterward, why would he (if he did) take the laptop on a ride to Lewisburg?

[J. J. in Phila]

None of which do I find surprising, especially given the fact that he had announced his retirement in early January 2004, and had apparently shelved the laptop...as in, stopped using it. None of which do I believe necessarily points to a planned walkaway...in fact, just the opposite.

Well, I understand that the desktop was a "recent" purchase, late 2004 to early 2005. Either he didn't use a computer for a while, the desktop was purchased much earlier, or he using the laptop after the box was seen.

You'll note, S1, that this has not moved my numbers any. The part that interests me in this story were the inquiries.

The bigger question to me is, if he did erase the hard drive and did not use the laptop afterward, why would he (if he did) take the laptop on a ride to Lewisburg?

Yes, me too.

[gstickley]

Ah, why do you have the idea it was recent? Come to think of it, why have people (including PB) ascribed a nuance which, so far, I have not seen published?

The CDT reported, "A box for such software was seen at Gricar's home sometime after January 2004..." But The Daily Collegian included the quote..."Madeira said Gricar's girlfriend at the time, Patty Fornicola, remembered seeing 'what she thought was a box for that type of program' at the house..."

In the CDT, MM is quoted as saying, "There was some discussion of having seen Mr. Gricar expressing an interest in getting software to erase the hard drive of the computer." And SW added, "He talked about, or expressed an interest in, cleaning up his county laptop prior to retirement so he could return it without any personal information on it."

None of which do I find surprising, especially given the fact that he had announced his retirement in early January 2004, and had apparently shelved the laptop...as in, stopped using it. None of which do I believe necessarily points to a planned walkaway...in fact, just the opposite. The bigger question to me is, if he did erase the hard drive and did not use the laptop afterward, why would he (if he did) take the laptop on a ride to Lewisburg?

Ditto what you said.

[Politigal]

I'm still curious if Patty ever discussed this hard drive erasing software with Tony.....thru the course of the investigation.

[Politigal]

IMO, Patty was more computer literate than Gricar.

I think if he had wanted to scrub a hard drive...he would have asked *her* to do it.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm still curious if Patty ever discussed this hard drive erasing software with Tony.....thru the course of the investigation.

P'gal, PEF's sole contribution to this was, when asked saying she, at some point she a box for erasure software. RFG discussed it with someone else, two years prior to his disappearance. That seems to have been well before he moved in with PEF and PEF has never said that the subject came up.

Now, what does that mean? Probably that RFG had an interest, two years prior to his disappearance, in eliminating the content of his computer.

Now, it is odd that the data was eliminated and might point to RFG being the one that eliminated it. It's one of those numerous things on the list of RFG;s unusual activities prior to his disappearance, but it doesn't move my numbers an inch. There could be other explanations.

[Serendipitous1]

P'gal, PEF's sole contribution to this was, when asked saying she, at some point she a box for erasure software. RFG discussed it with someone else, two years prior to his disappearance. That seems to have been well before he moved in with PEF and PEF has never said that the subject came up.

Now, what does that mean? Probably that RFG had an interest, two years prior to his disappearance, in eliminating the content of his computer.

Now, it is odd that the data was eliminated and might point to RFG being the one that eliminated it. It's one of those numerous things on the list of RFG;s unusual activities prior to his disappearance, but it doesn't move my numbers an inch. There could be other explanations.And there are/is. If I were RG...winding down to retirement, with whatever was on the laptop I had to return to CC.......wipe that sucker down. No nonsense...just do it. There is no mystery in that.

[J. J. in Phila]

And there are/is. If I were RG...winding down to retirement, with whatever was on the laptop I had to return to CC.......wipe that sucker down. No nonsense...just do it. There is no mystery in that.

He had not even announced his retirement when he made the inquiry; that would be about a year later. We're talking about 2003, well before he bought the desktop.

As I said, it is odd. Is it indicative of anything? In and of itself, no.

[Serendipitous1]

He had not even announced his retirement when he made the inquiry; that would be about a year later. We're talking about 2003, well before he bought the desktop.

As I said, it is odd. Is it indicative of anything? In and of itself, no.Then, once again, we agree...even if for differing reasons.

[J. J. in Phila]

Then, once again, we agree...even if for differing reasons.

No, sorry. I'm saying that in 2003, the was something on that computer that RFG didn't want seen. It could be something very innocent (financial information) or something very strongly related to this case. I can, however, come up with valid other reasons why he'd be interested in eliminating data.

[Cloudbuster]

I have a question? What was Ray working on at the office Thursday night? Why can't we know what it was he was working on?:confused:

[J. J. in Phila]

I have a question? What was Ray working on at the office Thursday night? Why can't we know what it was he was working on?:confused:

Seriously, because no one was in the office.

LW, the identity of the person (at least one of them) has never been published. There are at least a few details that have not been published.

[Cloudbuster]

Seriously, because no one was in the office.

LW, the identity of the person (at least one of them) has never been published. There are at least a few details that have not been published.

Wouldn't he at least have papers on his desk and his office PC? Or tablet if you will. Was all his notes gone or there? Was anything of Rays personally gone from the home?
Okay a contact lense case is gone. A personal item.
1.)A county owned cell phone returned.
2.)A county owned laptop returned later but destroyed. (implicates possible anger.)
3.)A car returned to legal owner with no damages.

I think the only things RG cared most about are
A.) His daughter
B.) His job.

The laptop shows some kind of anger, which to me holds the whole answer. We know the laptop is work related in ownership but was used for personal use. He couldn't have been mad at PF she got the car with no damage. I believe it's possible Ray put the book on Smith's desk Thursday night. That makes sense cause work was Rays second love and him even being there thursday night. Question is did he walk away from something personal or was he preparing for something he knew was going on and was dangerous. Sorta like did he know something needed confronted friday and it might be dangerous?

[J. J. in Phila]

Wouldn't he at least have papers on his desk and his office PC? Or tablet if you will. Was all his notes gone or there? Was anything of Rays personally gone from the home?
Okay a contact lense case is gone. A personal item.
1.)A county owned cell phone returned.
2.)A county owned laptop returned later but destroyed. (implicates possible anger.)
3.)A car returned to legal owner with no damages.

I think the only things RG cared most about are
A.) His daughter
B.) His job.

The laptop shows some kind of anger, which to me holds the whole answer. We know the laptop is work related in ownership but was used for personal use. He couldn't have been mad at PF she got the car with no damage. I believe it's possible Ray put the book on Smith's desk Thursday night. That makes sense cause work was Rays second love and him even being there thursday night. Question is did he walk away from something personal or was he preparing for something he knew was going on and was dangerous. Sorta like did he know something needed confronted friday and it might be dangerous?

I'm not certain that there was anything found or that there would be anything. Any papers might have been refiled. Other than the laptop and what he was carrying (which might include the laptop), nothing was missing.

I disagree that the destruction of the laptop indicated anger. The drive was purposely removed. The laptop wasn't smashed. Deliberate, yes. Anger, probably not.

[JD1974]

Hi, SH. First of all, don't ever feel intimidated about posting your thoughts & ideas on this forum. I hope you'll stick around; we need all the help we can get.

I agree with almost everything in your last post. It doesn't make sense to me either that RG would take the laptop without the case for the very reasons you gave. I also have questions about how long the laptop had been missing from the closet. It may have been missing for some time, as I can't imagine it was checked daily to see if it was still there.

As far as repairmen of any type having access to the laptop, unless they had complete unfettered access to the house when no one was around, it doesn't make sense to me that a stranger would/could have removed the laptop. A stranger wouldn't know what was on the laptop; since there was also a computer in the house, a stranger wouldn't know whether there was anything DA office related on the computer. I can't see a stranger coming into the house & removing the laptop. (IMO, about the only person who may have access to the closet would be a cleaning lady may have come across the laptop; however, if there was a cleaning lady, I'd think it might be hard to access the laptop. And we don't know whether there was a cleaning lady or not.)

IMO, there were two people who knew the location of the laptop: RG & PF. How do we know PF didn't remove it from the closet? How do we know the laptop was actually missing from the closet when LE was at the house? We only have PF's word on it.

Actually, we only have PF's word on everything related to RG from the walk in the park on 04/14, as the last time RG was positively seen was 04/14/05, approx. 9:00 P.M.

JMO


I am going to jump in here too, hope you guys don't mind. I have been reading this board for awhile just never had anything to input until now. I use my laptop 99% of the time I am on the computer, I am in no way meticulous about anything, especially keeping my house cleaned but I have to say I am very meticulous about my laptop. A) my laptop costs
6 x's what it would cost me to buy a new Dell desktop B) I carry my laptop in the case even if I just go from my bedroom to my livingroom because I am afraid I may drop it, not that it is slippery but it is thin and can easily slip right out of your hands because of the shape and the way you carry it without a case. It bothers me that a man who was very meticulous in everything would take a very expensive piece of equipment that he didn't even own and take chances with it.

Also IIRC every laptop I have ever seen or heard about comes with wifi automatically, it does not have to be added and does not cost extra, not sure how old his laptop was and not even sure what kind of signal he would get in a rural area but I am pretty sure all laptops (maybe this is just recently, not sure) come with wifi. My new LG one did and my older Dell one did, I did not have to ask for it. By wifi I am meaning the wireless card itself thats in the laptop.

One last thing, I don't know anyone who if they don't use a laptop anymore and it is put in the closet checks on it to make sure it is there, unless specifically asked or if they needed some type of file of off it.

[J. J. in Phila]

JD, I can state definitely that RFG's laptop did not have a wifi connection.

This one was apparently older and belonged to the county.

I do not find it strange that RFG would remove it from the case, especially if he wanted to check the battery.

[JD1974]

JD, I can state definitely that RFG's laptop did not have a wifi connection.

This one was apparently older and belonged to the county.

I do not find it strange that RFG would remove it from the case, especially if he wanted to check the battery.


Checking the battery takes less than 30 seconds, turn it on then move the cursor to the battery meter on the bottom right side. Both of mine only show the battery meter when it is not plugged in by the way. So it would then take another 3-5 seconds to slip it back in the case.

Yeah I wasn't too sure about the laptop, but I am not neccesarily meaning wifi per se, just a wireless card itself. I have been connecting to a wireless router for 4 years maybe, but only recently can I go to Starbucks or McDonalds and grab wifi for free. Actually, considering where I live I can grab wifi signals from anywhere, I live in a college town though, UofM so not a small college either and that could be why it is everywhere here.

[J. J. in Phila]

Checking the battery takes less than 30 seconds, turn it on then move the cursor to the battery meter on the bottom right side. Both of mine only show the battery meter when it is not plugged in by the way. So it would then take another 3-5 seconds to slip it back in the case.

Yeah I wasn't too sure about the laptop, but I am not neccesarily meaning wifi per se, just a wireless card itself. I have been connecting to a wireless router for 4 years maybe, but only recently can I go to Starbucks or McDonalds and grab wifi for free. Actually, considering where I live I can grab wifi signals from anywhere, I live in a college town though, UofM so not a small college either and that could be why it is everywhere here.

If RFG (or someone) were planning to use it, he'd want to check the battery. If he's going to take it out to check the battery, and then leave with it, why put it back in the case.

No Wifi card; they have the laptop, remember.

[JD1974]

If RFG (or someone) were planning to use it, he'd want to check the battery. If he's going to take it out to check the battery, and then leave with it, why put it back in the case.

No Wifi card; they have the laptop, remember.

Yes, I got that they had the laptop. I was talking in general about laptops because I had seen some questions about wireless cards etc.

I already explained why the put it back in the case, he is meticulous with everything, takes 2-3 seconds to put it back in the case. The only reason I could see keeping it out of the case (for him anyway) was if he had wireless and was doing something on the laptop as he was in the car as in a reason so important as to keep it out to look at something or download something while he is driving...no wireless card though.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, I got that they had the laptop. I was talking in general about laptops because I had seen some questions about wireless cards etc.

I already explained why the put it back in the case, he is meticulous with everything, takes 2-3 seconds to put it back in the case. The only reason I could see keeping it out of the case (for him anyway) was if he had wireless and was doing something on the laptop as he was in the car as in a reason so important as to keep it out to look at something or download something while he is driving...no wireless card though.

There are two other reasons.

1. RFG was planning to read something in a digital format at his destination.

2. The person who removed it was planning to destroy it, so he didn't care about it being jostled.

[J. J. in Phila]

Since it was stated he was not carrying the laptop when he left the office on Thursday evening, he either left it there at the office, or he didn't have it there to begin with.
Since his cell phone was found, there would be a record of calls made on it, including Thursday evening.

Since he was working in the office after hours, I would think incoming and outgoing calls to that particular number could be traced. IIRC, someone stated the calls couldn't be traced because it was a 'trunk' line or some such explanation as that, but I just pulled up the directory for the government offices, and the DA's office has it's own separate number, thus there is no reason all incoming and outgoing calls could not be traced to that number. For that particular time frame, after hours, and if it is known that RG was the only person in the office, it would seem relatively simple to know whether he contacted anyone via work phone or if anyone contacted him while there.

The history on his desktop unit would reveal whether he contacted anyone via email using his office computer, and whether he might have been working on cases while there. He was there from 6-ish to 9-ish, three hours-----had to be some physical evidence of what he was doing. Just more of the mystery kept from us---------
JMO

Assuming JKA was right, there was just a trunk line at the time; I belive she indicated it was just being changed when she departed in January 2006. The cell records are different, however.

You are, however, assuming that he was on his desktop or making phone calls. He may not have used either, even for just a normal day. His e-mail was checked.

Now, I would suspect that there were not too many phone calls being made from the Courthouse between 6:00-9:06 PM on 4/14/05. The problem is that there would be few long distance phone calls.

[J. J. in Phila]

Three hours in the office means he was likely doing something more than napping there, thus a trail, whether it be paper, computer, or phone.

Few long distance phone calls? What about local calls, considering they can be traced both in and out? The courthouse was closed therfore it is unlikely there were many incoming, and particularly few outgoing calls.
ALL calls, incoming and outgoing, are recorded and traceable, local and long distance. Was a record of that data for both Thursday evening and Friday ever requested by LE?
JMO


Paper will impossible to date. Let's say he made some notes on a case just using a legal pad and pen; how could you tell if he made them between 6-9 PM or earlier that day, or even the day before. He also could have been looking up case law, in books, or reviewing the work that was done that day.

There is no record of a local call on a land line, because those records are not kept by the phone company. RFG could have talked to someone locally for two hours, locally, but we wouldn't know because there is no record of the call.

Where to get the idea that all calls are recorded?

[J. J. in Phila]

ALL calls, incoming or outgoing, have data that is recorded. You believe those records are not kept by the phone company? Considering it was the courthouse, a court order may have been required, but since LE did so with RG's physical records, considering it was the disappearance of a DA, there would be little reason not to turn the phone records over to LE. Did LE make any move to do so?
JMO

As far as I know, there are no records kept. Billable calls are different, of course. I'd also want to look at any payphone records from the Courthouse that night.

[Politigal]

I keep thinking about the laptop.

If Gricar didn't remove it from Patty's upstairs closet, I still say there's a 50% possibility that *she* removed it. I sincerely doubt that too many people had access to the upstairs portion of *her* home besides her & Gricar.

And, since there's no real evidence Gricar was in Lewisburg.....

Too bad law enforcement didn't look for evidence of Patty being there.

[J. J. in Phila]

I keep thinking about the laptop.

If Gricar didn't remove it from Patty's upstairs closet, I still say there's a 50% possibility that *she* removed it. I sincerely doubt that too many people had access to the upstairs portion of *her* home besides her & Gricar.

And, since there's no real evidence Gricar was in Lewisburg.....

Too bad law enforcement didn't look for evidence of Patty being there.

Of course there is is real evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg. :rolleyes:

Anyone that RFG instructed and had a key, and RFG, had access to it.

[J. J. in Phila]

We should really clear this up:

Here are witnesses that place RFG in Lewisburg on 4/15/05:

4/15/05 in or near Lewisburg

2. Woman at Museum 12:00 Noon, reported Centre Daily Times (CDT)

3. McKnight’s witness, c. 5:00 PM, includes Mini, CDT

4. Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (at least three), CDT/Cleveland Scene (CS)

5. Alvey, Remember When owner, in SoS, in the evening (after 6:00 PM), possibly 4/16/05, reported Daily Collegian (DC).

Now, we have at least 6 witnesses that put RFG in Lewisburg after Noon on 4/15/05, 4 of which put him in the Mini Cooper, and at least 3 of which put him in the Mini Cooper actually in the parking lot across the Street of Shops. The other witness, McKnight's witness, saw him before the others, driving his Mini in the direction of the parking lot. Alvey saw him standing near the Street of Shops, which was about within 50 yards of where the people saw RFG driving the Mini.

Now in the parking we have:

1. The Mini Cooper.

2. RFG's scent.

It really is impossible to credibly claim that there is "no real evidence" that RFG was in Lewisburg after noon on 4/15/05.

(There are three witnesses that saw him in Lewisburg on Saturday, but not in the Mini)

[gstickley]

We should really clear this up:

Here are witnesses that place RFG in Lewisburg on 4/15/05:

4/15/05 in or near Lewisburg

2. Woman at Museum 12:00 Noon, reported Centre Daily Times (CDT)

Someplace there is a statement from lady at Packwood Museum that "there was nothing unusual" occurring. I'm sure some others remember this statement also; will check to see if it is still available.

3. McKnight’s witness, c. 5:00 PM, includes Mini, CDT

4. Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (at least three), CDT/Cleveland Scene (CS)

Someplace this is a statement of several other like Mini's being in the Lewisburg area that weekend. I'm sure some others remember this statement; will check to see if it is still available.

5. Alvey, Remember When owner, in SoS, in the evening (after 6:00 PM), possibly 4/16/05, reported Daily Collegian (DC).

According to statements made by LE, the dogs didn't leave the area around where the Mini was parked; did not go into or near the SoS. I'm sure some others remember several of these statements; will check to see if they are still available.

Now, we have at least 6 witnesses that put RFG in Lewisburg after Noon on 4/15/05, 4 of which put him in the Mini Cooper, and at least 3 of which put him in the Mini Cooper actually in the parking lot across the Street of Shops. The other witness, McKnight's witness, saw him before the others, driving his Mini in the direction of the parking lot. Alvey saw him standing near the Street of Shops, which was about within 50 yards of where the people saw RFG driving the Mini.

Now in the parking we have:

1. The Mini Cooper.

2. RFG's scent.

It really is impossible to credibly claim that there is "no real evidence" that RFG was in Lewisburg after noon on 4/15/05.

The Mini Cooper was in Lewisburg, as supposedly was RG's scent; however there is no real evidence that Ray Gricar himself was in Lewisburg after noon on 04/15/05.

(There are three witnesses that saw him in Lewisburg on Saturday, but not in the Mini)

Did ANY one of the supposed witnesses know Ray Gricar and positively identify him as being in Lewisburg on 04/15-16/05? Or did they "witness" by photograph or description made by LE or . . . .maybe "power of suggestion"?

Bold by gstickley, aka "Twisted Sister", "Queen of Nastiness", "PE/Lus/KA"

[gstickley]

#1. Found this ref. above post.
04/19/05
"Crimeshots"
(note that it was posted 3 days after press had report of RG's disappearance)
Missing county prosecutor fails to show for work Monday

"BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — A county prosecutor who was reported missing late Friday failed to show up for work Monday, colleagues said.

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

[J. J. in Phila]

Bold by gstickley, aka "Twisted Sister", "Queen of Nastiness", "PE/Lus/KA"

Boy, oh boy, you can't even remember your own name. ;)

The statement from the woman at the Museum is that she was him, and he wasn't doing anything unusual.

So you thing that everybody that drives a Mini looks like RFG? Wow! Note what they reported, not that they saw a Mini, but that they saw RFG driving the Mini.

Okay, so now we have RFG's scent magically traveling about 50 miles without him. I've assumed that he bathed regularly, but maybe not. :rolleyes:

Now we have the media hypnotizing everyone, yet on another thread, I have noted the poor media coverage as of 4/17/05 in Lewisburg.

As I've said, it is really is impossible to credibly claim that there is "no real evidence" that RFG was in Lewisburg after noon on 4/15/05.

Now, we should start wondering what is the agenda of the {i]Spin Sister[/i] in this case. It is to find the the truth, or attempt to draw us away from it?

[J. J. in Phila]

You know, very time you all raise problems with the witnesses, it raises my suspicions of an agenda, especially since there is now a solid list of them and three of them were brought forward by Buehner and McKnight.

BTW: Those guys obviously know the value of witnesses better than any of us.

[gstickley]

#1. Found this ref. above post.
04/19/05
"Crimeshots"
(note that it was posted 3 days after press had report of RG's disappearance)
Missing county prosecutor fails to show for work Monday

"BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — A county prosecutor who was reported missing late Friday failed to show up for work Monday, colleagues said.

(snip)
Workers at the antiques mall didn't report seeing anything unusual either Friday or Saturday. "It was business as usual," said the market's manager, Susan Sawyer.(snip)
____
Found this ref. above post.
04/20/05, CDT, Mike Joseph
(Note that it was posted 4 days after press had report of RG's disappearance"

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:08:46 PM by TheBigB

LEWISBURG -- Detectives investigating the disappearance of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar concentrated their search Tuesday around an antiques mall near the Susquehanna River where they believe he was seen about noon Saturday.

Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time. The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

Bellefonte police detectives Tom Thal and Darrell Zaccagni, working from their car in a parking lot across the street, said the reports of Bennett and others appeared to establish a "visual on Ray" at the noon hour Saturday, called the Street of Shops.

Bennett said some mall employees have told police they saw Gricar's car, a red and white Mini Cooper, in the parking lot between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday. The Saturday "visual" would be the most recent point in a time line reported so far in authorities' efforts to track Gricar. (snip)

No mention of the MW from Bennett, from "nothing unusal" to "visual on Ray" . . . 4 days after press reported Gricar's disappearance.

[gstickley]

____
Found this ref. above post.
04/20/05, CDT, Mike Joseph
(Note that it was posted 4 days after press had report of RG's disappearance"

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:08:46 PM by TheBigB

LEWISBURG -- Detectives investigating the disappearance of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar concentrated their search Tuesday around an antiques mall near the Susquehanna River where they believe he was seen about noon Saturday.

Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time. The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

Bellefonte police detectives Tom Thal and Darrell Zaccagni, working from their car in a parking lot across the street, said the reports of Bennett and others appeared to establish a "visual on Ray" at the noon hour Saturday, called the Street of Shops.

Bennett said some mall employees have told police they saw Gricar's car, a red and white Mini Cooper, in the parking lot between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday. The Saturday "visual" would be the most recent point in a time line reported so far in authorities' efforts to track Gricar. (snip)

No mention of the MW from Bennett, from "nothing unusal" to "visual on Ray" . . . 4 days after press reported Gricar's disappearance.

04/22/05, CDT, Erin Nissley

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.

No name given, 6 days after press reported Gricar's disappearance.

[J. J. in Phila]

____
Found this ref. above post.
04/20/05, CDT, Mike Joseph
(Note that it was posted 4 days after press had report of RG's disappearance"

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:08:46 PM by TheBigB

LEWISBURG -- Detectives investigating the disappearance of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar concentrated their search Tuesday around an antiques mall near the Susquehanna River where they believe he was seen about noon Saturday.

Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time. The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

Bellefonte police detectives Tom Thal and Darrell Zaccagni, working from their car in a parking lot across the street, said the reports of Bennett and others appeared to establish a "visual on Ray" at the noon hour Saturday, called the Street of Shops.

Bennett said some mall employees have told police they saw Gricar's car, a red and white Mini Cooper, in the parking lot between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday. The Saturday "visual" would be the most recent point in a time line reported so far in authorities' efforts to track Gricar. (snip)

No mention of the MW from Bennett, from "nothing unusal" to "visual on Ray" . . . 4 days after press reported Gricar's disappearance.

GStickley, I don't know about your neighborhood, but sitting in a parked car, of looking like you are waiting for someone is not "unusual" in my neighborhood.

The only thing that I've heard described as "unusual" in Lewisburg was RFG moving the car in the parking lot. That was 4/15/05.

Bennett was 4/16/05, Saturday, so thanks for pointed out that there were three more witnesses in Lewisburg that saw him that day. That's nine, if you are counting.

[gstickley]

04/22/05, CDT, Erin Nissley

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.

No name given, 6 days after press reported Gricar's disappearance.

04/26/05
Erin Nissley, CDT

Investigators have few clues to missing man's whereabouts

Posted on Tue, Apr. 26, 2005
BELLEFONTE -- There are still no answers in the disappearance of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, but plenty of theories and speculation abound.

The facts surrounding the case are strange: Gricar called his girlfriend and housemate, Patty Fornicola, about 11:30 a.m. April 15 and said he was driving down state Route 192 in the Brush Valley area. It was the last time anyone heard from him. His car was found parked and locked in a dirt parking lot in Lewisburg; his cell phone was inside.

Two Lewisburg business owners said they saw Gricar about noon the next day, but police have been unable to explain where the prosecutor was during that 24-hour period.
(snip)

6 days after press reported Gricar's disappearance. Now two (2) business owners (where are the other "witnesses?)

[J. J. in Phila]

The only two I have are Alvey (4/15 evening) and Bennett (noontime 4/16). There may be additional witnesses out there as well.

[gstickley]

04/26/05
Erin Nissley, CDT

Investigators have few clues to missing man's whereabouts

Posted on Tue, Apr. 26, 2005
BELLEFONTE -- There are still no answers in the disappearance of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, but plenty of theories and speculation abound.

The facts surrounding the case are strange: Gricar called his girlfriend and housemate, Patty Fornicola, about 11:30 a.m. April 15 and said he was driving down state Route 192 in the Brush Valley area. It was the last time anyone heard from him. His car was found parked and locked in a dirt parking lot in Lewisburg; his cell phone was inside.

Two Lewisburg business owners said they saw Gricar about noon the next day, but police have been unable to explain where the prosecutor was during that 24-hour period.
(snip)

6 days after press reported Gricar's disappearance. Now two (2) business owners (where are the other "witnesses?)

04/30/05, CDT, Erin Nissley

BELLEFONTE -- A man who told police he saw missing District Attorney Ray Gricar in Wilkes-Barre on April 18 said they talked briefly about baseball while watching a game on television.

Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon provided a few details at a news conference Friday of the possible sighting of Gricar at a business in the Highland Park Boulevard area of Wilkes-Barre three days after the prosecutor disappeared.

"Right now, we're taking it as a credible report," Dixon said. "Am I 100 percent sure it is? No, I am not."

(snip)

The man who said he talked to Gricar in Wilkes-Barre said Gricar wore a suit and did not appear to be with anyone.

(snip)
"He said the man talked about how much he liked the Cleveland Indians and that was where he was from," Dixon said. The police chief refused to identify in what business the conversation took place, saying he doesn't want to create a media frenzy there.

There was no information on whether the man had seen earlier news reports about Gricar's disappearance that made mention of a theory that Gricar had taken an impromptu trip to a Cleveland Indians game. The possibility was mentioned the day after Gricar's disappearance by friends who said he had gone to an Indians game several years ago, without telling anyone where he was going.

The man who thinks he saw Gricar on April 18 called police on April 22, several days after he'd seen a news report about the district attorney's disappearance. Dixon said police investigated the man's claim and found a second man who was at the Wilkes-Barre business at the same time and believed he also saw Gricar.

One of the witnesses is an employee of the business, Dixon said. The other was a customer.

The Wilkes-Barre report brings the number of supposed sightings of Gricar to at least four. One person reported seeing Gricar about noon April 15 in Lewisburg, and two Lewisburg business owners said they thought they saw him a day later in an antique mall.
(snip)

W-B "witness" saw RG 04/18, "waited several days" before he called police 04/22. According to Dixon, the W-B "SUPPOSED sightings" made 4. (Are we getting close the "8-10 probably more"???)

[J. J. in Phila]

04/30/05, CDT, Erin Nissley

BELLEFONTE -- A man who told police he saw missing District Attorney Ray Gricar in Wilkes-Barre on April 18 said they talked briefly about baseball while watching a game on television.

Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon provided a few details at a news conference Friday of the possible sighting of Gricar at a business in the Highland Park Boulevard area of Wilkes-Barre three days after the prosecutor disappeared.

"Right now, we're taking it as a credible report," Dixon said. "Am I 100 percent sure it is? No, I am not."

(snip)

The man who said he talked to Gricar in Wilkes-Barre said Gricar wore a suit and did not appear to be with anyone.

(snip)
"He said the man talked about how much he liked the Cleveland Indians and that was where he was from," Dixon said. The police chief refused to identify in what business the conversation took place, saying he doesn't want to create a media frenzy there.

There was no information on whether the man had seen earlier news reports about Gricar's disappearance that made mention of a theory that Gricar had taken an impromptu trip to a Cleveland Indians game. The possibility was mentioned the day after Gricar's disappearance by friends who said he had gone to an Indians game several years ago, without telling anyone where he was going.

The man who thinks he saw Gricar on April 18 called police on April 22, several days after he'd seen a news report about the district attorney's disappearance. Dixon said police investigated the man's claim and found a second man who was at the Wilkes-Barre business at the same time and believed he also saw Gricar.

One of the witnesses is an employee of the business, Dixon said. The other was a customer.

The Wilkes-Barre report brings the number of supposed sightings of Gricar to at least four. One person reported seeing Gricar about noon April 15 in Lewisburg, and two Lewisburg business owners said they thought they saw him a day later in an antique mall.
(snip)

W-B "witness" saw RG 04/18, "waited several days" before he called police 04/22. According to Dixon, the W-B "SUPPOSED sightings" made 4. (Are we getting close the "8-10 probably more"???)

Twisting it again, GS.

The Wilkes-Barrre sighting are not included in Lewisburg, obviously.

I repeat:

Here are witnesses that place RFG in or near Lewisburg on 4/15/05:


2. Woman at Museum c. 12:00 Noon, reported Centre Daily Times (CDT)

3. McKnight’s witness, c. 5:00 PM, includes Mini, CDT

4. Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (at least three), CDT/Cleveland Scene (CS)

5. Alvey, Remember When owner, in SoS, in the evening (after 6:00 PM), possibly 4/16/05, reported Daily Collegian (DC).

I bolded it for you. Those are the ones reported.

[UndertheRadar]

Hmmm. I don't recall the veteran dog handler who works for law enforcement agencies testifying that Laci Peterson would have needed to forgo showering before she rode in her husband's truck.

What I recall is him testifying that if Laci rode regularly in the truck, as RG did in his car, it was very probable that "her scent could have been transferred from the vehicle's interior to the grounds of Berkeley Marina when her husband opened the truck door." And gee, that was 90 miles away, not 50.

Here is a list of people who "saw" Laci walking her Golden Retriever in her Loma Linda neighborhood on Dec. 24 between 9:30 and 10:00:

Grace Wolf
Homer Maldonado
Tony Freitas
Vivian Mitchell
Bill Mitchell
Mike Chiavetta
Diana Campos
plus several unnamed persons who saw someone they believed to be Laci Peterson in La Loma park around 10:00 a.m.

Wow. See how concrete the case for Laci being alive that morning looks when you put it down in black and white?

And yes, all these witnesses were eventually ruled out. That's the point. But there was an LE team and a prosecution team working hard to rule them out so that they could prosecute SP.

There's also a list of 15 people who went to court having sworn they'd seen Carrie Culberson and/or her car--UNTIL they got under oath. Then the best most could say was "resembled" Carrie or "resembled" her car. Except the cop, who withdrew his testimony completely, saying he'd been mistaken.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, those witnesses were checked out and ruled out. The police did that in RFG's case, and this is what was left, 6 or more witnesses who saw RFG in Lewisburg at 4/15/05, 4 or more of those who saw him driving his Mini, and 3 or more of those who saw him moving the Mini in the parking lot where the Mini was found.

There were witnesses that LE looked at and ruled out. Here is an example:

Reports that a possible third witness saw Gricar in Lewisburg at about 1:30 p.m. April 16 proved to be negative, according to a Bellefonte Police Department press release.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-25-05tdc/04-25-05dnews-06.asp

Face the facts and stop pushing your agenda.

[Serendipitous1]

Twisting it again, GS.

The Wilkes-Barrre sighting are not included in Lewisburg, obviously.

I repeat:

Here are witnesses that place RFG in or near Lewisburg on 4/15/05:


2. Woman at Museum c. 12:00 Noon, reported Centre Daily Times (CDT)

3. McKnight’s witness, c. 5:00 PM, includes Mini, CDT

4. Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (at least three), CDT/Cleveland Scene (CS)

5. Alvey, Remember When owner, in SoS, in the evening (after 6:00 PM), possibly 4/16/05, reported Daily Collegian (DC).

I bolded it for you. Those are the ones reported.CDT/Cleveland Scene? Are you referring to PB's post-reporter blog and the man-kisser's book? I have not been able to pin the supposed time down, other than through your posts. In any event, these "witnesses" are among the people who apparently believe they saw RG. But did they...see RG? (What I would give...for a little corroboration). There is no strength in numbers...as you, no doubt, have experienced here.

[J. J. in Phila]

CDT/Cleveland Scene? Are you referring to PB's post-reporter blog and the man-kisser's book? I have not been able to pin the supposed time down, other than through your posts. In any event, these "witnesses" are among the people who apparently believe they saw RG. But did they...see RG? (What I would give...for a little corroboration). There is no strength in numbers...as you, no doubt, have experienced here.

Actually, Bob Buehner, and I doubt he kisses men. He was quoted in the CDT.

Now, let me put it this way. What if I was a juror and asked to find, beyond a reasonable doubt if Joe was in a parking lot within a certain period of time. I was given these facts:

1. Three witnesses saw Joe in the parking lot, in his car within the certain period of time

2. Just before the certain period of time started, a fourth witness saw Joe driving his car toward the parking lot.

3. A fifth witness saw Joe, just after that certain period of time, near the parking lot.

4. Joe's scent was detected by a scent dog in the parking lot.

5. Joe's car was found in the parking lot.

6. There was no evidence to contradict points one through five.

With those, I would say that Joe was in the parking lot beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, if there would be some evidence that someone other than Joe drove the car, I might not feel that way.

So far, despite more than two years of posting, I've never heard of any evidence of someone else driving the Mini or parking it where it was found.

[Serendipitous1]

Actually, Bob Buehner, and I doubt he kisses men. He was quoted in the CDT.

Now, let me put it this way. What if I was a juror and asked to find, beyond a reasonable doubt if Joe was in a parking lot within a certain period of time. I was given these facts:

1. Three witnesses saw Joe in the parking lot, in his car within the certain period of time

2. Just before the certain period of time started, a fourth witness saw Joe driving his car toward the parking lot.

3. A fifth witness saw Joe, just after that certain period of time, near the parking lot.

4. Joe's scent was detected by a scent dog in the parking lot.

5. Joe's car was found in the parking lot.

6. There was no evidence to contradict points one through five.

With those, I would say that Joe was in the parking lot beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, if there would be some evidence that someone other than Joe drove the car, I might not feel that way.

So far, despite more than two years of posting, I've never heard of any evidence of someone else driving the Mini or parking it where it was found.Your "jury" presumes "6" to be a given. Look, you (we) have only heard anecdotal "evidence"...which LE has yet to confirm as being conclusive.

[J. J. in Phila]

Your "jury" presumes "6" to be a given. Look, you (we) have only heard anecdotal "evidence"...which LE has yet to confirm as being conclusive.

So far, we've heard nothing to contradict it. I'm not really trying to engineer anything, just going on what we've gotten so far.

Now, I'll change positions as a result of new information, but surveying what we have, it isn't there. We have a lot of "could of's" "maybe a one in million times," "if everything went wrong" type of scenarios, but really, none of the evidence points to it.

[Serendipitous1]

So far, we've heard nothing to contradict it. I'm not really trying to engineer anything, just going on what we've gotten so far.

Now, I'll change positions as a result of new information, but surveying what we have, it isn't there. We have a lot of "could of's" "maybe a one in million times," "if everything went wrong" type of scenarios, but really, none of the evidence points to it.Consider the fact that LE is never going to tell the public (or the PB's of the world) about the "foul play" part of its investigation...unless and until there is an indictment. So, while I find all this walkaway stuff to be most interesting, I guess I will have to wait on KA's sequel for the common-woman's "take" on "Revelation Range".

[J. J. in Phila]

Consider the fact that LE is never going to tell the public (or the PB's of the world) about the "foul play" part of its investigation...unless and until there is an indictment. So, while I find all this walkaway stuff to be most interesting, I guess I will have to wait on KA's sequel for the common-woman's "take" on "Revelation Range".

To me, it would be "Revelation Range" if LE could come close, at least, to ruling out walkaway.

[Serendipitous1]

To me, it would be "Revelation Range" if LE could come close, at least, to ruling out walkaway.I think that is never likely to happen.

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that is never likely to happen.

I'm hoping that the the clamor may help with that. I would like to see it released.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, your post #485 is a perfect example of why there's such a push in recent years to introduce experts on eyewitness testimony into the courtroom--so that jurors don't reach that "beyond a reasonable doubt" conclusion without understanding the pitfalls of eyewitness testimony. Seriously, it's a huge issue in the courts because of all the wrongful convictions caused by mistaken eyewitness identification. (And I'll remind you again before you try to pull it out of your hat, cross-racial misidentification isn't the primary reason for these.)

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you've made the argument that we shouldn't look at the polygraphs because the are not admissible. Eyewitness testimony is admissible. Sorry if neither supports your claim, but I doubt that we'll be seeing "UTR's opinion" being admitted as evidence anytime soon.

[UndertheRadar]

Whoa, there, cowboy.

I have never made a single post here or anywhere else saying we shouldn't "look at" polygraphs.

I have said

a) polygraphs have issues significant enough to keep them from being admissible in most courts and

b) there are cases where innocent people failed polys and cases where guilty people passed polys (and the Green River Killer case had both).

Both statements above are true and verifiable.

Eyewitness testimony IS admissible, and it is fraught with all sorts of problems, most of which have come to light in the last couple of decades since forensics such as DNA, improvements in fingerprint analysis, etc. have exposed those problems.

I never post such things based on my opinion. I rely on experts, and on this, if you don't believe me, why don't you consult works from the leading witness misidentification scholar in the United States, as I have?

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, eyewitness testimony isn't fraught with as many problems as you think.

How many actual cases, excluding racial misidentification which is where many, if not most, problems occur, do three eyewitness seeing the same person in the same place at the same time, driving the same car. 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000,000?

I'll give you hint, when you get to 1 in 100,000, you've passed well beyond reasonable doubt (1 in 10 might actually make it).

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not say that something can never happen. It says that it is so unlikely to happen that doubt is not reasonable.

Now, I'm not interested in theoretical possibilities that maybe, if the stars are right, the witnesses could be wrong 1 in 100,000 times. It is, and this is the standard, is it beyond reasonable doubt. Yes.

Even though you have yet to find a case, let's assume that you can find one. One in possibly a 1,000,000. Okay, it didn't occur in the other 99.9999% cases.

So far, the only thing that I've seen that is beyond reasonable doubt is that RFG was alive, driving the Mini, in Lewisburg, after 5:00 PM on 4/15/05.

[UndertheRadar]

Again, JJ, it's not my personal opinion that eyewitness testimony is fraught with problems. It's study after study after study that demonstrates the problems. Why do you think the DOJ has established protocols regarding eyewitness testimony? Why do you think task forces have been established to go beyond what the DOJ has done? Why would the nation's leading expert on eyewitness testimony say this:

[I]t is no surprise, therefore, that mistaken eyewitnesses account for more convictions of innocent persons than all other causes combined . . . ?

And again, JJ, as one of those task forces has shown

a pattern of cross-racial misidentifications might be expected. There was, however, no such pattern as most identifications involved eyewitnesses identifying suspects of their own race.

Now, I'm not interested in you making things up to fit your theory.

I'm interested in the facts, which I'm satisfied I've researched well.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I've asked you repeatedly of the frequency of this level of mistaken witnesses, i.e, identifying a same race individual and his vehicle; that is a "science" question.

The nonanswer you have given is, science. :rolleyes:

In looking at the case sighted in the text of book you quoted, it was one eyewitness, and the "identification" was more than ten years later.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XmN_hz83VxQC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=%22that+mistaken+eyewitnesses+account+for+more+ convictions+of+innocent+persons%22&source=web&ots=zyv9eYBnTX&sig=egZ6UlwHBlhJcUi3iMac7flO2WQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA152,M1

Handbook of Psychology
By Irving B. Weiner, Donald K. Freedheim

Yes, if we only had one or two regular witnesses, nothing tying the car to RFG, I might agree with you. We are, however, at at least four that put RFG in Lewisburg, in the Mini, after 5:00 PM. We have another five, at least, that put RFG in Lewisburg, after 5:00 PM. Then we have the dog detecting his scent there.

Your theory is that all of this wrong. That in not science, just spin. :lol:

[UndertheRadar]

Your link goes to a "page not found" error, JJ, and it is not the source for my information, which came from the Boston task force on eyewitness evidence. One of the 8 panel members for the task force is the leading national and international expert on issues of memory and eyewitness testimony. The findings from the task force are consistent with other studies and certainly not limited to one eyewitness ten years later, as you claim. You're going to have to give up the notion that cross-racial misidentification is the primary reason for eyewitness inaccuracy. It simply is not. It is merely one factor among dozens that can be a reason.

You keep raising "the car" as somehow critical. It isn't, not to the identification. It may be important to the RG case, in that the Mini was found in the SOS parking lot. But in terms of eyewitness identification accuracy, it is problematic. You claim the car was "rare" and "unique." Hardly, when there were three red and white Mini-Coopers at a minimum in the Lewisburg area during the time period in question. There's evidence at Websleuths that at least one person (the woman who saw the plastic bag near the car in the lot) initially confused Ray's Mini with another that had Maryland plates. (She said she'd also parked next to "his" car a second time the next day, noting that the car had Maryland plates on it.)

The car+"visual" of "Ray" is no more proof that RG was in Lewisburg than pregnancy+Golden Retriever+"visual" of Laci is proof that Laci was walking McKenzie in Loma Linda on the morning of December 24.

[Cloudbuster]

So the other mini had a Maryland plate as in possible Baltimore Maryland? Ya know it starting to look like BIG FISH was in town. Where you have collages and Universities you have dealers. Okay maybe not (before you say no JJ lol). Maybe the person was on a friendly visit bet that's a drive?