The Laptop

[Politigal]

I don't recall there being a thread specifically about the laptop in this case, so thought I'd start one.

RG reportedly was not a big computer user - and was not a "technophile" per Tony.

PF said the laptop hadn't been used in a while, but that prior to the new home computer being bought, that both she and RG used it to do internet searches.

Saturday 4/16/05 police went to PF's home and asked to retrieve the laptop, which is when she went upstairs to find it missing from the case. The power cord, etc were still there.

If RG took the laptop - why didn't he take it complete with the carrying case and power? Can we assume that the laptop was not going to be used on 4/15/05 since the battery power would only last a couple of hours?

And, can we assume since the laptop had not been used since the home computer was purchased, that it didn't hold some crucual case evidence?

If PF was responsible for the disappearance -- what if when police came to get it - that it was simply something she had forgotten about, since it hadn't been used in awhile, maybe even an "oh shi%!" moment, knowing that police would then have access to *her* computer searches by looking at the hard drive, so she just told them it wasn't there?

I think that's an entirely possible scenario.

[Politigal]

Also, if the laptop had *not* been used in awhile per PF, that means it also had not been charged in awhile and the battery would already have been dead.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal

Saturday 4/16/05 police went to PF's home and asked to retrieve the laptop, which is when she went upstairs to find it missing from the case. The power cord, etc were still there.



Sunday 4/17/05. Evening, IIRC.


If RG took the laptop - why didn't he take it complete with the carrying case and power? Can we assume that the laptop was not going to be used on 4/15/05 since the battery power would only last a couple of hours?


4 hours.


And, can we assume since the laptop had not been used since the home computer was purchased, that it didn't hold some crucual case evidence?


"Case Evidence" is the key. In all probability anything on the drive would have a paper copy in a file. I habitually print out things for a file copy.


If PF was responsible for the disappearance -- what if when police came to get it - that it was simply something she had forgotten about, since it hadn't been used in awhile, maybe even an "oh shi%!" moment, knowing that police would then have access to *her* computer searches by looking at the hard drive, so she just told them it wasn't there?


First, LE didn't come to get it. They ask if there were any other computers. PEF volunteered that there was a laptop.

Now, if she wanted to hide it, she could just say, **no that's the only one.** If it was not used, even if LE looks for for it, she could just say **oh, I forgot; we have not used it for a while.** I could understand that she was under stress and may have forgotten about it. Instead, it's her who calls the attention to the existence of the laptop.

If she didn't use it for a while, how is it tied to the disappearance? If it isn't why hide it.

Also LE searched the house during that week and may have found it, if it was still there.

(I could understand, if she were involved, using the laptop for research and then tossing it, but before she called LE.)

[Politigal]

maybe she was looking at wedding sites

or maybe she was on match.com meeting other men

?

[Politigal]

JJ - you said the laptop battery would hold a charge for 4 hours --

wouldn't it need to be charged first if it had not been used in a while?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Also, if the laptop had *not* been used in awhile per PF, that means it also had not been charged in awhile and the battery would already have been dead.

Not necessarily. There was enough time during the week to charge it up, by either PEF or RFG

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Not necessarily. There was enough time during the week to charge it up, by either PEF or RFG

but PF said it had not been used recently

So you think Gricar secretly charged it - put it back in the closet and then took it out on 4/15?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
maybe she was looking at wedding sites

or maybe she was on match.com meeting other men

?

The first isn't particularly incriminating.

The second just doesn't make too much sense, doing it weeks in advance.

I was thinking of something incriminating, like looking up drugs.

In RFG's case, very private data that he wants destroyed (suicide), offshore banking, travel plans (walkaway).

The problem with PEF and the laptop is that:

1. She could not tell LE and claim she forgot.

2. She has no idea if LE is going to say, **can we look around and try to find it.**

3. She has no idea if LE will search the house. (They did later). If she says no, that automatically puts suspicion on her, and LE is in the street for the first few days.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


but PF said it had not been used recently

So you think Gricar secretly charged it - put it back in the closet and then took it out on 4/15?

If he took it and it was his intent to use it, yes.

I think he took it, but not necessarily planned to use it; he may have taken it to dump it.

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley
No one knows when the laptop was removed or by whom.

Exactly..
I have a hard time believing Mr. Gricar removed the laptop, and an even harder timre believing that he TOSSED it in the river on 4/15/2005.

jmo

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
No one knows when the laptop was removed or by whom.

P'gal asked me an honest question about what I thought. I think the odds are exceptionally good that RFG removed it.

Why? Only two people should have known where it was, PEF and RFG.

If PEF removed it, why call it to LE's attention? "Forget" that it exists and let it lay in the Susquehanna. Maybe in few days or weeks LE will find out that the laptop exists. Then they'll ask PEF, who says, **I forgot about that; we didn't use it.** She takes them to the bedroom where they find an empty case. In the meantime, a few days have passed, and it becomes more likely that the data cannot be recovered.

[UndertheRadar]

"I forgot about that; we didn't use it" wouldn't pass the smell test when it was clear that the desk top computer had just been purchased a few months prior.

JMO.

[Laws]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


P'gal asked me an honest question about what I thought. I think the odds are exceptionally good that RFG removed it.

Why? Only two people should have known where it was, PEF and RFG.

If PEF removed it, why call it to LE's attention? "Forget" that it exists and let it lay in the Susquehanna. Maybe in few days or weeks LE will find out that the laptop exists. Then they'll ask PEF, who says, **I forgot about that; we didn't use it.** She takes them to the bedroom where they find an empty case. In the meantime, a few days have passed, and it becomes more likely that the data cannot be recovered.

1) doesn't want to look stupid
2) appearance of concern & cooperation
3) substantiation that she didn't know of Ray Gricar's movements - right I'll buy that along with the Brooklyn Bridge

[Laws]

Exactly, UTR. JJ doesn't get it as he doesn't want to get it. Why? We'll never know.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Laws
[B]

1) doesn't want to look stupid



Laws, I've said very early that, if this was murder, the killer was brilliant. If you are the murderer, you want to look stupid.


2) appearance of concern & cooperation


She **forgets,** or tells that to LE. On 4/17/05, PEF is obviously under a lot of stress. There is a disused computer tucked away in a closet. She could legitimately forget. How is LE going to know what she is thinking? Even Carla Baron doesn't claim to read minds.


3) substantiation that she didn't know of Ray Gricar's movements - right I'll buy that along with the Brooklyn Bridge

How is this "substantiation" of RFG's movements. Remember that according to JKA, LE is putting out requests to see if the laptop was in the office someplace.

It looks like you are attempting to sell the Brooklyn bridge and claiming that it's in the Texas Panhandle! :biggrin:

[J. J. in Phila]

I remembered reading this in JKA's "
"Paramour Pages."

First:

I recall last year at the one-year mark reading a news conference statement which contended as fact that the laptop was absolutely in Ray's home at all times prior to April 15, 2005 and wondering why, if that were the case, staff were being asked to search their work areas for it in the DA Office a week or two later.

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/partii:somecorequestions

Then:

I have a very limited recall of specific events during the first several weeks of the investigation and the order in which they occurred, as there was a great deal going on with both my cases and the approaching primary election in mid-May, 2005.

And then JKA goes on to say:

I can recall all of the office staff being asked to search their individual offices/work areas for Ray's laptop, because it could not be found at his house.

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

Now, even factoring out an admittedly poor memory of the events (more CPV, but understandable), it looks like LE didn't give the search for the laptop a hugely high priority in April 2005. They were checking the office 1-2 weeks later.

It, at the time, looked like a detail and doubt that any "smell test" (which I've found on other sites is usually a poster's way of saying, **Since I don't like it, it must be wrong.**) would detect it. It would be simply a question of strain and PEF **forgetting** that RFG had a laptop that he hadn't used for several months.

Ironically, if PEF hadn't said anything, the existence of the laptop may have been unknown until the staff was interviewed, about two weeks later, and possibly not even then.

If PEF was trying destroy the laptop, she was doing a very poor job of it.
:rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

No, JJ. The phrase "doesn't pass the smell test" means essentially that we're dealing with something so fishy or hinky that one whiff of it gives it away, as in this example:

Apparently, the only way anyone knew about the gambling was through the election fraud case. Just makes me wonder who was gambling then? Also, didn't somebody at the bank notice a ne-er do well with a balance unbecoming them?

This excuse just doesn't pass the smell test.

http://perseverando.blogspot.com/2006/05/please-define-everybody-updated.html

PF would NEVER get LE to believe she "forgot" there was a laptop when the desktop computer had only been purchased mere months before. Had it been years, maybe.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I am not talking about the definition, I am talking the usage. Almost always when someone says, "X doesn't past the smell test" what they are saying is "I don't like what X is, in spite of no evidence to the contrary, or nothing definitely wrong with it." It is the connotation, and I've seen it used again and again in that context, like right here.

In other words, it is a false standard, much like "verifiable evidence."

And, of course, in a stressful situation, like her SO going missing, PEF conceivably could forget (even legitimately) that there was a laptop that she hasn't seen used in months.

At worst, it could eventually raise LE's suspicions, in a few weeks when they realize RFG actually had a laptop. By that time, the laptop has been in the water for a few weeks; the data is destroyed. But it still becomes plausible that PEF would have legitimately forgotten.

There is no way to get into her mind to determine if she had legitimately forgotten or not.

Of course, none of that happened, since PEF volunteered the information.

So, I must repeat my answer to P'gal's question. I think the odds are exceptionally good that RFG removed it.

Now, that isn't, yes, absolutely RFG removed it. It is that, knowing what we know now, he is the most likely person to have removed it. I'd say above 70% likely.

[UndertheRadar]

First, JJ, I know exactly what I meant, both denotatively and connotatively, when I used the phrase, and it was as I described it, not as you did. You want to claim there's no way to "get inside" PF's mind. But you have a rather strange habit of frequently acting as if you can "get inside" various posters' minds, twisting what they have posted into something else entirely.

That said, I simply disagree with you, as clearly Laws does also, and believe that LE would find PF forgetting RG had a laptop which had been replaced by a desktop computer only a few short months prior to raise a red flag.

Where you come up with your 70% figure that RG is the one to have removed the computer is beyond all comprehension, an unknowable statistic pulled out of thin air. PF had every bit as much access to that computer as RG did, and the fact that she volunteered its existence to LE tells us nothing about whether or not she might have been the one to remove it.

In fact, hypothetically speaking, it would be the smartest thing to do if she WERE the one to have removed the laptop--volunteer its existence and then act surprised when it is not where she has told LE it was stored. Then she would have people like you arguing, "But she voluntarily told LE about the laptop . . ."

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, first, I don't go into posters mids, I observe what they post. I'm sure that annoys you. And I can assure you, I have not posted what I actually think posters are up, well some of them.

But as a matter of evidence, they can't. Would be suspicious if PEF said she forgot about? Would it be suspicious if JKA said she didn't remember who told her the car was in Lewisburg? The answer to both is yes.

Would that implicate either of them in a murder? No.

Yes actually her action do tell us some things. First, that there is a gigantic likelihood that the laptop was not in the house. The next line out of LE's mouth can very easily be, "Mind if we look?"

LE also did search within the week and may have come across it. Attempting to sneak the laptop out, with LE on the street (not to mention family being there) would be difficult.

A few months prior is the key along with an exceptionally stress filled weekend. TG forgot where he was when he had the call that the Mini was found, for example.

It's not that PEF told LE, it's that she voluntarily told them on 4/17/05. She could have easily **remembered** the laptop a few days into the investigation, like while LE was in the office looking at the office computer. There had to be some contact between her and the investigating officers that week.

About a 70% chance he took it, far from definite, however.

[Politigal]

The laptop would be extremely easy to hide, transport, and dispose of.

PF could have stashed it under her mattress til LE left.

She could simply have then walked it to the car (parked in the garage.)

She could then have taken it to Lewisburg at some point - maybe when she went to Milton to meet with the profiler or when she picked up the Mini.

She could have given it to an accomplice to dispose of.

101 Ways

[Politigal]

Where the hard drive was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15457344&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465816&rfi=6

It was found two weeks ago by a woman and her son who were skipping stones by the river near a railroad bridge. The drive was sitting in shallow water about 10 to 15 feet from shore, Zaccagni said.


Where the lap top was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14958115&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

The fishermen snagged the computer with a net after noticing it at the bottom of the Susquehanna River under a car bridge into Lewisburg, about 45 miles east of Gricar's home in Bellefonte.

Have the names of the woman & her son, and the fishermen, ever been published?

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal
Where the hard drive was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15457344&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465816&rfi=6

It was found two weeks ago by a woman and her son who were skipping stones by the river near a railroad bridge. The drive was sitting in shallow water about 10 to 15 feet from shore, Zaccagni said.


Where the lap top was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14958115&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

The fishermen snagged the computer with a net after noticing it at the bottom of the Susquehanna River under a car bridge into Lewisburg, about 45 miles east of Gricar's home in Bellefonte.

Have the names of the woman & her son, and the fishermen, ever been published?

Nope..Never..that my friend is top secret ;)

[Politigal]

Originally posted by day2day


Nope..Never..that my friend is top secret ;)

The lap top was reportedly found up against the bridge support and this article says it was found in 4 feet of water.

http://tinyurl.com/2nh4np


The article I posted in my previous post above said that the fishermen saw it and scooped it up with a net.

So, I'm assuming the water must have been extremely clear for the fishermen to have seen it.

[Politigal]

In this video, photos of the laptop are shown, and you'll note at 1:18 into the video, it shows the white plastic barcode label on the laptop that reflects:

Property of Centre County Commissioners
10345

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2005/08/02/obrien.missing.prosecutor.affl

I'm a little bit surprised that the label didn't come unglued, if it was truly in the water 3+ months.

I wonder if law enforcement have done any tests with another laptop and label, in water, to see if it does indeed adhere for that long.

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal


The lap top was reportedly found up against the bridge support and this article says it was found in 4 feet of water.

http://tinyurl.com/2nh4np


The article I posted in my previous post above said that the fishermen saw it and scooped it up with a net.

So, I'm assuming the water must have been extremely clear for the fishermen to have seen it.

Umm they have 20/20 vision?

I personally love this...

At most, the water in the search area was about 6 feet deep, in contrast to the swift, 8-foot-deep river that was searched in April, Lytle said. Also, when divers were in the river in the spring, they were on the Lewisburg side. Over the weekend, divers searched the Milton side of the river.

a fav of mine..:santa:

[Politigal]

Originally posted by day2day


Umm they have 20/20 vision?

I personally love this...



a fav of mine..:santa:

You'd be surprised though, even in shallow depths, what a strong current can be like.

I used to go canoeing on the Guadalupe River. The river has changed a lot over the years, but back in the 80's there was some serious white water there. It was a blast.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by gstickley


You'd have thought LE would have checked out the home computer on 04/16 like they did the office computer.

And, between the "worry" time of approx. 8:00 PM on 04/15 & the "remembering" on 04/17, you'd have thought she'd have checked the both computers herself.

Didn't they get the home computer the same day PF voluntarily offered up the laptop (which was found to be missing)?

[Cloudbuster]

My question is what made PF even think to offer up the laptop in the beginning when so much other things would be running in ones mind? I wouldn't have thought about the laptop so soon but thats me. I would have a hard time focusing from panic of where is he and my legs would be shaking like jelly. But perhaps she was already planning ahead on what to do about the situation at hand.

JMOO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by gstickley


According to JJ, it was on 04/17.

I would have ask the same thing though, knowing we had the county owned one and had used it before we got our own. And it might have been used more than the new one for office work. I also think if it had been me I would have wanted it back in the office since we didn't use it anymore, just so nothing did happen to it. But RG must have been using it at times to still keep it in the home and not in the office. Unless he didn't want anyone having access to anything he had on it and felt it was safer there for thay reason.

Other than PF, I wonder who else knew RG still used it? Did he take it to court with him? Did he have info coming in to his email, on cases he was working on that he didn't want going to the court house computer or fax machine? Something he didn't want others in the office to know about?

If the computer was missing could he have taken it with him on Thursday when he went to Huntingdon? It would really be nice to know who told DZ he was in Huntingdon, where exactly he was seen and was he alone?

[Politigal]

PF said they didn't use it any more.

And Tony previously posted this about it:

tonyGricar
Member
Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 350 quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Hbgchick
Anyplace I have worked, when they provide a laptop for business use they also provide you with a docking station in the office so that your laptop is also your desktop. In other words, you do not have two separate computers, a laptop and a desktop, you have one laptop that is used all of the time. Was this the case at the DA's office? Seems weird that he'd have a desktop and work and a laptop for home use, when he also had a home computer.

So if RG took JUST the laptop and not power cords, etc....could he have been planning to either a) go to the office or b) go somewhere that only the laptop would fit?
________________________________________


Ray had a desktop and a laptop. The desktop was his primary work computer. We've always been told that the laptop was primarlily for use at conferences, court, etc. The "Why?" of having two work computers might either be a phase-in issue or one of security, with my guess being a combination. Just about any government office I've ever seen has often been behind the times in terms of technology, with ramp-ups usually occurring when there's year-end budget left.

Your last question is one where I would have to go into some serious supposition with my thought that anything's possible. The fundamental thing that I can only really rely on is that his usage of the laptop was apparently a rare occurrence. Sure, he could have been taking it in to the office, but nothing seems to point to that, and if he's off that day, why go in? This is where all of the very loose details that we have to work with are quite frustrating to my family and investigators. We wish this were a case that is so easily wrapped up on shows such as C.S.I., Law & Order, and the like, but it seems to be a case where truth is stranger than fiction.

Tony
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-27-2006 11:05 AM

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


You'd have thought LE would have checked out the home computer on 04/16 like they did the office computer.

And, between the "worry" time of approx. 8:00 PM on 04/15 & the "remembering" on 04/17, you'd have thought she'd have checked the both computers herself.

According to JKA, they spent the first week looking at the office computer. My guess is that on 4/16, they were looking at e-mail, maybe a calendar.

I would assume that PEF would have access to the home computer and could do that.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
PF said they didn't use it any more.

And Tony previously posted this about it:



Actually, she said that he used it for conferences (I would take that to be like the DA association conferences).

My impression was that they didn't use it in the home for several months.

IITC, it was TG that gave the time that the laptop was requested and found to be missing.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
My question is what made PF even think to offer up the laptop in the beginning when so much other things would be running in ones mind? I wouldn't have thought about the laptop so soon but thats me. I would have a hard time focusing from panic of where is he and my legs would be shaking like jelly. But perhaps she was already planning ahead on what to do about the situation at hand.

JMOO

IIRC, TG said that LE was at the house to look at the desk top and asked if RFG had another computer; that's when PEF mentioned the laptop.

I'll let TG confirm my recall.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Actually, she said that he used it for conferences (I would take that to be like the DA association conferences).



Do you have the link for where she (PF) said that RG used it for conferences?

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, when you say, "I would assume that PEF would have access to the home computer and could do that," are you suggesting that LE would allow PF to go through the home computer looking for evidence?

Good grief. That would be on a par with Boulder Police letting John Ramsey search the home for JonBenet's body.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Do you have the link for where she (PF) said that RG used it for conferences?

It's in one of the articles, if not more than one, and possible on the CDT Forum as well. (It's been out there for a while and mentioned on the board.)

UTR, if the desktop is in the house, PEF obviously had access to it when she came back from work, when came back from the gym, all night and in the morning prior to LE showing up.

Provided that PEF can get into his account (which both might use), she, an LE can check to see if there in an undeleted message that says:

***Hi Ray,

Meet me at 2:00 PM in Lewisburg, XXX***

or that RFG sent out a message (that wasn't deleted from sent messages) that said:

***Hi XXX,

Meet me in Lewisburg at 2:00 PM, Ray***

Assuming that nothing was password protected, this would have been discovered without too much trouble, by both LE and PEF. That would have an important clue, in the morning of 4/16/05, to where RFG was.

Deleted copies would be recorded in the Internet provider's computer, which would take LE to access.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


It's in one of the articles, if not more than one, and possible on the CDT Forum as well. (It's been out there for a while and mentioned on the board.)

.

I'd still like to see a link to an archive or whatever. thx

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


I'd still like to see a link to an archive or whatever. thx

tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 350





Ray had a desktop and a laptop. The desktop was his primary work computer. We've always been told that the laptop was primarlily for use at conferences, court, etc. The "Why?" of having two work computers might either be a phase-in issue or one of security, with my guess being a combination. Just about any government office I've ever seen has often been behind the times in terms of technology, with ramp-ups usually occurring when there's year-end budget left.

Tony

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Old Post 07-27-2006 12:05 PM

You posted this yesterday on this thread, though I've edited it down. :rolleyes:

[day2day]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
JJ, when you say, "I would assume that PEF would have access to the home computer and could do that," are you suggesting that LE would allow PF to go through the home computer looking for evidence?

Good grief. That would be on a par with Boulder Police letting John Ramsey search the home for JonBenet's body.


Has to be post of the day, UTR!! Why wouldn't they allow her to search the computer? They allowed her to search the house?

And yep ..this is JUST like the Ramsey case, only MUCH worse -imo!

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Anytime from the "worry" hour of approx. 8:00 P.M. on 04/15 until whatever time LE arrived on 04/17 to check the home computer(s), (possibility of approx. 36 hrs.), PF didn't check the home computer for any "important clue" and think about checking the laptop??? And only remembering the laptop when LE arrives???
IMO, very strange.

Exactly...
She didn't leave the home to search..she didn't search the computer for clues.. WTH did she do all night? You betcha it is VERY strange...:read:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by day2day



Has to be post of the day, UTR!! Why wouldn't they allow her to search the computer? They allowed her to search the house?

And yep ..this is JUST like the Ramsey case, only MUCH worse -imo!

It just struck me as a totally strange implication from JJ, Day, and I don't think his answer really speaks to my question to him.

My understanding is that in general, LE won't even reveal investigative details to "inner circle" people (the ones where suspicion might fall) until they've taken a polygraph--much less allow them to do things like search a house or comb through computer files looking for clues. In this case, we've got PF searching the house, privy to details of the investigation, and not taking a poly for three months.

I can see LE coming to PF with questions they have from what THEY find on the computers, but not saying, "Hey, PF, why don't you sit down at the desktop and go through the emails for us, okay?"

[day2day]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


It just struck me as a totally strange implication from JJ, Day, and I don't think his answer really speaks to my question to him.

My understanding is that in general, LE won't even reveal investigative details to "inner circle" people (the ones where suspicion might fall) until they've taken a polygraph--much less allow them to do things like search a house or comb through computer files looking for clues. In this case, we've got PF searching the house, privy to details of the investigation, and not taking a poly for three months.

I can see LE coming to PF with questions they have from what THEY find on the computers, but not saying, "Hey, PF, why don't you sit down at the desktop and go through the emails for us, okay?"

Why would LE waste valuable time searching the computer when they have PF to do there job for them?

So not only is the "story" PF's..but the search of the home and computer is handled by PF...and to top it off the car is returned nearly immediately to PF..

No wonder this case hasn't been solved :(


JMO

:shrug:

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 350





Ray had a desktop and a laptop. The desktop was his primary work computer. We've always been told that the laptop was primarlily for use at conferences, court, etc. The "Why?" of having two work computers might either be a phase-in issue or one of security, with my guess being a combination. Just about any government office I've ever seen has often been behind the times in terms of technology, with ramp-ups usually occurring when there's year-end budget left.

Tony

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Old Post 07-27-2006 12:05 PM

You posted this yesterday on this thread, though I've edited it down. :rolleyes:

I see that you edited.....lol

You edited the part that said it was a rare occurrence....

:punch:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by day2day

No wonder this case hasn't been solved :(


Seems like one step toward solving it might be figuring out what kind of a case they're trying to solve, and we haven't even seen that yet.

As a side note, it was interesting to me that in the Song case, investigators decided they were most likely looking at a case of foul play pretty early on--even though a number of Cindy's friends said she had been depressed, even though Cindy had recently broken up with a boyfriend, and even though college students are much more likely to simply take off without telling anyone than are middle-aged District Attorneys purportedly in (according to some here) "perfect" relationships.

[day2day]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Seems like one step toward solving it might be figuring out what kind of a case they're trying to solve, and we haven't even seen that yet.

As a side note, it was interesting to me that in the Song case, investigators decided they were most likely looking at a case of foul play pretty early on--even though a number of Cindy's friends said she had been depressed, even though Cindy had recently broken up with a boyfriend, and even though college students are much more likely to simply take off without telling anyone than are middle-aged District Attorneys purportedly in (according to some here) "perfect" relationships.

You are right again UTR. Certainly after 2+ years of "investigating" LE should be able to at least narrow it down a bit?!..

And i really don't see how anyone could claim to be in a "perfect relationship" if half of the couple is depressed. Certainly when a person is "depressed" they aren't themselves...

I really believe that IF this case is ever going to be solved it needs LOTS of help....and a few fresh set of eyes.

jmo...as usual

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by day2day


You are right again UTR. Certainly after 2+ years of "investigating" LE should be able to at least narrow it down a bit?!..

And i really don't see how anyone could claim to be in a "perfect relationship" if half of the couple is depressed. Certainly when a person is "depressed" they aren't themselves...

I really believe that IF this case is ever going to be solved it needs LOTS of help....and a few fresh set of eyes.

jmo...as usual

Two people can be in a perfect relationship and one of them could become ill. Depression is a disease/illness, not something caused by a poor relationship. When that person becomes ill, they don't always know they are ill, are acting out of character. Most people don't know all the things that go wrong in your body that are signs of depression.

RG could have thought he was just overworked, tired and had insomnia. By themselves they don't always mean depression. Even together they don't always mean it. But a doctor could have diagnosed him if he had gone to the doctor as PF wanted.
What is so sad, is that RG went through knowing his brother had been sick and what happened to him. Was he afraid of what he would hear? Didn't he know there are medications to help, or was he afraid of how he was going to change, even if on medicine? Some people can not share that with anyone, even in a perfect relationship. It is sharing a deep fear of a horrible illness. One that can change a life drastically.

But even ill with depression a perfect relaionship can go on. It is that relationship that helps the person with the illness, gets the mrds they need to live their life. It is just too bad he couldn't have listened to PF when she was concerned for him and wanted him to see a doctor. JMO

[day2day]

Here are 13 signs of depression in men..out of 13 signs Mr. Gricar may have presented (that we are aware of) 2.

Signs of Depression to look for in men:

Acting depressed, irritable or angry almost every day

Losing interest in pleasurable activities or hobbies

Talking of death or suicide*

Talking very negatively

Acting unreasonably, without concern for others

Abusing alcohol or drugs

Picking fights, being irritable, critical, or mean

Withdrawing from family and friends

Having trouble at work or school

Talking suddenly about separation or divorce

Complaining of aches and pains

Eating too little or too much

Sleeping too much or too little


***Talking suddenly about seperation or divorce***~I have a hard time understanding how the perfect couple discusses separation or divorce..:shrug: (or i would hope they wouldn't)..

http://www.caregiver.com/articles/print/depressed_husbands.htm

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by day2day
Here are 13 signs of depression in men..out of 13 signs Mr. Gricar may have presented (that we are aware of) 2.

Signs of Depression to look for in men:

Acting depressed, irritable or angry almost every day

Losing interest in pleasurable activities or hobbies

Talking of death or suicide*

Talking very negatively

Acting unreasonably, without concern for others

Abusing alcohol or drugs

Picking fights, being irritable, critical, or mean

Withdrawing from family and friends

Having trouble at work or school

Talking suddenly about separation or divorce

Complaining of aches and pains

Eating too little or too much

Sleeping too much or too little


***Talking suddenly about seperation or divorce***~I have a hard time understanding how the perfect couple discusses separation or divorce..:shrug: (or i would hope they wouldn't)..

http://www.caregiver.com/articles/print/depressed_husbands.htm

Good post, Day. I have no clue where SJ gets the "insomnia" she mentions, because I've never heard that Gricar suffered from insomnia, only that he was taking a few more naps than previously. If we look at the week before his disappearance, he obviously worked full days Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Thursday, he attended the prison board meeting early in the morning, then apparently (though not confirmed) drove to another county either for business or pleasure; returned to the courthouse for part of the afternoon (per KA); walked in the park; then worked till after 9 p.m. in his office. Friday, he didn't go to work, but he had the motivation to get in the car and go out for a pleasure drive (per PF).

He was approaching 60 and living a pretty full life. A few extra naps could most easily have signaled something physical--or just normal exhaustion--since it's in no way apparent from details we have that he suffered from other classic signs of depression. The people I've known who have been diagnosed with clinical depression could never have kept up with Gricar's schedule, that's for certain, and they wouldn't have been reported to be "looking forward" to retirement, travel, etc.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by logicworks

Judging from SPM statement, I don't see RG as 'contemplating'
nor 'expecting' anything serious to happen. He's discussing an upcoming case; he's joking; whatever it was that was bothering him, didn't 'color' his every waking moment in every situation he was in.

In the Song case, despite reports that Cindy had been depressed over a break up with a boyfriend, investigators quickly ruled out suicide based on the fact that she had registered for classes the following semester and ordered parts for her computer. Do we not have parallels here in the Gricar case, with preparations for SPM's case, retirement plans, travel plans in the works (and no specific incident like a break up to point to as a cause for depression)?


Out of all of those places, there is only one where someone in the public sector could not have seen it happen.
JMO

Agreed.

[tiredoftheguff]

Please do tell...where would that be?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
Please do tell...where would that be?

the home

IMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Anytime from the "worry" hour of approx. 8:00 P.M. on 04/15 until whatever time LE arrived on 04/17 to check the home computer(s), (possibility of approx. 36 hrs.), PF didn't check the home computer for any "important clue" and think about checking the laptop??? And only remembering the laptop when LE arrives???
IMO, very strange.

You are forgetting, conveniently, that PEF isn't looking for "clues." If RFG handles email like I do, it could go into one of several dozen folders.

Likewise, LE, being professional, might see something PEF wouldn't.

Not strange, and I'd expect LE to check those things first.

[UndertheRadar]

According to TG, Gricar was not a "technophile," so it's doubtful he had several dozen folders for email or even more than two email accounts, likely only a personal email account with the home ISP and a work account. I believe, JJ, you have suggested in the past PF would have had access to Gricar's email (in your suggestions that she could have "forged" an absence note from his email account), so using your theory that she could access his email, she could apparently have checked to see whether any email headers showed evidence of a Friday afternoon meeting or something ominous that might have been a clue.

NOT that I'm suggesting she should have gone snooping through his email. You were the one who suggested she had the password and could get into his email account.

Likewise, she could have checked his browsing history for any clues, one would suppose.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks

Obviously if he was joking around with SPM the day before he supposedly went and jumped off a bridge to end it all,
it was the quickest suicidal swing I have ever heard of. Are we to believe it was a last minute idea, thus no time for a suicide note?


Roy Gricar said he was going out to pick up his some and buy some mulch; apparently, nothing looked too wrong.



Judging from SPM statement, I don't see RG as 'contemplating'
nor 'expecting' anything serious to happen. He's discussing an upcoming case; he's joking; whatever it was that was bothering him, didn't 'color' his every waking moment in every situation he was in. It would appear whatever was irritating him had to have been a problem he thought he could handle or he would have been overworried about it and it would have been evidenced by someone other than the SO. Judging from the previous day's behavior with SPM, it appears that whatever happened had to have been a surprise. It had to have been a reaction he wasn't counting on happening.



Yet judging from JKA's description, and those of the staff that have trickled out, there was a problem.


We haven't heard any reports of a kidnapping on route 192, or even a sighting on route 192 for that matter, where SO says he was driving at time of last call.


But we do have both evidence and witnesses that he did drive the Mini to Lewisburg.


We are told he's in bed; he's driving down a highway that had to be busy opening of parks, fishing season opening next day, and tax day; he's in a park; he's in a parking lot; he's in an antique center; and he's gone from one of those places.......but no one sees him disappear.


To "see him disappear, " a bit of an oxymoron, you need witnesses; we have some.


We are told he is seen in all of those places so where did he disappear from that no one saw it happen without a struggle. Out of all of those places, there is only one where someone in the public sector could not have seen it happen.


You've made a couple of very poor assumptions.

1. That he could not leave on his own, with no one else.

2. That he would find the need to struggle at that point. If RFG gets into a car with someone he trusts, there is no struggle needed.

3. That if forced into some vehicle, that he would be able to struggle. Two armed people holding him and walking him to a car would do it.

Pretty woolly logic suggesting the home.

[UndertheRadar]

Talk about woolly logic. Roy Gricar, from what TG has revealed to us, was a bi-polar patient having difficulties with his medications at the time of his disappearance. I forget the exact specifics, whether he had gone off the medications or whether the medications were being changed/adjusted, but I distinctly remember having a conversation with TG about this subject.

The point being: to say "apparently, nothing looked too wrong" in Roy's case isn't exactly the truth. There was a lot more going on than a man who had taken a few extra naps and who was distraught about something for a week or two prior to his disappearance.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, on my e-mail provider, I have to click a folder icon and click the line that says, "Create Folder." It takes less technical skill to create and/or put something into a folder that it does to send an e-mail. It certainly takes less skill than downloading a phot from a digital camera, which I think RFG could do.

I think I created my first folder about a day after I got my Internet connection.

I also have never seen the comment that RFG couldn't have multiple accounts. I did find this:

tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 350




Yes, Ray was known to have one personal email account. This account was checked, but as usual, it went nowhere in terms of anything usable. From personal experience, if Ray had more than one account, discovering it would be almost impossible. Nothing pointed to his ownership of another account, either via temp files, cookies, etc. With my various business accounts, personal accounts, spam accounts (for registering on sites, retail or otherwise), etc, I probably have 12 email accounts or so. Since I take computer security very seriously, even my own laptop wouldn't allow someone to likely discover more than the obvious business or known personal accounts. If I were to have disappeared, there might be 5 or 6 accounts that disappear into the ether. Remember, with Yahoo, Hotmail, etc, there's nothing that needs to be given to prove an actual identity, and without a static IP address, it reduces discovery significantly.

Tony



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-26-2006 11:31 PM

That kinda indicates that RFG had at least the ability to use multiple accounts.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, nothing in TG's post points to RG's technical skill; it merely says what we all know, which is that someone can create a throwaway account with something like hotmail and that's harder to trace.

But that wasn't GS's point, anyway. Her point was that checking what was easily available on the computer might have been one more PRODUCTIVE thing to do, like call friends, call hospitals, etc.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


That kinda indicated that TG had the ability to use multiple accounts. It doesn't indicate that RG had that ability. It says he had one known personal account.

Exactly. Luckily, you can read.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, here is what TG said regarding his father's death:


tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 350

It's unsettling that you are relying upon innaccurate, and oft corrected, reporting. I've repeated the following on more than one occassion. A lazy journalist reported that Roy went to buy mulch and subsequently disappeared. Had that "journalist" done their job correctly by simply paying the 3 bucks to read the full article from the Dayton Daily News, and not the excerpt which ended with the word "mulch", they would have known that he was going to buy mulch AND THEN go pick up my youngest brother from his friend's house. It took my 8 yr old brother's call to his Mom asking why Dad hasn't picked him up yet to raise the red flag. So, within the space of minutes, something drastically went wrong.

So... Yes, he left the house telling my step-mother that he was going to pick up mulch at a local gas station and then retrieve my brother.

I reviewed, along with LE, the station's security tapes. He never made it there. All of these events should have taken no longer than a half-hour. Two or three days later they found his car 30some miles away. Days after that, his body.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Old Post 09-04-2007 10:34 PM

[Emphasis added]

Someone planning commit suicide could seem okay in an e-mail, or in a conversation with a loved one, and kill themselves.

You certainly cannot rule it out.

[UndertheRadar]

To raise the red flag that Roy was not where he had said he was going to be . . .

But THAT is not the post I was talking about, JJ.

TG and I had a conversation some time ago about bi-polar disease and medications and Roy's particular situation.
His trip to pick up his son and to buy mulch which led to his disappearance and death did not occur in a vacuum. A diagnosed problem with a specific mental health issue, complicated by issues surrounding the medications for that disease, existed in Roy's case.

They did not exist in Ray's.

[J. J. in Phila]

My understanding was that they took the desktop on 4/17/05. Not checked it, took it.

Originally posted by gstickley
[B]

The "clues" I was talking about were "clues" as to where RG might be; you know, like checking the computer & laptop for "clues" when he wasn't home at the "worry hour".


PEF might have checked between 4:45 and 11:00, but it would be unlikely to be from RFG, who didn't have a Wi-fi connection.

She was looking for a note


In this case, I belive PF might see "something" that maybe LE wouldn't, since he was her "soulmate" & she would probably have been more aware of his habits than LE.


Those habits apparently don't include leaving a not on the computer. If there was that "something" LE can turn to her and ask.


Very strange. I'd expect PF to check those things first if worried enough to contact LE on 04/15.


Yes, your questions are very strange. I would expect it to be very strange for PEF to expect an e-mail from RFG, when he doesn't have a Wi-Fi connection and he obviously isn't around his computer.

The only thing would a message like "Meet me at _____," bit there wasn't.


What exactly was she doing between the "worry hour" & the time LE was contacted? 3 hrs. there. Enough time to call friends, hospitals, neighbors, the courthouse, places he might be, his daughter, to see if anyone had seen or heard anything about him; time enough to check out the computer & the laptop to see if there were any "clues" as to where he might have been going or whether he'd been in contact with anyone; you know, the things a worried SO would do if her "soulmate" was missing, the things that a worried SO would do prior to contacting LE . . .

Let's see, you want PEF to call the Courthouse where the call cannot be placed. You want her to call his daughter in case he hopped on an plane, or drove about 2,500 in twelve hours. You want her to call hospitals, not knowing where any medical problem occurred, but also knowing that both his ID and the car would lead anyone to her address.

Or, she can call an item that he usually carried and, even if turned off, where she can leave a message. And when that fails, she calls the BPD.

Which of these things is a bit more rational?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


I'd like to know why and at what point RG's "napping more" evolved into "planning to commit suicide". At what point did the "napping more" turn into "depression", thus the famous "suicide theory".




I didn't. Please try to comprehend. I said that RFG had some of the symptoms of depression, which includes sleeping more.

JKA noted that RFG was "distraught," her word, not mine.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you claim that a medical condition, depression in this case, did not "exist." That statement is false.

The was no "diagnosed" medical condition. Medical conditions do exist prior to a doctor diagnosing them. Neither you nor I (nor TG) can say that there wasn't a medical condition, though not diagnosed.

Now, I certainly agree that there has been no diagnosed medical condition reported. There are some symptoms, however, that are consistent with depression, though not limited to depression. It makes it a possibility, though far from a certainty.

You have also claimed that because RFG was not a "technophile," that he couldn't have multiple e-mail accounts. TG at least considers the possibility; that indicates that possibly, though again not a certainty, that RFG was advanced enough to have multiple e-mail accounts.

Both of those things are possibilities.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


1. One might have thought an "investigator" would have taken the computer on 04/16; why did it suddenly become "evidence" on 04/17?



The car was found later on 4/16/05, with no RFG. You might be wondering if he is meeting someone (like for lunch) and that would give a key to where he was driving. After the car was found, you are looking for other things.


2 She could have checked the "history" to see what RG might have been looking at on the computer. She could have checked his e-mail. Either might have given a "clue".


I though you claimed you didn't know how to do things on the computer? ;)

My history only goes back a few spaces on what I search; I'm not sure that it remains once the computer is turned off.

As for e-mail, unless it's sitting in the "in box," she might have a problem finding it. I really could see her checking the in-box, but if there was nothing there, there is nothing there.


3. According to KA, calls could go into the courthouse after hours; if no one answered the phone, the call went to voice mail or answering machine (I forget which), but the fact remains that calls could have gone into the DA's office. Who knows, RG might have gone to the office. LG could have been called to see if she'd heard anything from RG that day since "he was late getting home". Hospitals could have been called to see if anyone (RG) had been brought in from accident; after all there aren't that many hospitals in the area. Friends could have been called to see if they'd heard from him. Might have been a little more PRODUCTIVE than calling a cell phone & leaving dozens of messages.


According to here there is a trunk line and according the CDT (both previously cited) there is the switchboard. Ah, please cite wher JKA says that the answering machine is in the office and that RFG could hear the phone ring in his office.


4. Frankly, I don't see anything that was done or undone as being a rational action when a "soulmate" was missing (or just late getting home) prior to calling LE.

A rational person would contact LE instead of flailing around, trying to do it on her own. A rational person, especially one with an LE background, would realize that LE's resources are vastly superior to her own. (I wish I had LE's resources in looking at this case.)

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, WHEN are you going to learn to read? If you are going to "attempt" to refute my posts, don't twist them and pretend I said something other than what I really said.

DON'T assert that I claimed a medical condition did not exist and try to refute it by saying an undiagnosed condition might have existed when what I said was

A diagnosed problem with a specific mental health issue, complicated by issues surrounding the medications for that disease, existed in Roy's case.

They did not exist in Ray's.

DON'T assert that I claimed because Ray was not a technophile, he could not have had multiple email accounts when what I said was

According to TG, Gricar was not a "technophile," so it's doubtful he had several dozen folders for email or even more than two email accounts, likely only a personal email account with the home ISP and a work account.

Many of us are plain sick and tired of having our posts twisted by you. It's funny how you blame your opposition for posters who won't post on these boards but never stop to think about the role YOU play in that. How many people don't want to have their words twisted, their posts misread, and their ideas misrepresented every time they post?

[UndertheRadar]

Just one other note I can't resist. I find it incredibly ironic that JJ, the technophile who claims it should be so easy for non-technophile Ray Gricar to do so many things on the computer (load and use Streets and Trips, transfer all his photos to a flash drive, create multiple folders in his email, set up multiple email accounts and hide them, etc., etc.)--that same JJ claims he can only find his browsing history "a few spaces back" for his searches.

LOL.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Just one other note I can't resist. I find it incredibly ironic that JJ, the technophile who claims it should be so easy for non-technophile Ray Gricar to do so many things on the computer (load and use Streets and Trips, transfer all his photos to a flash drive, create multiple folders in his email, set up multiple email accounts and hide them, etc., etc.)--that same JJ claims he can only find his browsing history "a few spaces back" for his searches.

LOL.

:hat:

[day2day]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Just one other note I can't resist. I find it incredibly ironic that JJ, the technophile who claims it should be so easy for non-technophile Ray Gricar to do so many things on the computer (load and use Streets and Trips, transfer all his photos to a flash drive, create multiple folders in his email, set up multiple email accounts and hide them, etc., etc.)--that same JJ claims he can only find his browsing history "a few spaces back" for his searches.

LOL.

go figure!:candy:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley

Quote from KA's Magnificent Manuscript: (please note that it says "outside calls to the DA's office")

(snip)

" . . . but in April of 2005, all outside calls to the DA's Office came into one of 2 or 3 general office lines, trunk lines I suppose they are called, where if the main DA number is busy the second incoming call flips over to the next line. At the time, there was no voice mail, though an answering machine was provided for calls which came in when the office was not open."

(snip)

Try here:

Police cannot obtain a list of incoming calls specifically to Ray Gricar's office because of the trunked line and the switchboard. They have obtained a list of outgoing long-distance calls from his office in the days before his disappearance, but nothig out of the ordinary was found. Police were able to obtain and review incoming and outgoing calls on his county-issued cell phone, but again found nothing of interest. They also looked at the outgoing long-distance calls made from his home phone and, yet again, found nothing of interest.
Erin Nissley 10/13/05

This has been noted repeatedly.

Now, JKA's "Pitiful Paramour Pages," don't tell us:

1. How the calls are transferred to the DA's office.

2. Where the answering machine is located (which might not be in the office).

3. If, after hours the phone rings in the DA's office.

4. If, because RFG had a cell phone, he'd be likely to pick up after hours (anyone who really needed to call him after hours had his cell phone).

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, if you are claiming that you agree that a medical conditioncan exist, without being diagnosed, I agree.

We cannot know if there was an undiagnosed medical condition or not; hopefully, that is obvious.

I take then you agree that RFG could have been suffering from a health problem that was undiagnosed? Correct?

You would then agree that RFG could have been suffering from a mental health problem that was undiagnosed? Correct?

You would then agree that RFG could have been suffering from depression that was undiagnosed? Correct?

Now, I'll be first to say that RFG could have been in perfect health on 4/15/05. (The lack of a diagnosed health problem is one of the reasons that I give suicide a lower probability than the other two options.)

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, anybody anywhere can be suffering from any undiagnosed medical condition, mental or physical. Duh.

But we have been through all this before.

Long ago, I posted criteria used to diagnose depression, with a 2 from column A, 3 from column B approach. If Gricar had nothing else going on beyond the details we are aware of, he didn't even make it past column A.

You've already seen in a recent post of mine to Tony that I don't rule out suicide entirely, but I think it is so minimal that it hardly justifies investigative time at this point. I fully believe the investigation should concentrate on foul play.

That is, as I have said before, precisely the way the Song investigators proceeded, even in the face of Song's friends saying she had been depressed over the recent break-up with a boyfriend. There is no similar testimony that Gricar had been DEPRESSED, only agitated, distraught, napping more from SOME people. OTHERS reported noticing no problems, including his daughter, and some reported him being upbeat, including SPM, who said he was joking around.

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Okay, JJ, have it your way. Which is, I believe you must be saying , one telephone for the entire Centre County Courthouse in 2005. When someone needs to call the DA's office, or any other office within the courthouse, after hours, they dial that particular number or maybe there's only one telephone number for the entire courthouse. However, when someone calls that number, Little Miss Hortense Hootenanny, wearing her black, hornrimmed, bifocal glasses, while sitting in a windowless room in the basement of the courthouse, hears the one & only telephone ring, the only one telephone for the entire Centre County Courthouse in 2005 to be answered after hours. She answers said one & only telephone, has a hard time hearing because her hearing aid isn't too good, but sees a light flashing & knows exactly which office the caller wants. She answers the ringing/red light blinking telephone, then transfers the call to the DA's Office, where the call is picked up on an answering machine located in a closet in the bathroom on the first floor. The following morning, all the various receptionists for the various offices within the courthouses rush to the closet in the bathroom to check the answering machine to see if a call has been received for their respective office.

I'm so sorry to hear that Centre County, PA, was so far behind times in the year 2005. In my county, the DA's office is also located within the county courthouse. I know for a fact that even here in the boondocks a call to the DA's office any time of day or night went directly to the DA's office; a call to the Co. Clerk's office, any time of day or night, went directly to the Clerk's office; in fact, any call made to any of the various offices within the courthouse, day or night, went directly to that office. Had there been anyone in the office after hours, the telephone could have been answered. While I don't know if any of the offices had an answering machine, I know this to be the telephone system---in 1972---and for who knows how many years prior to that.


:lol: :lol: Little Miss Hortense Hootenanny

Cha-ching!!

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by day2day

:lol: :lol: Little Miss Hortense Hootenanny

Cha-ching!! Shades of Lily Tomlin on SNL as a switchboard operator! MOO :lol:

[day2day]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Shades of Lily Tomlin on SNL as a switchboard operator! MOO :lol:

:santa: :lol:

One ringy dingy..(i hope that is right)

[J. J. in Phila]

Well without the snide comment, it seems that there was a switchboard where the calls would come in. I'm also aware that this was the practice in the Westoreland County Courthouse into the early 1990's (I have not called since then). I could not call directly into the election bureau, for example.

When the office was closed, calls were transferred to the general dispatcher for 911. Now, if it wasn't an emergency, they'd tell you to call back during office hours. Westmoreland is a suburban Pittsburgh County, with about 2.5 times the population of Centre County.

Now, would you care to volunteer how much you know about the Centre County Courthouse in 2005 or where the answering machine is located?

[UndertheRadar]

On the subject of switchboards at the Centre County courthouse, JJ, I would suggest you do further research.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you are free to post a link that differs with EN quoted statement. You've been free to do that since last year, when I first mentioned it.

You are also free to tell us where the answering machine in the DA's office was 4/15/05? Please post a link.

The only thing that I've seen, so far, is that LE can't even tell what long distance call, where there clearly is a record, cannot be matched to the DA's office, and that a call coming into the DA's office had to be transferred to the individual recipient.

[UndertheRadar]

You are free to do the research, JJ.

Not everything is on the internet.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


This is what I know about telephone lines in the Centre County Courthouse.

I'm not sure what another county's telephone system in the 1990's, would have to do with Center County in 2005, but you go ahead and twist & turn and misdirect all you want.

Well, I am familiar with larger county practices and with what the press, and the "pitiful paramour pages" say. The rest of this seems to be twisting from your part. Now, if you have real information that says differently, post it.

I believe EN more than I believe you.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dam* what you think or what you believe.

I've posted KA's statements reference the telephone system in the DA's office several times. Apparently, you haven't still read them. That's what I know about the Centre Co. Courthouse DA's Office telephone system. Lynch away!

Oh, I have read them. If I missed it please tell me where the answering machine is located. The Courthouse, IIRC, and I was in it once, is a rather large building. That must be a really loud ring to cover the entire building.

Please also explain the switchboard reference from EN.


You statements are not good enough; perhaps you can have "JKA" update her "pitiful paramour pages."

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Is there are any posters out there, other than Mr. RIM, who doesn't understand the numerous posts in which I've quoted KA's knowledge of the telephone system in the DA's office at the courthouse?

2005, one huge courthouse, with numerous offices, one telephone line into the building . . . it's getting a little tiresome here in Green Acres.

Oh, I agree. Your posts are quite tiresome, Bsitckley.

I wonder if JKA ever heard of private branch exchanges? Or if she's ever had to call a main number and get the call routed? Or had to dial "9" to get an outside line? :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

I found a photo of the man who manages the Centre County gov't website, and who is also in charge of records management at the Willowbank building here:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/11/11-03-04tdc/11-03-04dnews-fphoto-04.asp

I was curious if he's working on the same kind of laptop as RG's.

[J. J. in Phila]

TG noted that "lodged" was a bit editorial license.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
TG noted that "lodged" was a bit editorial license.

It was said the laptop and hard drive were found in separate areas of the Susquehanna River. One being upstream and the other downstream. Which we all know is impossible.

I went to the MapQuest site looking at the area above the SOS. I know from being down there a couple times there was a creek or bigger, going into the Susquehanna, near Huffnagle Park. There is a bridge on ST Anthony St, that changes to River Rd just after the bridge. I don't know how deep ar fast the water is there but in the spring it would be higher than normal. What if RG jumped there and he was holding the 2 parts? One piece could have dropped first and the other at a later time. Was that section checked by LE? Was Hufnagle Park checked?

[Politigal]

Thinking more about the laptop....

1) I have difficulty believing that it was tossed from the bridge from a vehicle - even though possible - Because, whoever tossed it would not know if there was a boat or fishermen under the bridge, or people standing on the bank, because that would not have been visible to them in a vehicle. I think tossing it from a car is a long shot.

2) If the lap was tossed from the walkway side of the bridge by someone on foot, that would also have been very visible to anyone in the water or on the banks, or on the walkway during daylight hours. And if it was tossed from the walkway side, that means the lap top was carried a little bit by the current to the opposite side where it lodged against the bridge support there. So, if it was tossed from the walkway side, it most likely would have occurred at night.

3) The laptop could easily have been placed under the bridge via a canoe or kayak in daylight or nighttime hours IMO.

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal
Thinking more about the laptop....



3) The laptop could easily have been placed under the bridge via a canoe or kayak in daylight or nighttime hours IMO.

That makes sense to me Pgal....

I think the laptop and hard drive was offered to the river much later than 4/15/05...

jmo...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Thinking more about the laptop....

1) I have difficulty believing that it was tossed from the bridge from a vehicle - even though possible - Because, whoever tossed it would not know if there was a boat or fishermen under the bridge, or people standing on the bank, because that would not have been visible to them in a vehicle. I think tossing it from a car is a long shot.



If done on 4/15/05, no fishermen, and the river was fairly high, so no one standing under the bridge. Likewise, because of the water was fairly swift, so boating is not too likely.

It was also far enough from the bank, that someone would, at best, get a fleeting glimpse and could easily assume it was trash.

Also, a night time drop at any time for the next month or so would be possible.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


If done on 4/15/05, no fishermen, and the river was fairly high, so no one standing under the bridge. Likewise, because of the water was fairly swift, so boating is not too likely.

It was also far enough from the bank, that someone would, at best, get a fleeting glimpse and could easily assume it was trash.

Also, a night time drop at any time for the next month or so would be possible.

why just "the next month or so" ?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


why just "the next month or so" ?

The laptop was found in late July.

It seems clear that it had not been dropped in in the last few days. There was too much damage to it. It seems to have exposed to water for at least a month (late June, at the latest). Over the next month or sowould have been the time frame that it would have had to have been placed in the water. Granted, "or so" could be early June as well.

Also, it makes little sense to hang onto a peace of evidence for several months.

[Politigal]

JJ made an extremely important point earlier in this thread...

Presumably, only two people knew where the laptop was kept in the home

Patty and Ray

*One* of them had to have taken the laptop out of the closet

50/50

I don't know how long the laptop would hold a charge, and we know the charger, case, etc were not taken with the laptop, but.....

if Gricar left the home around 9:30 am, as Tony has speculated, and if Gricar made the call around 11:30 am that he was heading east on 192 - toward Lewisburg - that means he was still almost an hour away or at the very least - approx 47 minutes - from Lewisburg (per mapquest)

How useful would the laptop have been by the time he reached Lewisburg, assuming he probably had to charge it before he left?

Or was a "dead" laptop simply thrown in the river?

Or did someone else throw it in the river?

Either way...

either Gricar or Patty took that laptop from the upstairs closet at the home


IMO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal
JJ made an extremely important point earlier in this thread...

Presumably, only two people knew where the laptop was kept in the home

Patty and Ray

*One* of them had to have taken the laptop out of the closet

50/50

I don't know how long the laptop would hold a charge, and we know the charger, case, etc were not taken with the laptop, but.....

if Gricar left the home around 9:30 am, as Tony has speculated, and if Gricar made the call around 11:30 am that he was heading east on 192 - toward Lewisburg - that means he was still almost an hour away or at the very least - approx 47 minutes - from Lewisburg (per mapquest)

How useful would the laptop have been by the time he reached Lewisburg, assuming he probably had to charge it before he left?

Or was a "dead" laptop simply thrown in the river?

Or did someone else throw it in the river?

Either way...

either Gricar or Patty took that laptop from the upstairs closet at the home


IMO [/*]

If he took the laptop and it wasn't in use during that 47 min. it wouldn't be dead yet would it? Did he have to charge it every time he took it from the closet? Once charged how long do they hold a charge if stored in a closet? Wouldn't he keep it charged regularly if he used it for meetings and re-charge it when putting it away?

And no one knows RG was going East when that call was made, only that he was on Rt 192 in a certain cell tower when call was made. It is still questionable where he went after that phone call and if any other route had been taken after going so far on Rt 192. There were a couple roads he could have taken to get to I-80. Or Rt 45.

TG did RG have a car manual that he would have kept a record of mileage, gas records, inspections, oil changes, etc? Being a DA did he file taxes using gas and mileage records for deductions?

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Politigal
if Gricar left the home around 9:30 am, as Tony has speculated,

Either way...

either Gricar or Patty took that laptop from the upstairs closet at the home


IMO [/*]Actually, I never speculated on that flip-side scenario until you became adamant that Ray must have left at the apparent exact time it would take to most easily arrive at the cell tower. Btw, neither scenario was based on a single piece of evidence. You posted your view, and I simply questioned your rationale with a different view. I think I made that clear, unless of course that view was deleted by CW.

And your "either way, Gricar or Patty took that laptop" is as amusing as your other "facts". I'm not sold on any scenario, and especially as the laptop could/would relate to his disappearance, but I still have to call a spade a spade and question how you can table that as somewhat factual ( I did find the "imo" later, so I hate to say you tabled it as factual). My own thought, even though you didn't ask... Ray removed the laptop from their home. Why? Such the rub it is.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


If he took the laptop and it wasn't in use during that 47 min. it wouldn't be dead yet would it? Did he have to charge it every time he took it from the closet? Once charged how long do they hold a charge if stored in a closet? Wouldn't he keep it charged regularly if he used it for meetings and re-charge it when putting it away?

And no one knows RG was going East when that call was made, only that he was on Rt 192 in a certain cell tower when call was made. It is still questionable where he went after that phone call and if any other route had been taken after going so far on Rt 192. There were a couple roads he could have taken to get to I-80. Or Rt 45.

TG did RG have a car manual that he would have kept a record of mileage, gas records, inspections, oil changes, etc? Being a DA did he file taxes using gas and mileage records for deductions? [/*]Many good questions, SJ.

Contrary to some opinions, if the laptop had previously been charged, there should have been little problem with using it, 47min or not. Now, were it run down on the previous use, that changes everything. Typical unknown with this case.

Correct, we don't know his direction. There are two main routes to get to Lewisburg.

If Ray was as much like my Father as I think, he likely kept a mileage/maint log. To confirm, I'll follow up with those better in the know. Lord, my Dad was annoyingly fastidious when it came to mileage and maintenace. I can still picture him pulling out the spiral notebook from the glovebox...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Jmade an extremely important point earlier in this thread...

Presumably, only two people knew where the laptop was kept in the home

Patty and Ray

*One* of them had to have taken the laptop out of the closet

50/50


It's a bit less than 50% each. It's possible that one or both told someone of the location.

One poster mentioned a concept to me privately. The is the possibility of a "Porn Buddy." I want to be clear that I am not implying RFG (or PEF) had pornography on the laptop. It's possibly that RFG had arranged with a friend to destroy the laptop because it had something personal on it, I think it is unlikely in this circumstance, but it is possible,


I don't know how long the laptop would hold a charge, and we know the charger, case, etc were not taken with the laptop, but.....


I think it has been established that the battery could hold a charge for weeks if not months. In any event, it could have charged on the morning of 4/15 or on 4/14.


if Gricar left the home around 9:30 am, as Tony has speculated, and if Gricar made the call around 11:30 am that he was heading east on 192 - toward Lewisburg - that means he was still almost an hour away or at the very least - approx 47 minutes - from Lewisburg (per mapquest)


Your timing is off. The call could have been about a half hour before arriving in Lewisburg. We also don't know where RFG as before making the call and if he went to Lewisburg after making the call.


How useful would the laptop have been by the time he reached Lewisburg, assuming he probably had to charge it before he left?


Probably, it would have been usable for about 4 hours.



Or was a "dead" laptop simply thrown in the river?

Or did someone else throw it in the river?

Either way...

either Gricar or Patty took that laptop from the upstairs closet at the home


Your basic assumptions are wrong.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by gstickley
J. J. in Phila
Senior Member

Registered: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3475
I have to agree with Tree and I have to try to look at this from what she (and LE) knew at the time, prior to finding the Mini.

At roughly 11:30 AM, PEF knew where RFG was, on 192, heading east. Now, out there, who would RFG be visiting. Sloane? No, SS lives in State College, almost the opposite direction. Same with Walker.

(snip) [/*]

PF knew RG was on 192 - heading east - **towards Lewisburg** -

yet she doesn't think to tell police about the SOS - a familiar place to her & RG - where they had been antiquing before....

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


PF knew RG was on 192 - heading east - **towards Lewisburg** -

yet she doesn't think to tell police about the SOS - a familiar place to her & RG - where they had been antiquing before.... [/*]

Largely because RFG didn't say, **I'm going to Lewisburg,** or **I'm going to the Street of Shops.**

There were many possible destinations, as have been pointed out on this thread by SJ (and alluded to by TG).

It's an exceptional leap from RFG is on Route 192, a half hour to 45 mintutes west of Lewisburg, to RFG was at the Street of Shops.

You also have to look at what thoughts could have been in PEF's and LE's mind at that point. An accident, probably along Route 192, would be my first thought, prior to Mini being found.

To add to JS's good questions, how much gas was in the Mini when it was found?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tonyGricar

Lord, my Dad was annoyingly fastidious when it came to mileage and maintenace. I can still picture him pulling out the spiral notebook from the glovebox... [/*]

That's a good memory to have TG, even if annoying at the time. That means he took you places and did things with you. Pull it out once in a while and look at it. :)

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar

And your "either way, Gricar or Patty took that laptop" is as amusing as your other "facts"snipped. [/*]

I posted it was my opinion that either way, Gricar or Patty took the laptop from the closet.

I think that's a pretty sensible conclusion - considering they both lived in the house where the closet was located, and since they both had used the laptop in the past, and presumably both knew where it was located in the closet.


If you can come up with a more reasonable assumption - let's hear it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


I posted it was my opinion that either way, Gricar or Patty took the laptop from the closet.

I think that's a pretty sensible conclusion - considering they both lived in the house where the closet was located, and since they both had used the laptop in the past, and presumably both knew where it was located in the closet.


If you can come up with a more reasonable assumption - let's hear it. [/*]

The "porn buddy" situation mentioned earlier. I think it is unlikely, but still possible.

[Cloudbuster]

The only thing missing is the laptop with its self-powered battery that lasts for two or three hours.
http://www.freetimes.com/story/3739




It's seems likely that Ray or PF removed the laptop but we also have RG's KEYS missing??? If someone was to meet or follow RG that day then they knew where RG is. Secondly if they knew that much then it's real possible they knew PF was at work? Would it be possible to use RG's keys to get the laptop?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
The only thing missing is the laptop with its self-powered battery that lasts for two or three hours.
http://www.freetimes.com/story/3739




It's seems likely that Ray or PF removed the laptop but we also have RG's KEYS missing??? If someone was to meet or follow RG that day then they knew where RG is. Secondly if they knew that much then it's real possible they knew PF was at work? Would it be possible to use RG's keys to get the laptop? [/*]

Yes, if someone:

1. Knew that there was a laptop.

2. Knew that was in the bedroom closet.

[Chump#7]

Under the total assumption that Ray was 'lured' or threatened into a rendezvous - Could the laptop simply have been used as monitor of sorts at said meeting?

We know it had been out of use for quite sometime. It wasn't something he routinely used in his day2day (< see what I did right there!) affairs. We also know that he wasn't seen coming or going with the laptop at the courthouse prior to his disappearance. But maybe he was asked (threatened) to copy certain files from the Courthouse to disk or floppy, and bring them to said meeting where they would be pulled up on the laptop for confirmation. In this scenario it's not so much that anyone is interested in 'what's on the laptop' as much as it was just used as a tool for this situation.

What kind of drive(s) did this model of laptop have? Would LE be computer savvy enough to discover whether anyone had copied certain, perhaps confidential files from the Courthouse?

[Politigal]

Tony previously posted this:

tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 286
Re: ye old laptop

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
Does anyone know if the laptop had any kind of wireless capability?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It did not have internal wireless and there was no known pc/pcmcia card for it, nor was one found inserted into the laptop at the time of it's recovery.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

09-04-2007 05:01 AM

[Tree_of_Life]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Under the total assumption that Ray was 'lured' or threatened into a rendezvous - Could the laptop simply have been used as monitor of sorts at said meeting?

We know it had been out of use for quite sometime. It wasn't something he routinely used in his day2day (< see what I did right there!) affairs. We also know that he wasn't seen coming or going with the laptop at the courthouse prior to his disappearance. But maybe he was asked (threatened) to copy certain files from the Courthouse to disk or floppy, and bring them to said meeting where they would be pulled up on the laptop for confirmation. In this scenario it's not so much that anyone is interested in 'what's on the laptop' as much as it was just used as a tool for this situation.

What kind of drive(s) did this model of laptop have? Would LE be computer savvy enough to discover whether anyone had copied certain, perhaps confidential files from the Courthouse? [/*]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly when you ask what "kind" of drive the laptop had. You mean what size? Almost all laptops use the standard 2.5" internal ATA IDE hard drive. Now as far as if it could be used to get info. from the Courthouse I have wondered this also. Most laptops have a built-in ethernet jack for connecting it to a network or an internal modem. I'm not sure if Ray's model did, but I'm guessing the ethernet jack was the most likely way it connected to the Courthouse's network system when it was used at the Courthouse.

Politigal Tony previously posted this:

tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 286
Re: ye old laptop

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
Does anyone know if the laptop had any kind of wireless capability?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It did not have internal wireless and there was no known pc/pcmcia card for it, nor was one found inserted into the laptop at the time of it's recovery.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

09-04-2007 05:01 AM

I'm not sure why you posted this again but anyway the laptop's lack of wireless capability would not preclude it from being used for the purposes Chump#7 has brought up nor from it connecting (although more difficult) via other means.

[Chump#7]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly when you ask what "kind" of drive the laptop had. You mean what size? Almost all laptops use the standard 2.5" internal ATA IDE hard drive. Now as far as if it could be used to get info. from the Courthouse I have wondered this also. Most laptops have a built-in ethernet jack for connecting it to a network or an internal modem. I'm not sure if Ray's model did, but I'm guessing the ethernet jack was the most likely way it connected to the Courthouse's network system when it was used at the Courthouse.

Sorry if I'm not using the correct terms. I just meant - Did the laptop have a floppy disk drive or CD drive? Both? Something that wouldn't necessarily mean the laptop itself would have to be physically present at the courthouse in order to copy files from the network. Copied to disk > pulled up on laptop. And would there be a way to find out whether files had been copied to disk on courthouse desktop?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7


Sorry if I'm not using the correct terms. I just meant - Did the laptop have a floppy disk drive or CD drive? Both? Something that wouldn't necessarily mean the laptop itself would have to be physically present at the courthouse in order to copy files from the network. Copied to disk > pulled up on laptop. And would there be a way to find out whether files had been copied to disk on courthouse desktop? [/*]

I believe it had a disk.

The drive was so badly damaged that it no information was retained.

Good question though.

[Tree_of_Life]

Originally posted by Chump#7


Sorry if I'm not using the correct terms. I just meant - Did the laptop have a floppy disk drive or CD drive? Both? Something that wouldn't necessarily mean the laptop itself would have to be physically present at the courthouse in order to copy files from the network. Copied to disk > pulled up on laptop. And would there be a way to find out whether files had been copied to disk on courthouse desktop? [/*]

No need to apologize Chump#7. Haha, that name still makes me laugh. :D

It is almost certain that the laptop would have had a CDROM drive, almost all laptops made within the last 10 years have them. Not sure about the floppy drive though. There is also the possibility it had a USB port which would mean another way to transfer data--a USB "thumb" drive. I'm not sure about there being a record of files copied from a courthouse computer. I have always wondered how much LE worked with the courthouse's IT staff to find out some of these things.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life


No need to apologize Chump#7. Haha, that name still makes me laugh. :D

It is almost certain that the laptop would have had a CDROM drive, almost all laptops made within the last 10 years have them. Not sure about the floppy drive though. There is also the possibility it had a USB port which would mean another way to transfer data--a USB "thumb" drive. I'm not sure about there being a record of files copied from a courthouse computer. I have always wondered how much LE worked with the courthouse's IT staff to find out some of these things. [/*]

I think there's another important question here, though--just my opinion--and it arises in my mind every time discussion of what role(s) the laptop might have played comes up. I always have in the back of my mind TG's description of RG needing instructions on how to open the jpeg TG sent of his daughter. We're not talking a particularly computer literate man when we're talking about RG. I'm sure he could handle web searches and email. But things that sound simple to those of us more conversant with computers may not have been so within reach of RG, perhaps even including things like copying files onto other drives. Just something to keep in mind and just my two cents.

[Tree_of_Life]

If that is in fact true, it would also mean all the less likely that RG knew how to physically remove the hard drive from the laptop. Thus, another person was involved--thus the more likelihood of foul play. IMO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
If that is in fact true, it would also mean all the less likely that RG knew how to physically remove the hard drive from the laptop. Thus, another person was involved--thus the more likelihood of foul play. IMO

My understanding is that there was a set screw on this particular model of laptop that needed to be removed, and then the hard drive could be taken out.

I guess I see computer literacy and being mechanically inclined as two separate things, as in the question of whether RG was handy with taking things apart and putting them back together. I don't know whether that's ever been discussed here.

But I do think you're right, Tree. RG was certainly not someone who had ever dismantled a computer or put in memory or added a drive or whatever, and I agree that his lack of familiarity with computers ups the likelihood someone else had it in his/her hands given the removal of the drive. That's added on, of course, to the fact that PF couldn't remember the last time RG had even used the laptop and wasn't the kind of computer geek that carried it with him wherever he went.

[Serendipitous1]

RG's laptop: http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20050802wap_laptop_580.jpg

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


My understanding is that there was a set screw on this particular model of laptop that needed to be removed, and then the hard drive could be taken out.

I guess I see computer literacy and being mechanically inclined as two separate things, as in the question of whether RG was handy with taking things apart and putting them back together. I don't know whether that's ever been discussed here.

But I do think you're right, Tree. RG was certainly not someone who had ever dismantled a computer or put in memory or added a drive or whatever, and I agree that his lack of familiarity with computers ups the likelihood someone else had it in his/her hands given the removal of the drive. That's added on, of course, to the fact that PF couldn't remember the last time RG had even used the laptop and wasn't the kind of computer geek that carried it with him wherever he went. [/*]

IIRC, PF said she couldn't even recall the last time he had taken it with him anywhere.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


IIRC, PF said she couldn't even recall the last time he had taken it with him anywhere. [/*]

I believe she indicated conferences, though not a specific date.

Since PEF wasn't using it regularly, why do you expect her to remember when was the last time RFG used it?

[UndertheRadar]

But acquaintances said taking his laptop computer with him was bizarre.

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

CTD article, Pete Bosak, 4/15/06

[Chump#7]

Good points, everyone.

Other than, 'used it for web searches at home', is it known what capacity he had used it for? It was County issued, right? For what purpose(s)/tasks?

Even though he's described as not well versed in the ways of the computer, he's also been described as 'brilliant' - a little common sense gets you a long way. I'd say that I don't know jack about computers either, but show me something once, and I'll remember how to do it. I'll bet Ray didn't need to be shown a second time how to open a jpeg.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks


8/02/05
CDT
Gricar's laptop found

(Gricar used the computer mostly to research and prepare for cases) (Police officers usually forwarded findings from an investigation to Gricar for review) [/*]

That says it all doesn't it? Maybe police should look at their computers and see what info they sent to RG in the first months of 2005.
JMO

[UndertheRadar]

But RG wasn't even using the laptop in 2005.

The home computer was purchased at the end of 2004/beginning of 2005, and PF said they didn't use the laptop once the home computer was purchased. If he was researching at home, he was apparently using the home computer rather than the laptop. And how would some drug lord even know he had a laptop to begin with since PF couldn't even remember a time he had taken it anywhere with him? It's not likely he would have been seen in public or photographed anywhere carrying his trusty laptop.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
But RG wasn't even using the laptop in 2005.

The home computer was purchased at the end of 2004/beginning of 2005, and PF said they didn't use the laptop once the home computer was purchased. If he was researching at home, he was apparently using the home computer rather than the laptop. And how would some drug lord even know he had a laptop to begin with since PF couldn't even remember a time he had taken it anywhere with him? It's not likely he would have been seen in public or photographed anywhere carrying his trusty laptop. [/*]

I didn't say anything about a drug lord as to the laptop. No one knows what RG was doing on Thursday or Friday and if he was still using the computer, since it was still a work related computer, he could have taken it out again. RG had a lot of times out of the office, going to WRC, and been in his office late, and obviously taken 2 days off. Since no one was with him he could have had it with him then.

The point was LE sent him info on that computer about investigations, and the ones who sent him info on investigations need to go through their computers and get all that info together and review what they sent and any info he sent back. Those cases need looked into. Even if it was on both laptop and home computer. Something is being overlooked here and it has nothing to do with PF.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
The point was LE sent him info on that computer about investigations

Sent to the laptop?

LE would have sent RG information to his work account.

We don't even know for certain that he could access his work account from the laptop at home. All we know is that he used the laptop to research cases at home. We don't know that anything LE sent to him would have been on that computer.

[Chump#7]

I must say, you're making some pretty good points, UtR - Here, and on the 'Was PF fully investigated' thread in regards to the laptop. ;)

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


"We don't know"

[/*]

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Sent to the laptop?

LE would have sent RG information to his work account.

We don't even know for certain that he could access his work account from the laptop at home. All we know is that he used the laptop to research cases at home. We don't know that anything LE sent to him would have been on that computer. [/*]

We also have Patty's comments saying that they were *not* using the laptop, since they bought the new home computer.

And Tony posted IIRC that Gricar mainly used his desktop for work.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Chump#7
I must say, you're making some pretty good points, UtR - Here, and on the 'Was PF fully investigated' thread in regards to the laptop. ;) [/*]

Thank you.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Chump#7
I must say, you're making some pretty good points, UtR - Here, and on the 'Was PF fully investigated' thread in regards to the laptop. ;) [/*]Yes, thanks for reminding us that we do not know anything with certainty!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7
I must say, you're making some pretty good points, UtR - Here, and on the 'Was PF fully investigated' thread in regards to the laptop. ;) [/*]

What, that we can't read the data from the laptop's hard drive?

[UndertheRadar]

Sorry, Chump. You're new here and didn't realize that offering a compliment to my thinking would bring insults on your head.

You see, according to S1 and JJ, I'm a blooming idiot who sits in the corner twiddling my thumbs and foaming at the mouth.

I'll leave my commentary at that, though it deserves more.

[Chump#7]

Yeah, uh... I seemed to step have into some board war with differing camps in regards to PF. Which, um... I don't recall stating any opinions either way (because I don't have one). I guess this is a sensitive spot? One of my quotes was actually plucked from another thread that had nothing to do with PF. So? Out of context much? And my appreciation of your points, UtR were 'in regards to the laptop' which I think is a very curious element of this whole case.

Anyways, y'all (or yinzes, or youse) - PF war? I ain't havin' it. Not playing. I'll just look at this objectively, humbly, and appreciate well made points regardless of who makes them. If I find myself becoming emotionally invested, I'll remove myself from the conversation. Life is too short.

Carry on...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Yeah, uh... I seemed to step have into some board war with differing camps in regards to PF. Which, um... I don't recall stating any opinions either way (because I don't have one). I guess this is a sensitive spot? One of my quotes was actually plucked from another thread that had nothing to do with PF. So? Out of context much? And my appreciation of your points, UtR were 'in regards to the laptop' which I think is a very curious element of this whole case.

Anyways, y'all (or yinzes, or youse) - PF war? I ain't havin' it. Not playing. I'll just look at this objectively, humbly, and appreciate well made points regardless of who makes them. If I find myself becoming emotionally invested, I'll remove myself from the conversation. Life is too short.

Carry on... [/*]

First, UTR, I've actually compemented you repeatedly on the comments regarding the contacts (which, unfortunately dropped into oblivion, so probably won't be mentioned again on this thread).

Second, LE, or all of us here, cannot know the unknowable. Would I like to know what was on the hard drive. Yes, obviously. Is what data was on the laptop knowable? No, not at this point.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Yeah, uh... I seemed to step have into some board war with differing camps in regards to PF. Which, um... I don't recall stating any opinions either way (because I don't have one). I guess this is a sensitive spot? One of my quotes was actually plucked from another thread that had nothing to do with PF. So? Out of context much? And my appreciation of your points, UtR were 'in regards to the laptop' which I think is a very curious element of this whole case.

Anyways, y'all (or yinzes, or youse) - PF war? I ain't havin' it. Not playing. I'll just look at this objectively, humbly, and appreciate well made points regardless of who makes them. If I find myself becoming emotionally invested, I'll remove myself from the conversation. Life is too short.

Carry on... [/*]

It *is* possible to look at PF and still be objective....:)

I don't know of any of us posting who look at Patty Fornicola becaused we're influenced by emotion or personal prejudice...

[day2day]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Yeah, uh... I seemed to step have into some board war with differing camps in regards to PF. Which, um... I don't recall stating any opinions either way (because I don't have one). I guess this is a sensitive spot? One of my quotes was actually plucked from another thread that had nothing to do with PF. So? Out of context much? And my appreciation of your points, UtR were 'in regards to the laptop' which I think is a very curious element of this whole case.

Anyways, y'all (or yinzes, or youse) - PF war? I ain't havin' it. Not playing. I'll just look at this objectively, humbly, and appreciate well made points regardless of who makes them. If I find myself becoming emotionally invested, I'll remove myself from the conversation. Life is too short.

Carry on... [/*]

Chump...
You are right. Life is fragile and WAY too short. Nice post ....

[Cloudbuster]

I wanted to talk about the laptop and what I think happened except I don't expect anyone to really understand this, but One can use unconvential means to obtain answers and I don't want to go there with you on that.

It sorta makes a lot of sense to me that Ray took his laptop that day as some sort of ruse (like a backup) in case he had a problem with a possible meeting with someone.

Why would he do this you might ask? If the person believed that Ray had something important on his work laptop would it not make sense for Ray to take the hard drive from the laptop and toss off the bridge? Or near there. This could have even happened at a different location. ???? This would make the person think that Ray just wanted to resolve things between the two. Question is the person (s) didn't buy the ruse.? IMO if the person picked up the hard drive they may have wanted it checked out somewhere. Did they then have RG get into the other vechicle to do just that (to see if he was telling the truth) Or did they do this and found he lied? My guess would be they went somewhere to have the hard drive checked out. For all we know the hard drive could have been one that fit Rays laptop but wasn't really Rays. All the above also explains to me why he didn't need the perpherials. He just needed the laptop to throw someone off a ruse or a red herring.

[Tree_of_Life]

Interesting theory CB. I've never thought of that before. Though for some reason I've always believed that the laptop was not in the river that weekend but was thrown in later, after the fact. PM me sometime with your unconventional means, I love discussing the paranormal.
:cool:

[Cloudbuster]

Treeofl I will pm you as I get a little more time. The above theory could be that Ray was safeguarding whatever he was doing that day. Im convinced because in a very unconventional way I got a meaning of "I tossed it" which to me means Ray tossed it but Im unsure if it means the hard drive or the laptop itself and Im sure whoever that laptop was intended for could have picked it up because they wanted it examined thus later could have returned it or mediatly went to see if it was really Rays hard drive. If they had it checked right away then they knew Ray was lying at the meeting. I know it's gotta be something like that. Its a RUSE. If Ray felt uneasy about a meeting then the laptop could serve him well. Or perhaps Ray changed hard drives hoping to throw the person off for a little while. Instead the ruse didn't work either way.

MOO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
I don't have a laptop.

Can you take a laptop & smash someone in the head with it hard enough to hurt or kill them?

Typical laptop weight, about 4-6 pounds.

Typical cast iron frying pan, about 5 pounds.

All you'd be missing is the handle for leverage.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
What if RG had been using the laptop to communicate with someone (possibly a MW); at some point, "someone" with suspicions & a knowledge of where the laptop was stored, checked out the laptop and, in a fit of rage, destroyed same, maybe after "disappearing" RG????

That would involve a separate e-mail account. Basically, RFG would have to hookup the laptop each time each time he wanted to send or get an e-mail. There would be a record with the ISP, if LE could find the account.

For something casual, it wouldn't be too likely.



Originally posted by gstickley
I don't have a laptop.

Can you take a laptop & smash someone in the head with it hard enough to hurt or kill them? [/*]

To hit someone with the force necessary to to injure or kill, and using the laptop as the "blunt instrument" is possible. It would probably damage the plastic casing and it should be easily apparent.

There is however a similar possibility. The laptop was near the scene of the crime and might have gotten a blood splatter on it. That assumes that, the laptop wasn't in its case and that there was a crime.

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley
What if RG had been using the laptop to communicate with someone (possibly a MW); at some point, "someone" with suspicions & a knowledge of where the laptop was stored, checked out the laptop and, in a fit of rage, destroyed same, maybe after "disappearing" RG???? [/*]

Could happen..but wouldn't that be messy?.......imo "if" someone helped him "vanish from this earth"....it would be a slow poison..
really nothing to clean up..and nothing to hide.

[ladyheartfixer]

blunt force trauma to the head from the laptop being brought down forcefully on the skull may not cause a bleeding wound. Only if there was a cut from the injury. The trauma could have been contained within the scalp and/or cranial vault.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by ladyheartfixer
blunt force trauma to the head from the laptop being brought down forcefully on the skull may not cause a bleeding wound. Only if there was a cut from the injury. The trauma could have been contained within the scalp and/or cranial vault. [/*]

I was thinking something more along the line of damage to the case of the laptop.

[day2day]

Originally posted by ladyheartfixer
blunt force trauma to the head from the laptop being brought down forcefully on the skull may not cause a bleeding wound. Only if there was a cut from the injury. The trauma could have been contained within the scalp and/or cranial vault. [/*]

thanks lhf...you are probly right. imo i still don't think the laptop was used as a "weapon"....a "ruse" maybe..but not a weapon.

[Serendipitous1]

MOO: Given LE's penchant for secrecy in this case, I would not be at all surprised to learn, down the road sometime, that the hard drive did provide useful information. How is that for optimism on a dreary Sat. morning?

Oh yeah...and when things dry out later today......PSU - 23, OSU - 21!

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
MOO: Given LE's penchant for secrecy in this case, I would not be at all surprised to learn, down the road sometime, that the hard drive did provide useful information. How is that for optimism on a dreary Sat. morning?

Oh yeah...and when things dry out later today......PSU - 23, OSU - 21! [/*]

Well, if they *did* find anything useful on the hard drive, it must not have been too useful, since the case still appears unsolved.

[Cloudbuster]

If they did find anything on it --it just might have not made enough sense without some missing dots... filled in. I think their answer lies in maybe a few cases where evidence was missing in one form or another, maybe even was told it's misplaced ect. Even any evidence sent out to the FBI? Re examine bailys case after that evidence got sent out??? The type of evidence that would change the outcome of a case to a lesser degree and such. I can see why Ray couldn't wait to retire and I can see why he decided not to rerun for anything! Im afraid it put a bad taste in his mouth at some point.
Yea and I believe he was going to endorse MM and I can see why he was taken off guard when he found out KA was running (thats more preasure on him and not her fault).

I can see being made to do something with something dangling can create so much preasure. Sometimes people do what they have to do when the stakes are high and in this case the stakes was high!!! In the end RG was crossed as in double crossed.
MOO and Im sticking with it.

[J. J. in Phila]

IIRC, LE did hide the finding of the drive for a few weeks, in hopes of getting data off of it. Even if it was in the water for 2-3 months, it will be unlikely that the data can be recovered.

[Cloudbuster]

Im hoping they got even one little thing off it!! :hat:

[Politigal]

IMO, the timing of the laptop find is curious

2 wks after Patty's polygraph results are reported, the laptop was found

2 wks after Lara's polygraph results are reported, the hard drive was found

[Politigal]

IMO, both the laptop & hard drive were deposited *after* the disappearance.

I think it's possible that whoever tossed them both, was ignorant of the directional flow of the river, not realizing that the hard drive location was *upstream.* And possibly, water levels were lower and there was not a strong current at the time.

edited to add:

I think that would eliminate someone familiar with the river, familiar with fishing the river, boating the river, kayaking the river, living near the river, etc.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
IMO, the timing of the laptop find is curious

2 wks after Patty's polygraph results are reported, the laptop was found

2 wks after Lara's polygraph results are reported, the hard drive was found

There are two problems with the the finding of the laptop/drive being suspicious.

The laptop was damaged by the water; it had been in the river for a while, at least a month. As far as know, the person tossing it could have not have known that far in advance when PEF (or LG) was being tested.

Second, the person tossing it couldn't know when someone else would find it. Unless you are going to claim that people finding the laptop/drive are part of a massive conspiracy, it doesn't work.

Now, all that said, we (and LE) can't say that the laptop/drive went into the river on 4/15-4/16/05, but it could have. The latest time is probably at the end of June 2005.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal

I think it's possible that whoever tossed them both, was ignorant of the directional flow of the river, not realizing that the hard drive location was *upstream.* And possibly, water levels were lower and there was not a strong current at the time.



I think it would be next to impossible for anyone standing next to the river, and being able to see the water, not to realize which way the river is flowing.

You need not be a genius nor particularly observant to figure it out.

That's why I think it was tossed to get rid of it. The question is why?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I think it would be next to impossible for anyone standing next to the river, and being able to see the water, not to realize which way the river is flowing.

snipped [/*]

Not necessarily -- if the water level had receded a great deal, and if it was dark....

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Not necessarily -- if the water level had receded a great deal, and if it was dark.... [/*]

The river would have to be dry, and even in minimal lighting, like that from the lights in the town, the direction would have been seen.

Also, anyone familiar with the river would know the direction that the water flows. Though there are some exceptions (the Nile, the Monongahela), very few rivers flow north.

If someone just parachuted in, in the middle of the night, during a blackout, maybe he could have made this mistake. Anyone that actually saw the river in daylight would never make such an error.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks

It looks more like an 'under-pressure' move to me than anything else. I would guess it was planned out to be just the way it was since never finding the pieces would have pointed toward foul play more so than finding the pieces separated. Sole intention; to distract/mislead at the necessary time, months down the line when more questions/pressure were bound to come up.
JMO

I think that this point is completely off.

Never finding the laptop would possibly point away from suicide.

Finding it, with the hard drive, could point to it being tossed or carried into the river by RFG.

Finding it in the Mini, with the drive, would tie up potentially hundreds of man hours while LE checks out everything on it, if there was nothing incriminating on it.

Tossing the drive and laptop in different locations doesn't point to either homicide or walkaway. It points away from suicide.

I cannot see why a killer, presumably "brilliant," would want to lower the possibility of suicide. I can see two possibilities for a killer doing this:

1. There was something incriminating on the laptop and the killer knew it.

2. The killer used the laptop afterward and realized that LE would be looking for it.

I should add that unless the killer was very familiar with what the state of the river would be in July, he wouldn't have known that either would be found.

[Politigal]

IMO, I think RG was murdered, and I think the "missing" laptop was just to confuse the investigators, as I believe the killer knew they would eventually probably be found -- especially the hard drive. I think the killer probably expected that the hard drive would be found first though, since it was closer to the bank.

IMO, the killer was trying to point toward the bridge as if it held some significance to Gricar. And someone *familiar* with his family history would know that significance.

The killer is someone close to Gricar.

IMO

[Politigal]

I also still think you have to look at the common sense - circumstantial evidence - of who had access to that upstairs closet in the home - where the laptop was kept.

JJ has posted many times that police did a walk thru of Patty's home. There was no sign of any forced entry - no breakin - nothing valuable missing - etc.

How many people do you think were actually aware that they kept the laptop in their upstairs closet?

I think - looking at the situation reasonably - the 2 most *likely* people who could have taken that laptop are........either PF or RG.

There's just no way around that IMO.

[UndertheRadar]

Pgal, I think you're right in focusing on where the laptop came from before focusing on how it got into the river. We have to understand how and when it got out of the closet and by whom before we can ever begin to understand why it wound up in the river separated from the hard drive.

If RG was simply taking a pleasure drive that Friday, it seems unlikely IMO he would have taken the laptop along with him. He rarely used it. PF could not remember the last time it was used. He was known as a paper and pencil kind of guy. The computer was not in its protective case, a step I can't help but imagine RG would have taken if he were going to transport the laptop.

If he had some work-related meeting, there are no records of any such meeting and no indication from what's been made public that he told PF that he had any such meeting. If he wanted to show someone something, why bring the laptop rather than hard copies of that "something," potentially exposing whatever else might be on the laptop to the person he was meeting with if he didn't fully trust that other person?

And if the someone he was meeting with asked him to bring a laptop, wouldn't that immediately send up some kind of red flag for a career prosecutor with several decades of experience, making him wonder why that person wanted *him* to supply a computer to read a disk? Why would he allow his county-issued computer to accompany him to a meeting under those conditions rather than ask the person either to bring hard copies of whatever material was to be shown?

It also seems unlikely he would have had the laptop with him on Thursday and left it in the car overnight for some of the same reasons outlined above.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Pgal, I think you're right in focusing on where the laptop came from before focusing on how it got into the river. We have to understand how and when it got out of the closet and by whom before we can ever begin to understand why it wound up in the river separated from the hard drive.

snipped respectfully [/*]

Exactly--

*who* took it out of the upstairs closet

No one else lived with Patty and Gricar, and I doubt that other people were familiar with what was kept in their upstairs closets.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal IMO, I think RG was murdered, and I think the "missing" laptop was just to confuse the investigators, as I believe the killer knew they would eventually probably be found -- especially the hard drive. I think the killer probably expected that the hard drive would be found first though, since it was closer to the bank.

IMO, the killer was trying to point toward the bridge as if it held some significance to Gricar. And someone *familiar* with his family history would know that significance.

The killer is someone close to Gricar.



While the river might hold some significance, I am not certain that a bridge would.

If the effort is to "confuse" LE, there are so many better ways to do it, including just dropping the laptop off the bridge with the drive in it, or even leaving the vehicle.

As to the bringing of the laptop to read something, if this was a murder, and RFG brought it, I think that is the most likely explanation. Read and/or copy. Depending on the circumstances, it might not have raised any red flags. It depends on the "back story" that could have been given. Creating that story to convince RFG is the "brilliance" on the part of the presumed killer.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Exactly--

*who* took it out of the upstairs closet

No one else lived with Patty and Gricar, and I doubt that other people were familiar with what was kept in their upstairs closets. [/*]

And anyone either told. It comes back to the "porn buddy" possibility. And then we have the very real possibility that RFG removed the laptop.

[UndertheRadar]

I'm not seeing any back story convincing enough for RG to allow anyone but the most trusted inner circle of people he knows to insert a disk into his laptop. He's not computer savvy, but he's certainly aware of what's in the news, and even the minimally informed with regard to computers know that "bad things" can be transmitted to computers. First he's being asked to meet some 60+ miles away from home, and then he's being asked to bring his own laptop so that a disk can be inserted into it?

Even an eight-year-old would be saying "Danger Will Robinson" to that one, IMO.

[UndertheRadar]

I think it would be possible to use both computers even if they were still on dial-up without a router, GS. Just unplug the desktop model from the phone line, plug in the laptop and you're good to go. When finished, unplug the laptop and plug the desktop back in. No tools and no service people required.

That laptop is the key, maybe because someone was snooping through its history, maybe because someone was using it to research things, maybe for some other reason.

If snooping is the key, though, wouldn't RG have to be in the room when the snooping was done for the rage/hitting over the head to occur? Would you snoop when the person you were snooping on was right there? I'm not a "snooper," but if I were, don't think I'd do it when the person I was scoping out was around to catch me.

I'd be more inclined to think it played out as finding evidence, then a slow burn with a plan that gets put into action. JMO.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by gstickley


And . . . why is it not just as possible that RG's SO confronted him with whatever she may have found & whacked him on the head with the laptop?

This is just my opinion . . . another "peddled theory", but as good a "porn buddy" theory. [/*]

lol - I can not picture RG being 6' tall, being in a position that PF, who is just a little thing, was getting wacked over the head with a computer, and wasn't able to ward it off. To confront, wouldn't it be face to face? Was she standing on a chair and wacked him as he walked in the door? "Surprise Ray! I snooped and found something I didn't like!" No questions? Discussions on what she found or even better - her going to the level of "snooping" on his work computer? A computer that both used for searches, internet stuff? ROTFLMAO

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
I'm not seeing any back story convincing enough for RG to allow anyone but the most trusted inner circle of people he knows to insert a disk into his laptop. He's not computer savvy, but he's certainly aware of what's in the news, and even the minimally informed with regard to computers know that "bad things" can be transmitted to computers. First he's being asked to meet some 60+ miles away from home, and then he's being asked to bring his own laptop so that a disk can be inserted into it?

Even an eight-year-old would be saying "Danger Will Robinson" to that one, IMO. [/*]

I think RG was heading 192 -at some point he met someone and the laptop was for possibly a payoff or deal of some type with the stakes being what he loved most of all. If he did travel that far i see why. I think he would rather have kept the groney far away from anybody that he cared about. The other person IMO was calling the shots. If they said lewisburg or Harrisburg or Baltimore ect RG would have went without any problem. When you love someone you will travel or do things you might not otherwise ever do. JMHO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


No, wouldn't snoop if the "snoopee" was in the room, but "snooper" could have checked it out when "snoopee" was gone, then confronted "snoopee" when "snoopee" returned.


Good point. I'm also not a "confronter," so I have to think differently than my normal mode to put myself in this position. I can see it playing out as you describe, "snooper" confronting "snoopee" with "evidence" discovered during snooping expedition.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


And anyone either told. It comes back to the "porn buddy" possibility. And then we have the very real possibility that RFG removed the laptop. [/*]

you think Patty had a porn buddy?

[Cloudbuster]

Hey should I cover my eyes roflmao where's the porn buddy? Your going the wrong way. Anyways HAPPY HALLOWEN early and if anyone's reading who's involved in this case in a bad way I got one word for you BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by gstickley
What about RG sitting, being hit over head from behind????????
Sounds as good to me as "porn buddy".
(Did you never hear of "the urge to kill" & been mad enough to "hit" something or somebody????? [/*]

You said "confronting" him. To me that is face to face, not one with their back to the other. A stand up, face to face, a sit down face to face or at our house a "round table" discussion.

And wouldn't it make sense to have the computer on a table with the info on the laptop to confront him with?

I don't agree at all with a "porn buddy", but that is JMO.

Yes, actually I have been mad enough to want to hit someone, but not to kill someone. A good slap in their lying chops would do it for me. :D

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
Hey should I cover my eyes roflmao where's the porn buddy? Your going the wrong way. Anyways HAPPY HALLOWEN early and if anyone's reading who's involved in this case in a bad way I got one word for you BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/*]

Seriously - I think JJ's suggestion of a "porn buddy" is quite a streeettttchhh.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Seriously - I think JJ's suggestion of a "porn buddy" is quite a streeettttchhh. [/*]

Not at all. It is possible that either/both had something private (though not necessarily pornographic) on the laptop and arranged for some third party to grab it and destroy it. It's common enough that a web search will come up with multiple hits for the term (over 13,000).

The problems here is the nature of the disappearance. The "porn buddy" would know what happened to RFG, at least to the police asking for the laptop. "Porn Buddy" might be destroying evidence that was related to a murder of a friend. "Porn Buddy" also doesn't know if maybe RFG was out for a "wild weekend." If it were me, I'd be reluctant to destroy evidence leading to the murder of a friend. It's also difficult to explain why "Porn Buddy" would toss the laptop where he did.

Still, while unlikely, it's a possibility.

Under the suicide and walkaway scenarios, it is RFG that tosses the laptop, unless he had a previous arrangement.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Not at all. It is possible that either/both had something private (though not necessarily pornographic) on the laptop and arranged for some third party to grab it and destroy it. It's common enough that a web search will come up with multiple hits for the term (over 13,000).

The problems here is the nature of the disappearance. The "porn buddy" would know what happened to RFG, at least to the police asking for the laptop. "Porn Buddy" might be destroying evidence that was related to a murder of a friend. "Porn Buddy" also doesn't know if maybe RFG was out for a "wild weekend." If it were me, I'd be reluctant to destroy evidence leading to the murder of a friend. It's also difficult to explain why "Porn Buddy" would toss the laptop where he did.

Still, while unlikely, it's a possibility.

Under the suicide and walkaway scenarios, it is RFG that tosses the laptop, unless he had a previous arrangement. [/*]

This "buddy" you describe would either have to fetch the laptop from the upstairs closet at the home *or* either Patty or Gricar would have to have given the laptop to the "buddy."

Still, either way - the most reasonable conclusion is that Patty or Gricar have to fetch the laptop.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal

This "buddy" you describe would either have to fetch the laptop from the upstairs closet at the home *or* either Patty or Gricar would have to have given the laptop to the "buddy."


The buddy hears the report and revoves the laptop. PEF was out of the house on the afternoon of 4/16/05. The "buddy" needs two things, a key and the location of the laptop


Still, either way - the most reasonable conclusion is that Patty or Gricar have to fetch the laptop.

The most reasonable conclusion is that RFG took the laptop. A much less reasonable conclusion is that PEF took it. I'd rank the the "porn buddy" possibility a bit below that, but not enough to rule it out.

Logically, the answer to who knew that the laptop was in the closet is, RFG, PEF and anyone they told.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


The buddy hears the report and revoves the laptop. PEF was out of the house on the afternoon of 4/16/05. The "buddy" needs two things, a key and the location of the laptop



The most reasonable conclusion is that RFG took the laptop. A much less reasonable conclusion is that PEF took it. I'd rank the the "porn buddy" possibility a bit below that, but not enough to rule it out.

Logically, the answer to who knew that the laptop was in the closet is, RFG, PEF and anyone they told. [/*]

*LOGICALLY* - Who had access to their upstairs closet???

Patty or RG

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


*LOGICALLY* - Who had access to their upstairs closet???

Patty or RG [/*]

... or anyone either gave access to.

It's unlikely, especially in the circumstances, but it is possible.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


... or anyone either gave access to.

It's unlikely, especially in the circumstances, but it is possible. [/*]

I wonder if Patty & RG had any overnight guests just before the disappearance?

[Politigal]

I noticed tonight when surfing that Centre County has an annual electronics recycling program - for computers, hard drives, etc...

In 2005 it was held in August

http://www.centrecountyrecycles.com/Ecycle/ecycle.html

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


I wonder if Patty & RG had any overnight guests just before the disappearance? [/*]

None know. And I'd question why a guest would go into the host's bedroom closet.

[UndertheRadar]

A guest might legitimately go into a closet looking for an extra blanket late at night after the host had already gone to bed.

On the illegitimate side, I've seen stories on TV about all sorts of snooping that goes on by guests--people going through the contents of medicine cabinets in the bathroom, looking at prescription medicine bottles, etc.

[sherrijean981]

Did they have a cleaning person, maybe weekly or to do the spring cleaning? Maybe a recent repairman, plumber or electrician? It was said there was a new patio put in. Did they do the work or have a professional do it, someone who might have had access to a bathroom and seen the laptop out at one time?

The question is still, why just take the laptop and not the case?
If I had a laptop and wanted to use it, I would take the case out of the closet, and go to a table, where I could remove it and let the case out until I was ready to put it away again. The case was deliberately put back empty but no one knows when that happened.

Was the closet with the laptop in a hall closet, a guest room closet or one in their bedroom? I could see a guest being told to help themselves to blankets if it were in a guest closet or hall closet, but not a closet in their private room, after they were asleep. Unless it was your child of course. I would allow my children to do that but no one else.
JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981

The question is still, why just take the laptop and not the case?


Whomever took it might have wanted it not to be missed for a while. Leave an empty case and anyone looking sees the case and assumes that the laptop is in it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks

IMO---RG would not have taken the laptop without taking the case, which leaves removal only to a guest or resident, since there was supposedly no break-in reported.


If the purpose was to destroy the data, he could have, very easily. He also might have pulled it out of the case to charge it that morning and just tucked it under his arm.


Everything about the disappearance points toward a 'personal' problem, beginning with a laptop disappearing not from work, but from home, and it was a laptop where we again get three or more conflicting stories .....one, he only took it when he went to out of town conferences; two, he used it at home for courtcases he was preparing; three, he and she both used it for online searches; four, he never used it. Which is it and why do we have four different versions of the 'story' to choose from? Talk about inconsistency..........



Where are these "conflicting stories?" RFG and PEF used it at home, in lieu of a desk top. He did searches on it and he used it for work. He rarely used it at the office (where he had a desktop).


IMO----RG would not have tossed it in the river. Isn't it logical to assume that his computers would be looked at first 'crack out of the hat', and if the car's in Lewisburg, then the most likely place to look for it would be the river. Hense, if RG was trying to hide something, he wouldn't be dumb enough to hide it where it could have been pulled out within a day or two, if divers HAD immediately gone in and found it in the most likely place, under the bridge. Assuming he was on his way out of town, he had no way of knowing LE wouldn't immediately call in divers to search under the bridges.


There are some major flaws in your logic. Assuming K tossed it that day, he would have known that RFG would not be immediatly reported missing, that the Mini would not have been found, that the laptop may not have been immediately been discovered to be missing and that a search team would most likely be searching for the laptop not the much smaller drive. There would be a lag.


I still think it wasn't there until after the river searches, and I still don't think RG put it there after the searches.
Someone removed it from the house without the case, and IMO, that someone was not RG.


I seriously doubt that the laptop was in the house by 4:30 PM on 4/15/05; whether or not it was in the river at that time is another question.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks


Quote:
IMO---RG would not have taken the laptop without taking the case, which leaves removal only to a guest or resident,
Quote

Quote
Someone removed it from the house without the case, and IMO, that someone was not RG.
JMO [/*]

Yet you assume PF would treat a county issued computer differently? She would remove it from a case and throw it in the river?

Sigh!!!:shrug:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Yet you assume PF would treat a county issued computer differently? She would remove it from a case and throw it in the river?

Sigh!!!:shrug: [/*]

Someone threw it in the river. Two people we're aware of knew where it was kept in the closet. One of those people has been described by multiple sources as "meticulous." In regard to county-owned equipment, one source has described him as rather fanatical about making sure that equipment was kept properly.

We have no descriptions available with regard to PF. She could be equally meticulous, or she could be extremely careless. Opposites sometimes attract. Sometimes we find in another person what we lack in ourselves.

But that's really irrelevant. *IF* PF threw the laptop in the river, she would have done it as secondary to committing a major felony. Do you really think she'd be worried about destruction of county property under those conditions? I asked you this before when you raised the same objection.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, do you think that if this was a walkaway, RFGwoulkd be worried about the destruction of the laptop, knowing full well that he had ample funds to replace it?

[UndertheRadar]

First, JJ, I give walkaway a fairly miniscule chance of explaining RG's disappearance. Just so you know.

But IF it were a walkaway, we'd still be talking about RG's "meticulous" nature, not about his funding to replace the laptop for himself. We're talking about someone KA (who worked with him for nearly twenty years) describes as methodical, professional, responsible, and as someone with "ironclad" ethical standards. This particular passage from KA's website has always seemed to me quite enlightening on this point:

I've tried without success to picture Ray, the guy who would email the entire office to stop what they were doing to tell him where the dust cover was for some piece of County-owned equipment put away 'unprotected', gratuituously destroying an expensive piece of County-owned equipment by slinging it into the Susquehanna. Common sense just has to kick in here somewhere.

This man who brought the office staff to a crashing halt to find a dust cover so that a piece of equipment wasn't put away unprotected didn't take the laptop out of the house without its protective carrying case, IMO. And he didn't dump it in the river.

Even if I stretch to imagine him desperately needing/wanting to destroy data on the hard drive, I picture him carefully removing the hard drive (as was done) and finding a way to destroy the drive while leaving the rest of the laptop intact.

That said, I do not believe Ray Gricar put either the laptop or the hard drive in the river. JMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, what happens it any county employee with a laptop:

1. Drops it, breaking it.

2. Loses it.

3. Has it stolen.

4. Gets angry and smashes it.

5. Takes it home, goes online, gets a viris that fries the hard drive.

What is the remedy? Reimbursing the County for its replacement.

RFG, ironically, left adequate funds to cover this loss. The laptop wasn't worth $15 K, maybe $1,500, expluding any depreciation. It's not cheap, but it well within the means of anyone managing his estate to replace.

[UndertheRadar]

Nah, JJ. Don't think that was likely to have been RG's mindset. More characteristic of today's teenagers: break something, lose something, so what? It can always be replaced. RG was someone who took care of things. We have ample evidence of that.

[Tree_of_Life]

I don't mean to change the subject here too much, but I found an interesting link on water damage to hard drives:

http://www.datarecoverygroup.com/disaster-recovery.html

Water Damage

If the hard drive has been under water for only a short time, the probability is that the head assembly has not been penetrated by the water. While the data recovery remains difficult, it can be done.

If water has penetrated the head assembly, it is important that the drive be kept wet. In requesting data recovery it is important to seal the drive, as well as other media, in a container with a minimum of a damp sponge. We have been successful in recovering data when we have received drive shipped (delivered) in distilled water.

A standard technique used by companies specializing in restoring damaged computer equipment is to bake components for a time to dry them out. This technique has worked quite well for computer boards, but can be disastrous for computer hard drives.

I'm willing to bet that the hard drive in Ray's case wasn't left submerged in water after being removed, especially if a random person found it. Another disappointing thought that *maybe* if the drive had remained submerged data recovery might have been possible.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, accidents do happen and computers break. It is not a question of "so what," but what to do when it happens.

It is a matter of replacing the computer, and RFG certainly left enough money behind to replace it.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, surely you can't be suggesting that the laptop just "broke" or that it wound up in the river by "accident."

[ladyheartfixer]

In thinking about the hard drive from the laptop that was recovered...we are told it was definitely the one from the county issued laptop belonging to RG. It makes me wonder why no data was recoverable. Was it damaged in some way that made it permeable to water damage? We are told the FBI had a hand in trying to recover data...but that they were unable to recover anything. What about an estimation of time in the water...a day? a week? a month? a year? With what I have been told and researched I am surprised that no information was gleened from it.

Also..same could be said about the desk top hard drive...no data recoverable? no estimation of time in the water? Was this even attempted? Is the Susquehanna river now an electronics waste disposal site for the area?

Ok..putting up the shields and waiting to be shot down as usual...and again...jmoo

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the theory that RFG destroying the computer would be his "mindset" doesn't hold water (no pun intended). If RFG would destroy the laptop, the way to "make it right" would be to replace it. He left ample funds behind to do that. Now, I would double that he just decided to toss it for no reason (if he did toss it), but he would have been aware that it could have been replaced.

LHF, the drive was rusted, so it probably was in there for a while. Some time back I looked at private companies that retrieve data. They have success with drives that have been the water for two days.

Just looking at damage to the laptop, it looks like if had not been tossed in there the day before. My guess would be at least a month. Now, that doesn't tell it much, and I'll be the first to admit that is could have gone in there well after 4/15/05.

[UndertheRadar]

No, JJ, IMO you're still missing a lot on the issue of the laptop destruction. There would be no need to destroy the entire laptop to render the hard drive unreadable. RG was someone who took care of things. We know this, from his personal care of his clothing, his cars, etc., and from the anecdote KA provides us about the dustcover for the equipment in the office. If RG himself wanted to destroy data, he could have removed the hard drive from the laptop, leaving the computer intact, and destroyed only the drive, if he was going to destroy anything at all.

I don't really follow your logic in the face of what we know about RG's way of taking care of things. I have the money to replace the beautiful digital camera my beloved gave me as a Christmas gift two years ago. But I keep it carefully in its case and handle it with great care. I could never imagine thinking that having the money to replace it meant I could treat it carelessly. And if there were photos on there I wanted to destroy (the equivalent of having data on a hard drive), I would remove the memory card and destroy THAT, not the entire camera.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, if RFG was the one who destroyed the laptop, did it occur to you that he wanted to review something before he left?

There is another possibility. He could have wanted to hide the fact that computer gone to make sure that it was in the water for a while. Removing the drive does three things. First, the laptop itself will offer some protection to the drive; removing it will help it deteriorate. Second, when it is found that the laptop is missing, that is what people are primarily looking for, the whole laptop. They are not looking for parts of the laptop. Third, even when they find the drive is missing, is LE going to looki for it up river? Probably not.

Another possibility is that, if RFG would smash the drive in the house, it could leave evidence, small fragments from the disk or casing.

If RFG wanted to destroy the data, tossing the drive in water, separate from the laptop

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by logicworks


Excellent point, UTR.
If the goal was to destroy what was on the hard drive, no need to take a bulky laptop along, and a screwdriver. Just slip the hard drive out at home and toss it. If the goal was to hide it, it wouldn't have been tossed anywhere near where the car was found.
JMO [/*]

The more I consider the whole laptop angle, the less it seems to me that RG could have played a role in the laptop being in Lewisburg.

If he is intent on committing suicide or running away from his life, as you point out, why does he drag a bulky laptop along with him and dispose of the laptop itself when the computer minus the hard drive won't reveal anything? And if he throws himself, the laptop, and the hard drive into the river, how does he know that no one witnesses any or all of these events and that the hard drive won't be recovered almost immediately after he dies?

If he's merely going on a pleasure drive, why does he take his computer when he rarely if ever uses the laptop, even for business-related reasons, and when he's known as a paper and pencil guy? Even if he takes it, why would a detail-oriented guy like RG go to the effort of first *removing* it from its protective case to transport it, when it could be damaged transporting it without its case?

If he's taking it to some Super Secret meeting no one knows about, same question regarding the protective case. If then the "bad guys" are the ones wanting to destroy data on the drive, why do they "hide" it in plain sight, just where divers are obviously going to be looking for RG after they (the bad guys) have dispatched RG, leaving his car so near to where they dump the laptop and hard drive?

[J. J. in Phila]

Both UTR and LW are missing the point. Let's assume that whomever tossed the laptop in the river thought it might be found soon after RFG disappears. Where are divers going to look for the drive? Around where the laptop was located, possibly along the length of the highway bridge or downstream, but not 200 yards upstream.

There is a reason why, if RFG had wanted to destroy the data, he would have done it this way. Until PEF checked, no one knew that the laptop is missing. Why? The case was still there and anyone looking at assumed that the laptop was in the case. That could have been the motivation.

[UndertheRadar]

Uh, it's not as if between the time RG went missing and the time LE asked about computers, PF or anyone else went to the closet, saw the laptop case, and said, "Yep, the laptop is still there."

Nor can I imagine that RG would be motivated to leave the laptop case there thinking that would somehow fool people who were looking for him into thinking the laptop was still there, thus stalling a search for the laptop.

The man was a career prosecutor. If RG was the one who took the laptop out of the closet with the intent of destroying data and then disappearing (one way or the other), he would know computers would be top priority for LE to check. That baby wasn't going to sit for very long in any closet, and he would have known that.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Remove it from the case at home, but not remove the hard drive at home if it was RG's intent to hide info? Instead haul 'the works' down to Lewisburg, along with a screwdriver, (never found that we are aware of), and remove the hard drive riverside?

If he was 'hiding' something, why would he do anything as conspicuous and ridiculous as tossing an 'empty' laptop off the non-pedestrian side of the bridge, an item totally irrelevant to ANY 'secret' information, without the hard drive?


No, you've missed the point again. Whomever tossed the laptop would have known these things. First, the laptop is larger and more likely to be found first. Second, until the laptop is found, nobody, except the tosser, is going to know that that the drive is not in the computer. Third, as soon as the laptop is found, where is the most likely place to find the drive? Near the laptop. The drive was a upstream, I believe more than 100 yards away.


Secret meeting? With who? We are told he wasn't working.
No need for the laptop whatsoever; a laptop NO one, other than PF ever saw him use, therefore IMO, there are only two people who possibly knew what was on the laptop, RG and PF. And there were only two people who knew where the laptop was stored, RG and PF.


The key to a "secret" anything, is that no one other than the parties know about it. There is also a possibility of a third person, the "buddy."


The laptop solidifies the idea he was there in Lewisburg. Without it there is only the car. IMO, someone, after the fact, after the water searches, wanted that idea solidified in LE's mind.
JMO

Oh, while I'm suggesting the possibly the the laptop was dropped after RFG was murdered someplace outside of Lewisburg? That's really solid.

As for evidence, we have lot more with the car, the scent, and the witnesses; interestingly, I do not recall ever mentioning that the laptop is evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg, even though I think there is evidence that he was.

[Serendipitous1]

My opinion:

I believe the divers searched all around each bridge pier (all three bridges) in the initial dive, although the only published reference was related to the railroad bridge piers, and I did not witness them searching near the Route 45 bridge. They did not find the laptop (I believe because it was not there then). The point is, they were not limiting their search to the area downstream of the traffic bridge, even then. And if I recall correctly, the brush and debris were removed from the west bank and adjacent water, between the two river bridges, shortly after the laptop was discovered...probably to facilitate the search for the hard drive and any other evidence.

The simplest explanation regarding the laptop (pre-dunk) is that RG, for whatever reason, did remove it from the case and took it with him that day. But that cannot be a given, and without knowing the reason he would take it...even if (or especially if) its destruction was the goal...there seems to be no simple explanation why he would dispose of it in that manner (whether on 4/15 or after). In light of the failure of the divers (and others) to discover the laptop (and then later, the hard drive), it seems more likely that someone else came to the river to plant evidence...perhaps twice...well after 4/15.

I am intrigued though, by TG's recent post ("From a Courthouse Source" thread, 11/1), concerning laptop usage in the CH...his concern over the leaking of details and his seemingly clear admonition that the source, if a current courthouse employee, would be found out. But it is not clear whether this was a response to leaks in general, or specifically in regard to county laptops...especially of the type RG had.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
My opinion:

I am intrigued though, by TG's recent post ("From a Courthouse Source" thread, 11/1), concerning laptop usage in the CH...his concern over the leaking of details and his seemingly clear admonition that the source, if a current courthouse employee, would be found out. But it is not clear whether this was a response to leaks in general, or specifically in regard to county laptops...especially of the type RG had. [/*]

I have questions on the CH laptops?

It was mentioned that Ray's secretary, PF, 2 other Secretaries and several ADA's had laptop's like RG's. Did the person relaying the info to Pgal only give CH laptop info for the district attorney's office? What about the other offices in the CH, Public Defender's office, Judges chamber, Domestic Relation offices, Probation Offices? etc. etc.

Can any lawyer who works in Centre County, who might do pro bono work for the courts, order laptops from the same source so they interact with the CH equipment when setting up for hearings?

In another situation, the amount of paperwork going back and forth between my sister, her attorney and her soon to be ex was astronomical. I imagine it was all put on desktop but do they carry that info on a shared hard drive of a laptop? To be shared with the judge?

I was in (a) CH recently and had the opportunity to see laptops in use by a judge, and the attorney's for both parties. Do they put their clients info on their laptops to be shared with the judge? The judge was reading info on the person in court and she was asking questions of the person on the stand from that laptop.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks



Are there three bridges there? If not, what three bridges?
Like you, I was 'intrigued' by the response concerning laptop usage in the CH. Is there a 'gag order' that we are unaware of?
I would think county equipment utilized by county employees would be a matter of public record, but dunno.
JMO [/*]

There is a bridge on River RD at Hufnagle Park, the old railroad bridge next to the SOS and the Rt 45 bridge at the Rt45/Water ST intersection.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=%5*100%2d199%5d%20N%20Water%20St&city=Lewisburg&state=PA&zipcode=17837&country=US&location=8BdFI0KpOtrI0NsDq%2f6HWijlDYJcPFmKwaEYhsE rZyavoiDOX4xYi4A5TtIkPbbnrnpqx7EtjGMLZSonzvAO%2f97 KHn7e2wdcUfX%2fjDzvXuRMfcXQegRusia4tt2xGfibg%2fqJ7 6OwDlM%2*4NqwaeQd2g%3d%3d&ambiguity=1

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by logicworks

Are there three bridges there? If not, what three bridges?
Like you, I was 'intrigued' by the response concerning laptop usage in the CH. Is there a 'gag order' that we are unaware of?
I would think county equipment utilized by county employees would be a matter of public record, but dunno.
JMO [/*]My opinion:

The third bridge (with but one pier) is the one crossing the creek, just above the SoS. It was at this bridge, and in the water downstream, where I observed the divers searching that afternoon (4/21/05?).

If you think back, there have been several instances where information was leaked (or slipped out)...laptop missing, cigarette ash found in Mini, DAs to brainstorm with LE, the legal book, etc. I feel certain the powers that be have tried to clamp down on everything having any possibility of relating to the investigation. PB got cut off from DZ, and we have yet to hear a peep from the "new" lead investigator. Chief Weaver took control of offical information coming out of the BPD...which, ever since, has basically amounted to countering questions arising from information coming from other sources.

TG certainly knows a lot, but has posted that he will not share anything which might compromize the investigation. I understand that and believe other family members (and PF) have taken the same position by making TG their spokesperson...in the media and online. But even TG lets things slip from time to time...nothing major...just little tidbits not, in my mind, previously disclosed.

It would be interesting to know everything about county laptops circa 2005, especially models like RG's. If someone like PB had any interest, he could do a lot of checking in public records. It would be interesting to know what records (if any) would be refused, especially if in response to a Right-To-Know law request.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks
IMO, the only thing I see there that is important is who had the exact same kind of laptop as RG's, did they ever have a hard drive failure and replacement, and who replaced it?
Other than that, there might be a number of different kinds of laptops in place and even the common observer might see someone in court, in an office, walking to or from work with a laptop. Any laptop isn't important. A laptop with a matching hard drive is, IMO. [/*]

Were any of the computers bought for CH employees the exact same as RG's? And does that include other areas of the CH?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Were any of the computers bought for CH employees the exact same as RG's?

I don't think we know the answer to that for certain, but the logical answer would be "yes," for two reasons:

1) employers often get purchase deals for bulk buys and

2) it's easier for IT if multiple employees are working on the same type of computer.

[J. J. in Phila]

It's going to depend on need.

I cannot imagine every clerical worker in the Register of Wills office being issued a laptop. Someone who would be "on the move" as it were, like VWA or an ADA (between the office and the court) would be more likely.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
It's going to depend on need.

I cannot imagine every clerical worker in the Register of Wills office being issued a laptop. Someone who would be "on the move" as it were, like VWA or an ADA (between the office and the court) would be more likely. [/*]

I was thinking the public defender's office on the first floor, and judge's chamber. Or Probation Dept if that office is in the main CH and not an annex.

I was in the Register of Wills Office and only noticed desktops, at most every desk. But I wasn't thinking that office. DA, ADA's, Public Defender's, VA's and Probation office.

If they are all the same, with same internal parts, would the difference be each computer having it's own serial numbers, reg. numbers? Or no difference?

[Cloudbuster]

Two fishermen noticed the laptop under the state Route 45 bridge in Lewisburg around 10 a.m. Saturday and scooped it out of the water with a net, according to Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon.

When they saw the--- Centre County Commissioners inventory?? ---tag on it, they called state police. (so commissioners seem to be in charge of INVENTORY?? THATS INTERESTING?)

A forensic computer specialist with the state police began analyzing the computer immediately and discovered the hard drive was missing.

"It's useless, basically," Dixon said. "We can get no information off it."


Gricar used the computer mostly to research and prepare for cases, according to police and family members. It is unlikely that Gricar was investigating a case on his own, Dixon said, or that the laptop contained sensitive material to a case that existed solely on that computer. POLICE OFFICERS??? usually forwarded findings from an investigation to Gricar for REVIEW??, Dixon said

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3791.html

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
Gricar used the computer mostly to research and prepare for cases, according to police and family members. It is unlikely that Gricar was investigating a case on his own, Dixon said, or that the laptop contained sensitive material to a case that existed solely on that computer. POLICE OFFICERS??? usually forwarded findings from an investigation to Gricar for REVIEW??, Dixon said

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3791.html [/*]Somehow I think some of the recent posts with all cap words are throwing me off as to meaning... :D

Does that mean you are surprised that police often work with the DA's office? It's SOP. The DA's office is not an impartial entity, as opposed to a judge's partiality (I can already imagine the jokes).

[J. J. in Phila]

This is not just for Tony, but for those familiar with laptops. If you turn it on, is there some way to determine how much of a charge is in the battery? Basically, something that you can check that will show the level of power, full, 75%, 25%?

There is a way with my printer to show how much ink is left and I'm wondering if there is something like that related to battery power.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Somehow I think some of the recent posts with all cap words are throwing me off as to meaning... :D

Does that mean you are surprised that police often work with the DA's office? It's SOP. The DA's office is not an impartial entity, as opposed to a judge's partiality (I can already imagine the jokes). [/*]

TG you are misunderstanding my Caps and I can see why. Im throwing emphisis on HOW something might have landed on RG laptop that could be something significant. Example is what if LE sent Ray something that would require Ray to approve or pursue? What if that something is something RG had a reason not too? Ray would have more power over what would or wouldn't get prosecuted. Now what if Ray tried to pursue a particular case in another way that might involve someone he knew and he wanted to talk first about it ? Would it be fair to ask if maybe he wanted to straighten it out another way as in meeting with the person before pursuing it further? What Im looking at is in what way could Ray have found out something that caused all this by way of the laptop. I've mentioned one way and Im looking at both ways now.

Another thing that surprised me was that the laptop was tagged by the COMISSIONERS INVENTORY Tag. That is very important to me. That to me means they have access to inventory and not the courthouse. That may mean nothing to most but to me thats realllly important. :beer:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

Another thing that surprised me was that the laptop was tagged by the COMISSIONERS INVENTORY Tag. That is very important to me. That to me means they have access to inventory and not the courthouse. That may mean nothing to most but to me thats realllly important. :beer:

The commissioners are responsible for financing the county, including the DA's office (minus some grants, potentially). They would have control of who gets what.

In 1992 (and you'll have to search for it in Collegian), they cut funds to the DA's office, forcing RFG to lay off Sloane.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!!!! That is very important for me know that. I can now understand what something meant when I didn't understand it at the time. If you have any info to further that please do so. Now would be a good time and again THANK YOU!!!!

[Tree_of_Life]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
This is not just for Tony, but for those familiar with laptops. If you turn it on, is there some way to determine how much of a charge is in the battery? Basically, something that you can check that will show the level of power, full, 75%, 25%?

There is a way with my printer to show how much ink is left and I'm wondering if there is something like that related to battery power. [/*]

Yes there is, at least there is under Windows, even if it may not always be 100% accurate. On the taskbar in the corner there is an icon that will tell you what percentage of battery power is left.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


The commissioners are responsible for financing the county, including the DA's office (minus some grants, potentially). They would have control of who gets what.

In 1992 (and you'll have to search for it in Collegian), they cut funds to the DA's office, forcing RFG to lay off Sloane. [/*]

Just another way of making RG's part-time job harder, if it was still part time in 1992? Knowing he worked full time hours for part time wages, they figured they could get him to make up the hours lost with the absence of ADA SS, by himself working more hours for nothing. And he probably did.

What RG wouldn't do for his county and proved it year after year and the commissioners just made it harder. I always thought it odd they couldn't make his job full time for years, but had numerous full time ADA's.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ does the comissioners in anyway have anything to do with Insurance? On a county or state level? Even like investing funds or anything to do with retirement funds ect? Pension funds?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life


Yes there is, at least there is under Windows, even if it may not always be 100% accurate. On the taskbar in the corner there is an icon that will tell you what percentage of battery power is left. [/*]

Okay, here is a possibility.

RFG, on the morning of 4/15/05, is planning to use the laptop, in the field. He opens it, checks the power; it's charged. He turns it off, closes it, tucks it under his arm, and gets into the car.

Now, in relation to the scenarios:

Murder: A meeting where he needs the laptop and it needs to be working; he's meeting K.

Suicide: He wants to look over some things, family photos, his resume or a bio sketch, maybe financial data. He wants to have one last look.

Walkaway: For the purpose of checking the power, it's unlikely. (Destroying data would be the purpose.) It might be a last minute check of things.

One possibility, three explanations, but all possible.

This might explain why the laptop was out of the case.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
JJ does the comissioners in anyway have anything to do with Insurance? On a county or state level? Even like investing funds or anything to do with retirement funds ect? Pension funds? [/*]

There may be a retirement board and it might be at the state level.

In answer to insurance, ever hear of the Gleason Agency? ;)

Yes, the commissioners would do the insurance contracts, i.e. approve them and pay for at least most of them.

SJ, I'm not trying to be critical of the commissioners in 1992. They had budget constraints and I don't think they deliberately targeted the DA's office at the time.

[UndertheRadar]

On the laptop being out of its case:

If this is a murder scenario and RG takes the laptop out of its case at home to check the battery level prior to his Super Secret Meeting, why does he not put the laptop back in its case before transporting it? This is the man who worried about a missing dustcover from a piece of electronic equipment at the office.

If this is a suicide scenario and RG takes the laptop out of its case to check the battery level, why is he going to transport a bulky laptop to his suicide and then have to get rid of it, especially after removing the hard drive? If he merely wants to look at photographs, resume, bio sketch, why not do that at home when he has the laptop out? He doesn't have to leave the house in the morning. If he stays through lunch to put Honey out, he still has until 4:30 till PF gets done at the office. He can leave any time before then for his "suicide mission." The only explanation would be some Super Dark Secret about himself or someone he cares about hidden on the computer if he's going to drag it on his suicide mission, remove the hard drive, and dispose of both parts in the river.

If it's a walkaway, why check the battery level before he leaves? Why not take the laptop in its case AND the peripherals and walk out the door? Leaving the case didn't stall for time and didn't fool anyone into thinking the computer was there. As soon as PF went to look for it, it was clear the laptop wasn't in its case. RG would have known that computers would be checked immediately upon his absence IF he walked away from his life and that an empty case wouldn't fool anyone for longer than ten seconds.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
JJ THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!!!! That is very important for me know that. I can now understand what something meant when I didn't understand it at the time. If you have any info to further that please do so. Now would be a good time and again THANK YOU!!!! [/*]

Basically, the commissioners are the executive/legislative branch of the county; they spend money and set the tax rates. The can (in a limited way) make county ordinances. They establish the county budget.

(That's why so many people run for it.)

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, here are answers:

1. RFG isn't planning to take it from the car or any distance from the car. In that case, it's actually more of a hassle to try to take it out of the case in a car.

RFG puts the laptop on the floor; barring an accident, it's perfectly safe. He's not going to have to carry it any great distance after that, but maybe walk to another car.

2. There are two questions:

a. If RFG took it out of the case at home, why?

*. If RFG disposed of it prior to suicide, why toss different parts in different places?

I'm only dealing with question 2a. Question 2* is valid, and one of two main reasons I think suicide is unlikely, but it's not the one I'm asking.

The sole question is 2a.; In the case of suicide, RFG wanted to take some time to look at them, just before suicide, not an hour or more before suicide. He wants to reflect prior to doing it.

2*, has several potential answers, though I think they are unlikely.

3. You are quite wrong. PEF didn't look down in the closet on 4/15 at 4:45 PM and say, **Hey, where is the laptop?** What she sees is the case, sitting where it has always beeing and she assumes that the laptop is inside.

It wasn't easily seen to be gone until they started looking for it. The purpose here would not necessarily be to check the power, but that could have bben one of the reasons.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


There may be a retirement board and it might be at the state level.

In answer to insurance, ever hear of the Gleason Agency? ;)

Yes, the commissioners would do the insurance contracts, i.e. approve them and pay for at least most of them.

SJ, I'm not trying to be critical of the commissioners in 1992. They had budget constraints and I don't think they deliberately targeted the DA's office at the time. [/*]

JJ THANKS!!! I could kiss you right now! I consider you a angel!:rose: ;)

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, on the laptop and the carrying case:

1. All general care laptop sites offer this type of admonition:

You should always carry your laptop computer in a protective case. The case will keep the computer from being exposed to too much sunlight or water when you are carrying it outside and it will also keep the computer partially insulated—**especially, if it gets jarred around in your vehicle** or the like.

http://computerdirectoryplus.com/technology/technology/laptop-care-guide.html

Similar warnings appear on individual company sites and also on contracts where laptops have been assigned to students or employees. We've got the "dustcover" example and the many descriptions of RG as methodical, dependable, meticulous, etc. As a result, it would seem he'd be more likely than not to follow such practices. Always possible he wouldn't, but the odds are against it, knowing what we know about him.

2. I gave a great deal of thought to the laptop in a suicide scenario after TG said he gave suicide 49% odds in his opinion. The laptop, dispersed in two separate pieces in the river, poses a real puzzle for the suicide scenario as far as I am concerned. Why throw the laptop in the river, and why go to the effort to separate the drive from the computer itself? This scenario makes sense to me only if RG feels he needs to hide something that might be revealed after his death, something dark and ugly that he does not want to be revealed. Otherwise, there is no reason to destroy the drive. That's not consistent with bringing the laptop to his suicide so that he can look at anything for "one last time" before he dies in any kind of last nostalgic remembrance. Either you bring the laptop for nostalgia--and then there's no need to destroy it--or you bring it because there's something that you don't want anyone to see after you're gone, and you throw it in the river, hoping the water will destroy the data. But of course that would raise the question of why he wouldn't physically destroy the drive before throwing it in the water, then. He couldn't be sure the water would destroy the data, and if the secret was so dark and ugly that no one should ever know, relying on the water wouldn't give him 100% certainty on that.

3. No one even bothered to look for or at the laptop until LE asked for it. PF didn't look in the closet on 4/15 and say, "Oh good, the laptop is still there." She went to get the laptop when LE asked for it, saw the case, picked it up, and discovered that it was empty--delaying the discovery that the laptop was missing by about ten seconds. Leaving the laptop case (and the peripherals) does nothing to help RG in a walkaway situation, and in fact, it makes less sense in a walkaway situation. He'd have wanted the peripherals if he wanted the laptop, so why leave them there?

[Politigal]

The old adage is "out of sight - out of mind"

and IMO - that's what occurred with the laptop

I believe Patty totally forgot about that laptop til police came calling for it since she & RG were using the desktop, and had other laptops at work.

Then, it became "missing."

IMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
The old adage is "out of sight - out of mind"

and IMO - that's what occurred with the laptop

I believe Patty totally forgot about that laptop til police came calling for it since she & RG were using the desktop, and had other laptops at work.

Then, it became "missing."

IMO

PEF looks in closet and what does see, the case for the laptop. That is true on 4/13, 4/14, 4/15, and 4/16. It is only (when the laptop is raised does she check.

If the case is gone, she might see something different and realize that not only RFG is missing but so is the laptop. This way, unless she actually opens the case, she doesn't know. She sees the case and expects the laptop to be in the case. PEF doesn't report that RFG and the laptop are missing, just RFG. LE doesn't put the laptop into the equation for more than 36 hours after RFG is reported missing.

UTR, putting the laptop on the floor will keep it out of sunlight and water. As to the jarring, except for the oft chance of an accident, where won't be that much jarring.

RFG, assuming he removed it, takes it out to check the battery. He doesn't put it back in, because he's planning to use it. Arguably, it's less awkward to pick it up and turn it on, than to take it out of the case.

As I've said before, I think the placement of the laptop is one of the two arguments against suicide. That said, there are several unlikely, but possible, reasons for the placement.

1. RFG did it himself. He read something, then removed the drive and dropped the laptop and drive in different locations. He didn't want something on there to pawed over by LE.

2. A "buddy" removed it from the house (possibly on 4/16, when PEF was at the police station). The buddy held on to it for a week or so and then tossed it in an area where RFG was known to have been.

3. RFG left it out, and someone, we'll call "John," took it. By the end of the week, John realizes that it was a piece in evidence and doesn't want to be caught with it. Unfortunately, John's put his own data on the hard drive. John then tosses it into the river (I'd suspect John is a local, possibly a college student).

I would say all three are unlikely, IMO, but all are possible.

My main concern, in this question, is not about how the laptop went into the river, but how it got to Lewisburg without the case. Those are two different questions.

[UndertheRadar]

Okay, JJ. I'm sure you know better than all the laptop manufacturers who say ALWAYS carry the laptop in the protective case and much better than the tech people who say that the laptop should be **in the protective case in a car** to prevent jarring. I'm sure there's no reason for contracts when laptops are issued to students or employees to include the proviso that laptops always be carried in their protective cases. They don't know what they're talking about. And I'm sure you'll tell me there's something strange or different about my vehicle when I tell you that sunlight most certainly hits the floor of the car, depending on the time of day and angle of the sun. So I won't bother. You'll know better. Count on it.

But I think I've figured something out about your assumption that PF "looks in the closet" and "sees the laptop." Not sure, since it always takes a while to sort through the layers of your "interesting" reasoning. But in your most recent post, it would appear that what you've actually been saying about this point is that PF has been opening a closet door on a regular basis, a door which opens to the place where the laptop is being stored. It would appear you are saying that on a daily basis she has been seeing the laptop case there in this closet and assuming the actual computer is where it is supposed to be.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but the only closet I can be counted to open on a **daily** basis, other than kitchen cabinets, is the master bedroom closet.

Are you assuming, JJ, that PF and RG stored the laptop in their bedroom closet along with the clothing and shoes and belts and other accessories for two people?

PF's house has FOUR bedrooms. I can only assume that like most people who have to do work at home, RG had turned one of these bedrooms over to a study. I can also only assume that room would have a closet in it. I would further assume that would be the most likely place the laptop would be stored, and NOT in the master bedroom closet.

How often was the closet where the laptop was actually stored opened? I would bet my bottom dollar the laptop was stored in a closet that was not opened with any regularity, and that nobody "noticed" the laptop case still sitting there on 4/13, 4/14, 4/15, or until PF went to check on it for LE.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Okay, JJ. I'm sure you know better than all the laptop manufacturers who say ALWAYS carry the laptop in the protective case and much better than the tech people who say that the laptop should be **in the protective case in a car** to prevent jarring. I'm sure there's no reason for contracts when laptops are issued to students or employees to include the proviso that laptops always be carried in their protective cases. They don't know what they're talking about. And I'm sure you'll tell me there's something strange or different about my vehicle when I tell you that sunlight most certainly hits the floor of the car, depending on the time of day and angle of the sun. So I won't bother. You'll know better. Count on it.

But I think I've figured something out about your assumption that PF "looks in the closet" and "sees the laptop." Not sure, since it always takes a while to sort through the layers of your "interesting" reasoning. But in your most recent post, it would appear that what you've actually been saying about this point is that PF has been opening a closet door on a regular basis, a door which opens to the place where the laptop is being stored. It would appear you are saying that on a daily basis she has been seeing the laptop case there in this closet and assuming the actual computer is where it is supposed to be.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but the only closet I can be counted to open on a **daily** basis, other than kitchen cabinets, is the master bedroom closet.

Are you assuming, JJ, that PF and RG stored the laptop in their bedroom closet along with the clothing and shoes and belts and other accessories for two people?

PF's house has FOUR bedrooms. I can only assume that like most people who have to do work at home, RG had turned one of these bedrooms over to a study. I can also only assume that room would have a closet in it. I would further assume that would be the most likely place the laptop would be stored, and NOT in the master bedroom closet.

How often was the closet where the laptop was actually stored opened? I would bet my bottom dollar the laptop was stored in a closet that was not opened with any regularity, and that nobody "noticed" the laptop case still sitting there on 4/13, 4/14, 4/15, or until PF went to check on it for LE. [/*]

sort of silly isn't it.....

JJ's idea of daily checking for that laptop

almost like

brush teeth
comb hair
feed the dog
check the closet for the laptop


:tongue:

[Politigal]

Tax records definitely show 4 bedrooms in PF's home. It's a 1.5 story and it shows 2 rooms upstairs.

And of course, there could also be *hall* closets...upstairs

[slaphappy]

UndertheRadar, J.J. in Phila, Politigal, Cloudbuster, Sherrijean981, logicworks, day2day, Cinderella, ......your nics are all so familiar to me. I just registered to this site a little more than a month ago. But I read this site for years. I started when Ray Gricar's thread was just a little blip on the missing persons thread. I remember when billywahoo first arrived on the site.

Anyway, didn't want to hi-jack the thread or go OT, just wanted to say thank you for keeping Ray Gricar's story going. I find myself wondering about him alot. I still can't understand why more fuss wasn't made when he first vanished.

Anyway, just wanted you posters to know there are more people that care what happened to Ray. I probably won't join in any discussions ( I won't even begin to feign the knowledge about this case that all of you possess ;)

I'm just somebody who cares.


:rose: for Ray and all those who care about him

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
I'm wondering if "Buddy" who stole the laptop on 04/16 is "Porn Buddy". I'm also wondering about "John, the college student". I surely hope LE is monitoring the board tonight, as these possibilities should be looked into immediately!

Talk about "peddling a theory"!!!!! [/*]

It's a lot to take in, isn't it, GS?

I'm still grappling with "Porn Buddy," a term I never heard before, and trying to figure out how in the world "Porn Buddy" and RG go together in the same sentence, whatever the heck it means.

Now we've got "John, The College Student" who just kind of "borrows" the laptop and just kind of happens to put some of his own data on the laptop and OOPS! It's a laptop implicated somehow in Gricar's disappearance, so the logical thing to do is throw it in the river.

After removing the hard drive, of course.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by slaphappy
UndertheRadar, J.J. in Phila, Politigal, Cloudbuster, Sherrijean981, logicworks, day2day, Cinderella, ......your nics are all so familiar to me. I just registered to this site a little more than a month ago. But I read this site for years. I started when Ray Gricar's thread was just a little blip on the missing persons thread. I remember when billywahoo first arrived on the site.

Anyway, didn't want to hi-jack the thread or go OT, just wanted to say thank you for keeping Ray Gricar's story going. I find myself wondering about him alot. I still can't understand why more fuss wasn't made when he first vanished.

Anyway, just wanted you posters to know there are more people that care what happened to Ray. I probably won't join in any discussions ( I won't even begin to feign the knowledge about this case that all of you possess ;)

I'm just somebody who cares.


:rose: for Ray and all those who care about him [/*]

Welcome to our little corner of insanity, SH (the name by which you shall now be known, since we're all too lazy to type out full nics on here).

Ray needs everyone he can get in his corner. Don't be shy. It doesn't pay to be around here. Jump in.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I'm sure that the carring a laptop out of its case in a car does not always lead to to damage, which is why I see them used on trains (which I find causing much more jarring). Some of this has to do with liability, as I am sure you are aware.

I'm sure that LE, who spent time looking for the laptop in the courthouse, didn't say themselves, **Oh, RFG would always use the case, so we can stop searching.** People, and I'd suspect inclusive, RFG do carry laptops without a case.

Of course, if it was suicide, I'd doubt that damaging the laptop would be the first thing on his mind.

It's not particularly damaging to a laptop to take it, without a case, in a car, especially for a bit over two hours. The question is, why take it out. The best reason (which tells us nothing about where it ended up) is to see if its charged and functional. It may be an indication that RFG intended to use it in or near the car.

Most people I know go into their bedroom closets, in order to dress. This wasn't the attic, and most people don't have a broom or utility closet in their bedrooms. I would expect a bedroom closet to accessed nearly daily. Most people keep clothing in them.

She noted the "bedroom" closet, not the "study" "hall" or "office" closet. Yes, in houses that I've lived in where there were rooms that could have been bed rooms, but were a study, family room, whatever, I've never heard them referred to as a "bedroom."

Now, maybe TG can give a better account, and my memory might be wrong, so we can ask if the laptop case was in a location where it was likely to be viewed daily.

[Cloudbuster]

SH WELCOME!!! UTR is right please do jump in!! Sometimes yes there appears insanity on here lol but we really are all trying so hard.

JJ your info is panning out :) it's even better than I thought. I believe I found what I was looking at. Sorry there is no kiss icon available lol.

Another thought I had on the laptop is if RG was heading back into the area and not alone then at some point could he and the other person have went in the house for Ray to get the laptop? He would have known that PF was to let the dog out because he called her--so he would know basically what time she wouldn't be there. ??? Thats another very good reason for Ray to have called her??? The only prints they would have found would be Rays if he took it out of the case and handed to Mr X? We have no way to fingerprint the laptop. Mr X fingerprints would be no where in the house or on the laptop case.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
I'm wondering if "Buddy" who stole the laptop on 04/16 is "Porn Buddy". I'm also wondering about "John, the college student". I surely hope LE is monitoring the board tonight, as these possibilities should be looked into immediately!

Talk about "peddling a theory"!!!!! [/*]

Well if you and UTR actually read what I've posted, or comprehended it, you have noticed the line possible, but unlikely.

Another poster actually suggested the possibility of a "porn buddy," in a PM; I won't give the identity.

It wouldn't necessarily be pornography, but something like performance reports on staff, something on LG's birth parents, a diary. It's just something he wouldn't want revealed if he were killed. It is fairly common.

There are a couple of problems with it. The case was, and is, a potential murder case, and "Buddy" would realize that he might be helping conceal the killer's identity. A friend may not want to do that. Second is the timing. At some point there was a police presence outside of the house. After Buddy finds out about it, he might not have the chance to sneak into the house.

John also has a couple of problems. He might contact LE that he found the laptop, before the disappearance is reported. He might get an attorney and go to LE with the laptop; he might be struck with remorse now and go to LE.

Both are possibilities, though I give neither high probability.

[J. J. in Phila]

Welcome SH! Please jump in!

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


Another thought I had on the laptop is if RG was heading back into the area and not alone then at some point could he and the other person have went in the house for Ray to get the laptop? He would have known that PF was to let the dog out because he called her--so he would know basically what time she wouldn't be there. ??? Thats another very good reason for Ray to have called her??? The only prints they would have found would be Rays if he took it out of the case and handed to Mr X? We have no way to fingerprint the laptop. Mr X fingerprints would be no where in the house or on the laptop case.

One question is if PEF drove that day? RFG could have checked to see if her car was in the lot, before going to the house.

The key question is "If RFG left Lewisburg voluntarily, how did he leave?" He didn't walk back to Belllefonte.

I only have two answers.

[UndertheRadar]

See, JJ, I knew you would know better than the tech experts and computer manufacturers, and you didn't disappoint me!

Meanwhile, does anyone have a reference showing that PF retrieved the laptop computer from the master bedroom closet? I'm able to find only what I'll post below and a few assorted generic references to the laptop in "the closet," along with another on a site related to Baron in which one of her ghost hunter compatriots says PF mentioned the laptop as being kept on A shelf in A closet. This is the only detailed accounting I could find of the laptop retrieval, Zaccagni in the Free Times article:

Later, we went to the house and his work and collected all the computers he used for processing. [To] see if there was something on his computers to tell us what had happened. When we went to collect the computer from the house, Patty asked us if we wanted his work laptop, too. They had been using his work laptop to do Internet searches and things, but had recently bought a separate one for the home. ‘So we don’t use it anymore,’ Patty said. So **she goes up** and brings down the empty case and says, ‘It’s not here.’ So, it’s missing, but all the peripheral stuff is there: the power cord, the floppy drive, everything extra you would need for the laptop. It’s all there. The only thing missing is the laptop with its self-powered battery that lasts for two or three hours.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/30/the-rivers-edge-homicide-suicide-hoax-a-prosecutor-vanishes-and-the-clues-point-everywhere-and-nowhere-at-oncethe-rivers-edge

All I've got there is "she goes up." But there's more than one bedroom upstairs, and as Pgal noted, there may be hall closets upstairs as well.

[Cloudbuster]

What I believe is he was in another car with somone or someone's. If they lured him? Or perhaps he wanted to meet thinking he could settle this by talking (person known to him).
Follow this --the other person gets in car to meet except it's a setup. The person tells RG they are being watched. Lets say RG begins to try to talk rationally and things are smooth for awhile except now they are in the other persons car. After they talk possibly heading back to Bellefonte area RG convinces the person of why he needed to call PF (half day would now need to be full day as per call.) Person okayed the outgoing last out going call. They go to the Mr X's place to resume their talk and then it turns out Mr X wants the evidence which is on the laptop back at RG's house. They both know PF is back at work by now so they go and get the laptop.

[UndertheRadar]

Still searching for where PF found the laptop, I bumped into this:

Q: Your article this past Sunday quoted Off. Zaccagni mentioning that it was unusual for Mr. Gricar to have taken the laptop with him, and **also unusual to have taken it without its carrier.** These tidbits seemed to be new in print. Do they imply that he had a working agenda for that day rather than just a drive in the countryside?
Anonymous, Bellefonte 10/18/05

A: It isn't a bit of new information. In a previous version of this forum, I had quoted Gricar's girlfriend and housemate Patty Fornicola as saying Gricar rarely used the laptop and almost never took it with him on short trips. Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni wasn't implying anything when he mentioned that fact during an interview with me for a story that ran on Oct. 16. It's simply one of many facts that stump police about Gricar's disappearance.

Erin Nissley 10/25/05

http://www.realcities.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/qa_forum.html?forumId=1882&mode=display&action=&type=list&pageNo=36

The original CDT article the question writer refers to doesn't seem to be online anymore, but it's pretty clear it must have contained a statement by Zaccagni that it would be unusual for Ray to have taken the laptop without its protective case.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ I forgot to add that I also think RG's intent to meet with this person ocurred most likely at the PBM in PERSON by face to face contact on 4-14-05. It could have been before or during or AFTER the meeting. Hey after all he blessed them with his presence did he not?

Seems to me if RG was in and out of his office with lots of door slams then to me he was angry or getting prepared for next days meeting and NO I don't think he was looking forward to this next day meeting which would account for a time loss here. God only knows what he did before his and PF's walk. I believe he was upset.

Key--who did he go there to see and set this possible meeting up with? If you got the minutes then it should say who all was present.

That gave the Mr X time to plan what he was going to do too before 4-15.

just another way to look at it.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

Seems to me if RG was in and out of his office with lots of door slams

CB, I think you mean he was in and out of his office with lots of door "closings in a manner more forceful than is usually expected."

Sorry, TG. I could not resist.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Another poster actually suggested the possibility of a "porn buddy," in a PM; I won't give the identity.

It wouldn't necessarily be pornography, [/*]I'm very familiar with the term "porn buddy" as it's an old running joke for my circle of friends and demographic. At this point, as JJ sort of points out, it's become a bit of a catch-all phrase. I've heard it become popularized on just about every morning FM radio show I've heard.

For those not familiar, a porn buddy is a friend who, given your untimely death, will come in and remove all of your hidden porn/contraband before your SO/family finds it.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


CB, I think you mean he was in and out of his office with lots of door "closings in a manner more forceful than is usually expected."

Sorry, TG. I could not resist. [/*]That's more like it...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled episode of, "Trac Phone: Traceable or Not!".

:D

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the quote from EN says:

A: It isn't a bit of new information. In a previous version of this forum, I had quoted Gricar's girlfriend and housemate Patty Fornicola as saying Gricar rarely used the laptop and almost never took it with him on short trips. Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni wasn't implying anything when he mentioned that fact during an interview with me for a story that ran on Oct. 16. It's simply one of many facts that stump police about Gricar's disappearance.

Erin Nissley 10/25/05

There is a claim from the questioner about it not being in the case, but not from EN.

Now, I'm trying to look for a reason for RFG to take the laptop out of the case.

One is, he wants to make look like the laptop is still there, which points to walkaway (or possibly suicide). Since he's planning to destroy it, in this scenario, what difference does it make if it gets jostled in the car? None. But if he wants just to destroy it, why take it out of the case first? My answer is, RFG didn't just want to destroy it.

Another would be that he was planning to use it while out, checked the power and then left with it, without putting it back in the case (that points more strongly to murder or possibly suicide). That might indicate he was planning to use it in or near the car, and wouldn't have to carry it a distance.

There is also the possibility that someone else took the laptop from the house, the "porn buddy," but I think that is unlikely. In terms of the case, why wouldn't this "Buddy" open the case and remove the laptop; why not just grab the case?

Now, there are some very good questions about where the laptop and drive ended up, but right now, those are not the ones I'm asking.

[UndertheRadar]

Criminy, JJ, are you going to ruin my Friday the same way you ruined yesterday for me? I can only ask the Good Lord for so much patience, you know.

The questioner refers to a CDT story in which Zaccagni was quoted making a reference to it being unusual that the laptop was out of its case, among other things, asks if this is new information, **and asks if this implies that Gricar had a working agenda that Friday.** EN says no, it is not new information, and that Zaccagni was not implying anything by mentioning these facts when she interviewed him for the article, meaning she did not believe Zaccagni was implying that Gricar had a working agenda that Friday.

However, EN clearly assents to the fact that her article had Zaccagni mentioning it as unusual that the laptop was not in its protective carrier. That is a given. Please try to follow along.

You may not find that significant, but I do. Zaccagni must have had some reason to find it unusual. At the very least, it suggests it was not RG's habit to carry the laptop out of the case, or Det. Z would not have remarked on it being unusual that it was *out* of the case.

It's not an unreasonable thing to ask, "How did the laptop come to be out of the case?" But pretending you can ask that question in isolation, without examining it as part of a chain of events that eventually land the laptop in the water, is impossible. Asking why it is out of the case also demands exploring RG's ultimate reason for taking the laptop along, whether he is merely taking it for a meeting and expects to return home with it or whether he is intending to destroy it himself, and if so, why.

It does little good, for instance, to settle on "checking the battery" as a reason it was out previous to "reviewing things on the computer for nostalgia's sake" prior to a suicide, when there's no good explanation then for separating the drive from the computer and destroying both in that scenario. There's not even anything to suggest that RG kept anything of a personal nature on that laptop--only that he used it to work on case work at home and to do email and internet searches prior the home computer's purchase. He couldn't open a jpg without TG's instructions, and there's no evidence he had a digital camera and uploaded personal photographs to a *county-owned* laptop.

IMO, you can start with what seems like a plausible reason for taking the laptop out of the case (checking battery level), but if the **whole chain** doesn't hold together from taking it out of the case to the laptop winding up in the river, it's not going to hold water, no pun intended. JMO.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar

--only that he used it to work on case work at home and to do email and internet searches

JMO. [/*]

Out of that whole post those words jumped out at me. I wonder if he still had all the previous case work on that computer? What case could he have been looking into? A recent one or one that has not been settled from the past? Did someone know he had info that could put that person in jail?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, this is what EN said:

In a previous version of this forum, I had quoted Gricar's girlfriend and housemate Patty Fornicola as saying Gricar rarely used the laptop and almost never took it with him on short trips.

It was unusal to take the laptop, case or no case. It wasn't unusual enough for him to have taken the laptop out of the house, without the case, that LE didn't check the office.

UTR, you have to understand, there are two different actions, with potentially different actors, and potentially different motives. One is removing the laptop from the house, without the case. The other is tossing it.

We've kind of assumed that whomever removed the laptop (at least in some scenarios) did so with the sole motive of tossing it into the river, disassembled. That may not have been the motive.

RFG, for example, may have removed the laptop with the intent of using it, and checked the power. With that:

1. He may have had the intent of using it outside of the house and returning it to the case later in the day.

2. He may have had the intent of looking at something and didn't care about the disposition of the laptop after that.

3. He may have had the intent might have been to look at something and then destroy the laptop.

I would suspect strongly that RFG is the person that removed the laptop, and that his intent was to look at something on the laptop while he was out of the house. It seems that the most likely reason to remove the laptop from the case was to check the battery. ; the most likely reason to check the battery is if the computer is planned to be used. Now, that doesn't eliminate any possibility, but it might help.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Out of that whole post those words jumped out at me. I wonder if he still had all the previous case work on that computer? What case could he have been looking into? A recent one or one that has not been settled from the past? Did someone know he had info that could put that person in jail? [/*]

Wouldn't **any** case LE forwarded information about to RG be one that the DA's office was going to prosecute? Maybe I'm naive, but that's the way I understand the system to work: LE does the investigating, gathers the evidence to build a case, and then brings it to the DA, who then puts together the **legal** aspect of the case, no? So wouldn't any case work Gricar had on any computer be designed with the goal of prosecuting and imposing some kind of sentence on the person LE had gathered evidence against?

Wouldn't all the evidence against someone also be in LE records? Wouldn't RG's role be solely to build the **legal** case using the evidence gathered by LE?

How would someone know that the laptop, which RG rarely if ever used, contained information worth destroying the laptop because of, when RG also had a home computer and work computer which could also contain copies of the same information? (I often keep back ups on multiple computers.)

Just thinking out loud . . .

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I'm not really interested in what EN said, because **her** answer isn't the salient point in what I posted. It's the questioner's reference to the earlier article and to Zaccagni's statement that it was unusual for the laptop not to be in its protective carrier.

To ignore that is to ignore a critical issue and to leap ahead in your line of thinking. Did Zaccagni and/or other LE question PF and/or courthouse staff about times they had seen RG carrying the laptop? Any time he was seen with it out of the house, was he seen carrying it or traveling in the car with it in its protective case? Did LE hear other anecdotes like the one KA relates about the dustcover incident? What led Zaccagni to conclude that it was unusual for the laptop to be out of its protective case?

If RG was starting out on a pleasure drive and took the laptop for some reason, or if he was heading for a meeting and took the laptop for some reason, then whatever led Zaccagni to conclude the laptop sans case was "unusual" may be important, regardless of a "checking battery" theory and regardless of whether you've seen people on trains carrying laptops sans case. This isn't people in Philadelphia carrying their own personal laptops we're talking about. This is Ray Gricar, meticulous, dependable, professional Ray Gricar we are talking about, and a county-issued laptop we're talking about. I know that I, personally, never, ever put my **work-issued** laptop in the car or took it anywhere without putting it in its protective case, even if I was going to carry it only a short distance.

If Zaccagni's conclusion that the laptop being out of its case is *unusual* is based on observations of RG's previous habits with the laptop, it significantly reduces the chances that RG took the laptop with him for personal reasons or for a meeting with the intent to return to a normal life. There is no reason to break habit or pattern simply because he took the laptop out of the case to check the batttery level. It would take all of 30 seconds to put the laptop back in its case, and I believe a meticulous man would do so.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
In my area, LE (state, county, local) conduct the investigation; sometimes, preliminary reports are sent to DA, if the investigation is pending. When investigation by LE is completed a report (including mode of operation, motive, property stolen, property recovered & disposition of same, witnesses, statements obtained) is sent to the DA to prepare his case before the court. In my office, the original copy of said investigation report was kept on detachment, a copy sent to DA, a copy sent to Dept. Hdqts. (County & local LE normally wouldn't send reports to SP Hdqts.) There would be no reason to destroy the DA's copy of said report because the investigating LE office would have a copy of same. [/*]

Thanks, GS. So this is essentially as I thought, I guess, with information being passed from LE to the DA's office and existing in records held by LE, apparently with copies in multiple places.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Wouldn't **any** case LE forwarded information about to RG be one that the DA's office was going to prosecute? Maybe I'm naive, but that's the way I understand the system to work: LE does the investigating, gathers the evidence to build a case, and then brings it to the DA, who then puts together the **legal** aspect of the case, no? So wouldn't any case work Gricar had on any computer be designed with the goal of prosecuting and imposing some kind of sentence on the person LE had gathered evidence against?

Wouldn't all the evidence against someone also be in LE records? Wouldn't RG's role be solely to build the **legal** case using the evidence gathered by LE?

How would someone know that the laptop, which RG rarely if ever used, contained information worth destroying the laptop because of, when RG also had a home computer and work computer which could also contain copies of the same information? (I often keep back ups on multiple computers.)

Just thinking out loud . . . [/*]

I was reading your thoughts in the above paragraph and you stated:

quote:
"There's not even anything to suggest that RG kept anything of a personal nature on that laptop--only that he used it to work on case work at home and to do email and internet searches prior the home computer's purchase. " Quote


Which then lets me with the questions I asked. It was a work related computer that it was said LE sent things to at one time. Cases they were working on, cases they were asking RG how to go forward with (guessing that is how they do that?). Cases he would then decide how to proceed or not. But if the case was put on hold for one reason or another wouldn't he still have that info on his computer? Did he transfer all the info to another computer? It was still a company issued computer, to be used for work. Why would he use his home personal computer to do work issues, private work?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Why would he use his home personal computer to do work issues, private work?

I don't know how to answer your other questions, so I'll leave those to people more knowledgeable about such things.

As to this particular question, the answer is that it happens **all the time** among people I know. People own their own computers but have to do a lot of work at home on their own time.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I was reading your thoughts in the above paragraph and you stated:

quote:
"There's not even anything to suggest that RG kept anything of a personal nature on that laptop--only that he used it to work on case work at home and to do email and internet searches prior the home computer's purchase. " Quote


Which then lets me with the questions I asked. It was a work related computer that it was said LE sent things to at one time. Cases they were working on, cases they were asking RG how to go forward with (guessing that is how they do that?). Cases he would then decide how to proceed or not. But if the case was put on hold for one reason or another wouldn't he still have that info on his computer? Did he transfer all the info to another computer? It was still a company issued computer, to be used for work. Why would he use his home personal computer to do work issues, private work? [/*]

Well, he seemed to use the laptop as the home computer at one point. I haven't seen anything to suggest that he only used the computer for work. He did get photos on one of these computers. It seemed to be of "mixed" use.

I recalled at one point asking about a digital camera, and I believe that it was at least implied that he did (I think if it was missing).

As to the duplicate records, we've discussed this before. I cannot imagine any government official only having a single copy on a hard drive; usually, there is a hard copy, and probably backup disks. Also, in the case of reports, they should be coming in from another source that would still have copies.

Other than something like a diary (listing job performances possibly), I can't see anything that would be official that would only on the laptop, at lest prior to 4/14/05.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, if by "listing job performances," you mean performance reviews and/or notes leading to such he would have been keeping on courthouse employees, it would seem unlikely to me those would be kept on a single computer with no back up copies, whether on disk or on paper. I have never trusted a single computer to hold such notes and records in case of computer failure and always back up those kind of files with hard copies and/or copies on disks. Too much critical information lost otherwise if one computer has a hard drive failure.