Do You Feel That PF Was Fully Investigated?

[Politigal]

Going by what's been reported......

Considering that the disappearance wasn't initially looked at as a crime

Considering that the investigation was based on her version of events

Considering that there was no real forensic investigation inside the home

Considering the laptop case wasn't dusted for prints

Considering that PF wasn't given a polygraph until 3 months after the disappearance

And, considering that she was the last known person to have been with Gricar, having access to his personal effects, the laptop, the car and the cellphone....

Do you feel that she was fully investigated as a possible suspect in RG's disappearance?

[Serendipitous1]

Yes. My opinion...and without regard to the fact that you have stated many things which presume facts which ARE NOT in evidence.

[tiredoftheguff]

I feel that she passed the polygraph. She has been forthcoming. She is a victim. There has never been one shred of evidence that suggests that she would have any reason to harm Ray. In order to pull off the kind of cockamamie story that you think she did she would have had to involve numerous others in order to help her dispose of the body and cover all her tracks. I would never help anyone for any reason do the kinds of things that they would have had to do. Why would ANYONE risk their freedom , career, family, fines all of that to help her dispose of Ray's body? The answer is they would not! No one in their right mind would. I used to enjoy reading the boards and contributing. I don't anymore because of people such as Politigal who can not seem to understand that this constant Patty bashing takes a toll on morale. The truth is Miss Perfect (politigal) if someone you love just goes poof and dissapears into thin air you do not know what you would do! Do you think that you would remain calm and do everything right? Do you think that you could even dial a phone? Do you think that you could calmly and methodically do everything perfectly? Even if you did do all the " right things" do you think that they would make a difference? Have you ever been kidnapped before? Have you ever been a victim? Let me tell you hindsight is always 20/20! Do you know how to put yourself in someone elses shoes? Do you have a compassionate heart? If your loved one went poof would you want people pointing the finger at you? How about if they rode your arse like a bull in a rodeo. Do you think you would like that?

[Politigal]

here we go again....with the hateful posts ....

calling me "Miss Perfect"

If you don't like the thread topic - you can ignore it

Stop the name calling please

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Yes. My opinion...and without regard to the fact that you have stated many things which presume facts which ARE NOT in evidence. [/*]

Please list which are not in evidence.

I plainly stated - "going by what's been reported"

[J. J. in Phila]

Considering that LE was looking at a potential crime after the Mini was found.

Considering that PEF's version was backed up by the following physical evidence:

1. A cell call make from the Brush Valley area at a time when she could have not have made the call.

2. The Mini, with only evidence of RFG driving it there, found nearly fifty miles away. And considering the impossibility of her driving two cars and of anyone driving the Mini from Bellefonte to Lewisburg without leaving some trace, without removing the evidence that RFG had driven it.

3. The scent found in the parking lot.

That being coupled with witnesses placing both RFG and the Mini in Lewisburg, only after noon on 4/15/05.

Considering that the residence was searched with PEF's permission and that family members had access to the residence within 36 hours of the report. And considering that LE found no evidence of anything amiss.

And finally, considering that even a year delay would not not affect the polygraph results.

I would say PEF has been thoroughly investigated.

I think that the claim the claim that she was the "last person" is false.

[sherrijean981]

J.J. I agree with your post.

First I want to add that RG was not just a SO. He was the DA of CC. He was working on many cases at the time. He had been tired to the point PF was concerned for him and ask him to see a doctor.

She was calling his cell, and she called her brother which probably calmed her down. They might be very close to each other and talk daily. Nothing wrong with that. Later she called LE. They would know if any accidents happened on the highways. They had access to other LE departments and PSP.

It was unusual for RG to be out like that, that late, without a call.
He wasn't answering his phone, both things that could mean he had an accident. I think she did the right thing.

I don't understand what the questions are concerning PF calling her brother. Her brother for goodness sake. He is family, maybe her support system, in all things. Don't we all have someone in our family we can call and worry with? I do.

JMO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

Considering that the residence was searched with PEF's permission and that family members had access to the residence within 36 hours of the report. And considering that LE found no evidence of anything amiss.

And finally, considering that even a year delay would not not affect the polygraph results.

I would say PEF has been thoroughly investigated.

I think that the claim the claim that she was the "last person" is false. [/*]

I posted a link previously that said family and LE made RG and PF's home headquarters for a couple weeks. They were in and out all the time. They had meals there, watched the news there and talked together there. I think LE and even others probably had more than enough opportunity to look around, with PF's permission.

TG also said both PF and LG had many long hours of being polygraphed and interviewed. They found neither were invovled or had any knowledge of where he was.
JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I posted a link previously that said family and LE made RG and PF's home headquarters for a couple weeks. They were in and out all the time. They had meals there, watched the news there and talked together there. I think LE and even others probably had more than enough opportunity to look around, with PF's permission.

TG also said both PF and LG had many long hours of being polygraphed and interviewed. They found neither were invovled or had any knowledge of where he was.
JMO [/*]

I believe there were some descriptions of a constant LE presence there on the first few weeks. It's going to be impossible to take anything large (like a body or a bloodstained carpet) out of the house in that situation.

[Politigal]

I've rec'd notice that some are not able to vote -No- on this poll.

Seems to be some sort of "glitch" ---

[tiredoftheguff]

You should know about hateful posts Politigal....you set the standard. I should think that you would take Miss Perfect as quite the compliment considering that you can point the finger at Patty repeatedly and name all the things you think she did or did not do and should and should not have done. You must do things just right and you must think you are above reproach.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
You should know about hateful posts Politigal....you set the standard. I should think that you would take Miss Perfect as quite the compliment considering that you can point the finger at Patty repeatedly and name all the things you think she did or did not do and should and should not have done. You must do things just right and you must think you are above reproach. [/*]

I don't believe I did "set the standard."

I've seen more hate from the good "Christians" on this board than anyone.

But, I guess you only see what you want to see.


:o

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal
I've rec'd notice that some are not able to vote -No- on this poll.

Seems to be some sort of "glitch" --- [/*]

Ghosts, Goblins and Spirits more likely! :D

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Ghosts, Goblins and Spirits more likely! :D [/*]

It may have just been that person's computer.

I don't believe in ghosts, goblins, spirits or witches.....

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


It may have just been that person's computer.

I don't believe in ghosts, goblins, spirits or witches..... [/*]

Referring to the season only.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
I feel that she passed the polygraph.

Good for your "feelings," but not so good for anything concrete regarding whether or not PF was involved in RG's disappearance.

In most cases, "inner circle" people are polygraphed early in the case, and investigative information isn't shared with them until they have taken the polygraph. In this situation, we have Zaccagni saying PF was "never a suspect" and LE handling her with kid gloves--no polygraph and sharing investigative information with her for three months before she took a poly which she volunteered for. Now maybe she is completely clean in this whole situation, but if not, that certainly muddies the waters for the polygraph--three months of shared information and three months of time to brush up on the kind of techniques Diane Sawyer learned and demonstrated in that TV segment on how to pass a polygraph, all available on the web to anyone who wants to pay 49 bucks and download the strategy. Even minus such "cheat sheets," people like Gary Ridgway have passed multiple polygraphs while innocent folks like the cab driver suspected in Ridgway's crimes have failed them.

That's why polys are inadmissible in court. Just yesterday I was reading an article about a situation where a lawyer mentioned a passed poly in court and the judge struck the comment, advising jurors not to consider the poly, to remember that polygraphs are only an investigative tool. Everything I have read about polygraphs leads me to believe that LE uses them primarily to try to force confessions out of suspects and NOT to determine guilt or innocence of suspects.

I would never help anyone for any reason do the kinds of things that they would have had to do. Why would ANYONE risk their freedom , career, family, fines all of that to help her dispose of Ray's body? The answer is they would not! No one in their right mind would.

Do you follow many true crime stories, TOTG? Right off the top of my head, I'd suggest you talk to Gerry Capano, Tom Capano's brother, who helped Tom conceal Anne Marie Fahey's dismembered body by stuffing the body parts in coolers and tossing the coolers into the Atlantic Ocean. I'd also suggest you talk to Myisha Ferrell, alleged accomplice of Bobby Cutts, Jr., in the murder/disposal of the body of Jessie Marie Davis. Nope, nobody would risk their "freedom, career, family, fines" to help someone else dispose of a body.

I used to enjoy reading the boards and contributing. I don't anymore because of people such as Politigal who can not seem to understand that this constant Patty bashing takes a toll on morale.

But I guess you'd just love Pgal oodles and oodles if she were making the kind of direct accusations you do of JL on a fairly regular basis or the accusations against MM of "dirty hands" that you have. Pgal's sin apparently is not choosing the suspects YOU have in mind, because no one's posts have been more openly and directly accusatory against certain chosen suspects than yours have been, TOTG.

[tiredoftheguff]

The fact that MM won't allow the case to go any higher and the fact that Taji Lee said that MM really knows where to kick the dirt makes me think MM hands may be dirty.
In addition I don't believe that the police have ever throughly investigated JL and I think they should. His own family thinks he is involved in this. I'd much rather point the finger at a known bad guy then a person who in my mind is a victim.
I stand by my thoughts and statements.
I am so thankful though that I am open to other theories because I do not have tunnel vision as some do.
All along my hope was that I could somehow help locate Ray and help solve the case. Until this case I have never been involved in a crime board.
I think it takes a very intelligent person to be able to look at all avenues in this case.
You want to defend JL go ahead. Just don't let him around your kids.

[tiredoftheguff]

By the way UTR I think your last statement is way off base. I do not start threads saying so and so did it. I don't pull the kind of crap that some do having tons of info removed every time they get in a snit. I don't post thousands of post. Some of you old timers just want someone to pick on and argue with in my opinion.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff

In addition I don't believe that the police have ever throughly investigated JL and I think they should.

Good. Then you should have no problem understanding that some here don't believe that police have ever "throughly" [sic] investigated PF and believe that they should.

I am so thankful though that I am open to other theories because I do not have tunnel vision as some do.

You incorrectly assume that those who want PF more thoroughly investigated 1) have not chased down umpteen different avenues looking for answers to this mystery and 2) do not remain open to other explanations.


You want to defend JL go ahead. Just don't let him around your kids.

Where do you see me defending JL? I am merely pointing out that you make direct accusations against JL on a regular basis when you post, then turn around and complain when someone else wants to look at a different possibility.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
By the way UTR I think your last statement is way off base. I do not start threads saying so and so did it. I don't pull the kind of crap that some do having tons of info removed every time they get in a snit. I don't post thousands of post. Some of you old timers just want someone to pick on and argue with in my opinion. [/*]

And I think you need to read more carefully. The statement you refer to said merely that you've been going after Pgal on this thread because she's been looking at PF, and that I believe that must be so because she's chosen the "wrong" suspect in your eyes since you have no trouble at all making open accusations against your suspect of choice.

All you've done on this thread is call Pgal names for looking at PF--no mention of thread or post removal. Who knew you were carrying some kind of grudge. It's not as if you had done hours of research that was lost on those threads.

[tiredoftheguff]

Part of my problem with JL is that I don't think they ever truly did investigate him. He gave an alibi for his son BJL. BJL winds up dead the same weekend that Ray goes missing. Coincidence? They cleared BJL based on his Dad's word. But they did not clear JL. They have never ever looked into where he was that day did they? He hated Ray! The police need to dig so deep into what Joe was doing at that time. Where was he when Ray went missing. They need to talk with Terry Leathers also. They should both be polygraphed. Every time I write to Pete Bozak about JL he answers as if I had asked about BJL!
The fact that Patty has been cleared by police is good enough for me.
My problem with Poligal is that she will not let up on Patty even though she has been cleared and there is no evidence that she did anything wrong. Tunnel vision.
I am open to any and all theories.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
I guess I don't understand why apparently there was no evidence against JL &/or apparently no evidence against PF, but no one is allowed to mention PF. Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me.



I don't understand why either PF or JL would have been considered "cleared" when neither were considered "persons of interest" or "suspects" in the case and when PF was never asked to take a poly but took one only because she volunteered to for her own reasons, not for LE reasons. Nor do I understand why BJL's death was ruled a suicide in a nano-second and deemed to have no connection whatsoever to RG's disappearance in a blink of an eye.

But being "cleared" by LE doesn't necessarily mean much. Ira Einhorn was "cleared" by LE in Holly's disappearance, even though her new boyfriend Saul Lapidus had information that virtually linked the disappearance to Einhorn and had brought that information to LE. If not for one stubborn investigator who pushed the issue above certain heads in the police department (not to mention a rotting corpse), Einhorn might have remained "cleared."

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff

The fact that MM won't allow the case to go any higher [/*]

I find it odd he would send Sheriiff Nau's case to the AG, but has balked at getting the AG to look at RG's case.

I think a missing DA of Centre County is a lot more important than trying to hang the Sheriff for cashing a check that Ferguson Township knew should have gone to CC Controller or accounting dept. That was more someone making an election smear on DN than a real case against him.

RG is missing but MM will not go to AG. Why is that?

[Tree_of_Life]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar



*snip*

PF was never asked to take a poly but took one only because she volunteered to for her own reasons, not for LE reasons. [/*]

Can you post your source for this UTR?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life


Can you post your source for this UTR? [/*]

I'll have to dig around and see if the article is still available and/or whether I've got it saved in notes. I'm sure others remember reading it. Zaccagni said that PF volunteered to take the poly, wanted to take one, because she'd been hearing "whispers" around town or something to that effect and wanted to "clear" her name. That's paraphrase, obviously, but the gist of what was said in the article.

[UndertheRadar]

This is the article I was referring to, Tree:

The lead investigator searching for missing Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar said yesterday that Gricar's girlfriend has requested a polygraph test to clear her name.

Officer Darrel Zaccagni confirmed that the department would work with either the U.S. Secret Service or Pennsylvania State Police to test Gricar's live-in girlfriend, Patty Fornicola, who is not considered a suspect in the case.

"She heard some whispers and asked me when it will be done," he said. "As it looks closer to foul play ... let's get Patty clear of this situation. We want to do it to rule her out."

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/07/07-13-05tdc/07-13-05dnews-01.asp

[Serendipitous1]

OTOH, JL has not once...NOT ONCE...been addressed by the media in connection with this case. And yet, days (or hours) after the PSP CIA unit concluded its "review", JL got arrested on old information. MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

And LG was given the poly to clear her, right UTR?

Polygraphs are not[/*] infallible, but they are very accurate, expecially when done by highly trained people. If we had a polygraph result that refuted the physical evidence, I would believe the evidence. We don't have that in this case.

In the case JL and family, apparently LE did create a time line excluding BLJ. The certainly have prints and DNA from both JL and BJL.

[UndertheRadar]

Lara was given a polygraph, according to press reports, to rule out any contact between RG and LG following the disappearance. LG was never a suspect according to press reports, which makes sense given the fact that she was 3,000 miles away at the time. The only way she could have been involved would have been to hire a hit man to carry out a kidnapping and murder in Pennsylvania, and I don't believe that theory has ever seriously been considered by anyone that I'm aware of.

Polygraphs are not accurate enough to be admissible in most courts of law, unlike Bloodhound evidence, which has been scientifically proven to have a much better accuracy rate (96%) than polygraph examinations. Dixon has reported that the LE trained and handled Bloodhound "picked up no trail" and "did not pick up on anything" according to various press reports. Scientific data collected by the FBI demonstrates how easy it is for someone not to leave DNA, fingerprints, hairs, and fibers behind, and LE collected evidence shows how infrequent it is to find fingerprints, period, at a scene and how much more infrequent it is to find fingerprints of a *perpetrator.* The odor of smoke and cigarette ashes in the Mini suggest the possibility of another person in the vehicle, and the various "witness reports" get little weight considering they were in response to details given, have no scent evidence to show how RG would have traveled from the parking lot to the SOS, and as yet have no explanation for where RG would have been between Friday afternoon and Saturday at noon time, leaving no scent evidence and no videotape, no receipts, and no witness reports from restaurants or motels, etc.

My carefully considered, researched, and documented opinion only, to which I am entitled.

[Tree_of_Life]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Lara was given a polygraph, according to press reports, to rule out any contact between RG and LG following the disappearance. LG was never a suspect according to press reports, which makes sense given the fact that she was 3,000 miles away at the time. The only way she could have been involved would have been to hire a hit man to carry out a kidnapping and murder in Pennsylvania, and I don't believe that theory has ever seriously been considered by anyone that I'm aware of.

Polygraphs are not accurate enough to be admissible in most courts of law, unlike Bloodhound evidence, which has been scientifically proven to have a much better accuracy rate (96%) than polygraph examinations. Dixon has reported that the LE trained and handled Bloodhound "picked up no trail" and "did not pick up on anything" according to various press reports. Scientific data collected by the FBI demonstrates how easy it is for someone not to leave DNA, fingerprints, hairs, and fibers behind, and LE collected evidence shows how infrequent it is to find fingerprints, period, at a scene and how much more infrequent it is to find fingerprints of a *perpetrator.* The odor of smoke and cigarette ashes in the Mini suggest the possibility of another person in the vehicle, and the various "witness reports" get little weight considering they were in response to details given, have no scent evidence to show how RG would have traveled from the parking lot to the SOS, and as yet have no explanation for where RG would have been between Friday afternoon and Saturday at noon time, leaving no scent evidence and no videotape, no receipts, and no witness reports from restaurants or motels, etc.

My carefully considered, researched, and documented opinion only, to which I am entitled. [/*]

By the same token though, you must concede that there is no evidence that PF was at the SOS then either. Even less than there is that RG was there IMO. Except for the cigarette ash, there's no DNA evidence of her or anyone other than RG being in the Mini. No sightings of her at the SOS. No fingerprints. No evidence of the Mini being wiped down. What real evidence is there of her involvment other than the speculation of what some think her actions should have been that night?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life


By the same token though, you must concede that there is no evidence that PF was at the SOS then either. Even less than there is that RG was there IMO. Except for the cigarette ash, there's no DNA evidence of her or anyone other than RG being in the Mini. No sightings of her at the SOS. No fingerprints. No evidence of the Mini being wiped down. What real evidence is there of her involvment other than the speculation of what some think her actions should have been that night? [/*]

To my knowledge, the only readable prints in the Mini were RG's and the only DNA testing done was on the water bottle, which showed RG's DNA. Of course, there's nothing to indicate that was "Friday" water. And of course, we have no way of knowing what other DNA testing might have been done, but to my knowledge, no testing for PF's DNA was done in the Mini. Wouldn't have proven anything anyway, since one would expect to find PF's DNA in the Mini, same as her fingerprints, correct?

To my knowledge, no one went around Lewisburg showing pictures of PF and asking if anyone had seen a woman matching that description. And the likelihood in my mind, *if PF is involved* in the disappearance, would be that an accomplice was on scene in Lewisburg and not PF herself, perhaps someone matching the description of a "construction type" worker . . . .

JMO.

[Politigal]

I'm still curious about that "construction type" description.

What exactly was it that led the witness to think "construction?"

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I posted a link previously that said family and LE made RG and PF's home headquarters for a couple weeks. They were in and out all the time. They had meals there, watched the news there and talked together there. I think LE and even others probably had more than enough opportunity to look around, with PF's permission.

TG also said both PF and LG had many long hours of being polygraphed and interviewed. They found neither were invovled or had any knowledge of where he was.
JMO [/*]

It's true that Tony, Chris, Lara and probably others came to PF's home in the days after the disappearance.

But what about Thursday night - or Friday all day - or Friday night?

That's a large span of time for many things to have transpired.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
This is the article I was referring to, Tree:

The lead investigator searching for missing Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar said yesterday that Gricar's girlfriend has requested a polygraph test to clear her name.

Officer Darrel Zaccagni confirmed that the department would work with either the U.S. Secret Service or Pennsylvania State Police to test Gricar's live-in girlfriend, Patty Fornicola, who is not considered a suspect in the case.

"She heard some whispers and asked me when it will be done," he said. "As it looks closer to foul play ... let's get Patty clear of this situation. We want to do it to rule her out."

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/07/07-13-05tdc/07-13-05dnews-01.asp [/*]

I wonder who was doing the whispering? Neighbors or coworkers?

Do you think maybe PF heard JKA whispering?

:eek:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal


I wonder who was doing the whispering? Neighbors or coworkers?

Do you think maybe PF heard JKA whispering?

:eek: [/*]

Considering that there was suspicion of "the girlfriend" on multiple boards around the web before a week had elapsed after the disappearance, I doubt it would have to be narrowed to whispers in the courthouse.

[Politigal]

"imagination" or promotion.....

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


It's true that Tony, Chris, Lara and probably others came to PF's home in the days after the disappearance.

But what about Thursday night - or Friday all day - or Friday night?

That's a large span of time for many things to have transpired. [/*]

First, it strains credibility to beyond the breaking point to suggest anyone other than RFG drove the car to Lewisburg. We are not talking about someone sitting in it for five minutes; we are talking about someone having to be in it for at least an hour, and have to operate it fully. We also don't have anyone coming forward and saying the car was in the lot prior to noon of 4/15/05.

After discussing this for a year and some posters trying every way to concoct a scenario where PEF or anyone other than RFG drove the car, we don't have any method for it happening. Any claim about other crimes fail to take into account the activities needed for driving, the closed in area of a car, and the length of time needed to drive it.

Second, specifically in regard to PEF, we know where she was from about 8:15 AM on 4/15 until she called LE. That covers Friday. Unless she was involved in a bloodless crime, there is no opportunity to either clean up or replace household items (and LE was looking for those signs).

[Laws]

Poll wouldn't accept my vote either, it is a resounding

NO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Lara was given a polygraph, according to press reports, to rule out any contact between RG and LG following the disappearance. LG was never a suspect according to press reports, which makes sense given the fact that she was 3,000 miles away at the time. The only way she could have been involved would have been to hire a hit man to carry out a kidnapping and murder in Pennsylvania, and I don't believe that theory has ever seriously been considered by anyone that I'm aware of.

Polygraphs are not accurate enough to be admissible in most courts of law, unlike Bloodhound evidence, which has been scientifically proven to have a much better accuracy rate (96%) than polygraph examinations. Dixon has reported that the LE trained and handled Bloodhound "picked up no trail" and "did not pick up on anything" according to various press reports. Scientific data collected by the FBI demonstrates how easy it is for someone not to leave DNA, fingerprints, hairs, and fibers behind, and LE collected evidence shows how infrequent it is to find fingerprints, period, at a scene and how much more infrequent it is to find fingerprints of a *perpetrator.* The odor of smoke and cigarette ashes in the Mini suggest the possibility of another person in the vehicle, and the various "witness reports" get little weight considering they were in response to details given, have no scent evidence to show how RG would have traveled from the parking lot to the SOS, and as yet have no explanation for where RG would have been between Friday afternoon and Saturday at noon time, leaving no scent evidence and no videotape, no receipts, and no witness reports from restaurants or motels, etc.

My carefully considered, researched, and documented opinion only, to which I am entitled. [/*]

My problem with the dog search: does anyone know if the dogs were taken to where the employee at the museum saw RG parking his car in front of the museum, get out of the car and then saw him sitting in the park reading something?? Didn't they only take the dogs to the banks of the river? If he was seen in the SOS why weren't the dogs taken IN ths SOS's and were they taken to the back doors or the back parking lot? Where his car could have been earlier or later in the day?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


I wonder who was doing the whispering? Neighbors or coworkers?

Do you think maybe PF heard JKA whispering?

:eek: [/*]

Maybe it was a little more than whispers? Could there have been harassing phone calls? Nasty comments on the street, in the stores, in the courthouse, in church? No one knows what PF was dealing with at the time to request the polygraph but IMO it had to have been a lot more than "whispers".

[sherrijean981]

[i]Originally posted by J. J. in Phila [/.

Second, specifically in regard to PEF, we know where she was from about 8:15 AM on 4/15 until she called LE. That covers Friday. Unless she was involved in a bloodless crime, there is no opportunity to either clean up or replace household items (and LE was looking for those signs). [/*]



I can't believe PF (not any one else or case, but PF) could kill a person, let alone the man she believes is her "soul mate", and go to work without a lot of outward signs of trauma of some kind going on with her that day. No one has made any cooments to that affect.

No ADA's, clerks, anyone who came in the office, etc have made any remarks to PF being distraut, nervous, upset, figgity, near tears, tired, pale, etc, etc, at work on 4/15/05. That would have been remarked on right from the start.
JMO

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981




I can't believe PF (not any one else or case, but PF) could kill a person, let alone the man she believes is her "soul mate", and go to work without a lot of outward signs of trauma of some kind going on with her that day. No one has made any cooments to that affect.

No ADA's, clerks, anyone who came in the office, etc have made any remarks to PF being distraut, nervous, upset, figgity, near tears, tired, pale, etc, etc, at work on 4/15/05. That would have been remarked on right from the start.
JMO [/*]

Who was actually at work with her that day?

RG wasn't there

The other receptionist apparently wasn't there

Stephen Sloane wasn't there

And JKA wrote this:

I don’t remember anyone saying that Ray was not in, that he had decided to take a day off, that he had made any contact with the office or that anyone had contacted or attempted to contact him.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


My problem with the dog search: does anyone know if the dogs were taken to where the employee at the museum saw RG parking his car in front of the museum, get out of the car and then saw him sitting in the park reading something?? Didn't they only take the dogs to the banks of the river? [/*]

SJ, I can't locate the particular post I'm thinking of now, because Billywahoo's name has been removed from the members' list and therefore from the searchable feature of the board. But at one point, someone, maybe Day or Logic asked BW whether the dogs had been taken to these other areas and the response was a clear implication that they had.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Laws
Poll wouldn't accept my vote either, it is a resounding

NO [/*]

So your unregistered vote would now make the poll an even split among voters.

I'm actually flabbergasted that anyone could vote "Yes" in this poll thinking that PF had been "fully investigated" when every article I reviewed last night quoted Dixon and Zaccagni as saying that PF had never been considered and was not considered a suspect in the case, with Zaccagni saying that the polygraph "might have been given earlier" if there had been strong suspicion of her. One article even said (prior to the actual poly) that LE might consider giving her a poly *IF* Ray turned up dead.

Where's the room for "fully investigated" in that scenario?

[Tree_of_Life]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


So your unregistered vote would now make the poll an even split among voters.

I'm actually flabbergasted that anyone could vote "Yes" in this poll thinking that PF had been "fully investigated" when every article I reviewed last night quoted Dixon and Zaccagni as saying that PF had never been considered and was not considered a suspect in the case, with Zaccagni saying that the polygraph "might have been given earlier" if there had been strong suspicion of her. One article even said (prior to the actual poly) that LE might consider giving her a poly *IF* Ray turned up dead.

Where's the room for "fully investigated" in that scenario? [/*]

Maybe they know more than we do. Part of that 90% they are withholding from the public. ;)

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life


Maybe they know more than we do. Part of that 90% they are withholding from the public. ;) [/*]

Or: "they" are part of the "we" on these boards whom we've seen from time to time posting assumptions about things which "must have been" or "surely have been" investigated and checked out but who have no knowledge that such things have actually been done.

[Tree_of_Life]

Saying that someone was never considered a suspect does not mean that they were not a person of interest or that they were never looked at. It is difficult to have a suspect until there is some evidence of a crime being committed. Now, I do agree that maybe LE should have treated this case as if it were a crime from the beginning. But don't you think, that if LE had any suspicion of PF by her actions, interviews with her, time spent in her house, time spent giving her a polygraph--even an inkling of something--that LE would have pursued the matter further? What is it exactly that you all think LE should do to investigate her that they haven't done already?

If PF was involved in Ray's disappearance, and that is a BIG IF, IMO, then I see no other way than to paint her as the "criminal mastermind." Fooling everyone. The master conspirator. Or the complete an utter lack of competency on the part of LE.

I'm still waiting to hear someone's theory of how she is involved that explains this.

[Poolgirl]

I echo Tree of Life's comments. It's entirely possible that PF is involved - we have no definite answers. But if she is/was involved she certainly is very cunning to have done the deed and outwitted family and LE. Surely those close to her would have noticed odd behavior beyond the lack of "should have been" phone calls on the night of the disappearance or the fact that she is not out in the limelight.

When you mention other cases, it's the family who at first does not want to believe that the spouse/SO was involved but later becomes suspicious because of odd behavior. That does not seem to be the case here.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life


If PF was involved in Ray's disappearance, and that is a BIG IF, IMO, then I see no other way than to paint her as the "criminal mastermind." Fooling everyone. The master conspirator. Or the complete an utter lack of competency on the part of LE.



Dear Yahoo!:
How many murders go unsolved each year in the United States?
Steve
Media, Pennsylvania

Dear Steve:
DNA. Carpet fibers. Fingerprints. Given the wealth of forensic information, you'd think police would solve each and every murder. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 2004, 62.6% of homicides were "cleared," leaving a substantial portion of murder cases unresolved.

The FBI's official site says a crime is cleared when either an arrest is made or "elements beyond the control of law enforcement prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender, by exceptional means." We assume this refers to rare cases when, for example, suspects die before they can be charged.

In 2004, there were 16,137 cases of murder or nonnegligent manslaughter in the United States. Because 37.4% of these cases went uncleared, around 6,035 people "got away with murder" that year. Of course, this assumes each offender murdered only one person, which very likely isn't true, but seeing as the cases are unsolved, this is our best guess.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20060531.html

Are you suggesting that in each of these over 6,000 cases in 2004, it was either a "criminal mastermind" or lack of competent LE or a combination of both that led to the failure to solve each these cases? And the same for what must surely be similar numbers each year?

Or do you think the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and the following play some role?

What DNA can do is it can be a very definitive identifier in terms of either including or excluding someone as being involved in the crime. The DNA testing and evidence only occurs in a situation where the assailant leaves biological evidence behind. For the most part, we are talking about rape cases where there is semen left that can be tested. There are occasionally non-rape cases where the assailant may have left behind hair fragments or fingernail fragments that are of a sufficient quantity that they can be tested for DNA. But if no biological evidence is left behind, which is what occurs in most cases in the criminal justice system, no DNA testing can occur.

From an interview of Ellen Kreitzberg, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University, conducted by David Perry, Director of Ethics Programs at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/capitaltext.html

Forensic science is constantly evolving, from the discovery of the uniqueness of the human fingerprint, to the ability to match a criminal to his crime through DNA profiling, technology continues to provide investigators with new weapons. But fingerprint and DNA evidence are discovered in the only one percent of all cases.

http://www.brainwavescience.com/discovery.php

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Poolgirl
I echo Tree of Life's comments. It's entirely possible that PF is involved - we have no definite answers. But if she is/was involved she certainly is very cunning to have done the deed and outwitted family and LE. Surely those close to her would have noticed odd behavior beyond the lack of "should have been" phone calls on the night of the disappearance or the fact that she is not out in the limelight.

When you mention other cases, it's the family who at first does not want to believe that the spouse/SO was involved but later becomes suspicious because of odd behavior. That does not seem to be the case here. [/*]

They finally found the killer of Thomas, Lisa and Kevin Haines. His name is Alec Devon Kreider. He is sixteen and a student at Manheim Township High School. Apparently he broke into the Haines house in Lancaster back on May 12th intending to kill Kevin, who is a classmate of his, but when he encountered Kevin’s parents, killed them too — with a knife. Kevin’s sister, Maggie, escaped the slaughter and summoned help, but it arrived too late.

After the murder, Alec Kreider simply returned home and continued to go to school. Police had interviewed him, but has no reason to suspect that he was the killer. Kreider was not identified until a couple of days ago when he confessed what he had done to his father who then notified police.

http://pawatercooler.com/?p=1924

[Tree_of_Life]

But here's the difference, UTR. The examples you've described were clear-cut murder cases. There was not as much confusion as to "what" happened as there was to "who" did it. They likely had some type of evidence, at least evidence that it was a murder. But no fingerprints or DNA, not enough to point them to a particular suspect. And how many of these unsolved murder cases involved a high profile district attorney? Someone with years worth of enemies and likely a few of which could have had the motive, means, experience, and opportunity to pull something off that would leave almost no evidence behind. Yet we are to look at his girlfriend as the murderer. This is the main problem I have with all the PF speculation and threads. Yes, I do think that unless you see her as a criminal mastermind who can hide the fact that a crime even took place, you cannot see her as a suspect. We don't have an unsolved murder here, we have a missing person's investigation. If she did it, she covered it up VERY well.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
But here's the difference, UTR. The examples you've described were clear-cut murder cases. There was not as much confusion as to "what" happened as there was to "who" did it.

According the Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) there are 50,930 active missing adult cases in the United States as of January 31, 2007.

http://www.theyaremissed.org/ncma/index.php

(This number, of course, doesn't include missing children.) Some of these nearly 51,000 cases are voluntary walkaways. Some may be suicides. Many are unsolved murder cases not listed as such because they are still, like RG's case, classified as "missing persons'" cases. All are unsolved, and all likely have as much confusion about what happened and about who did what as there is in Ray's case. I doubt any are DA's, but I have read many of these case files, and some have equally complex and intriguing angles to them.

Ultimately, the "unsolved murder" rate is grossly under reported, since it is impossible to quantify how many missing persons' cases are actually unsolved murder cases.

And in each, someone got away with murder. I don't believe we have that many criminal masterminds at work in the United States at any given time.

[Politigal]

I don't see why some believe that it would have taken a "mastermind" to commit a murder in RG's case....

There was plenty of time for something like that to have occurred. And there was plenty of time for any cleaning to have occurred. And since there really wasn't a forensic investigation at the home -- that would have made it even easier.

I agree that it would probably involve an accomplice, as far as disposing of the body, but even that could have been easily accomplished.

And of course - on the polygraphs--- don't get me started.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal
I don't see why some believe that it would have taken a "mastermind" to commit a murder in RG's case....

There was plenty of time for something like that to have occurred. And there was plenty of time for any cleaning to have occurred. And since there really wasn't a forensic investigation at the home -- that would have made it even easier.

I agree that it would probably involve an accomplice, as far as disposing of the body, but even that could have been easily accomplished.

And of course - on the polygraphs--- don't get me started. [/*]

What was John Couey's IQ? Borderline mental retardation, as I recall, and yet he was able to pull off stealing Jessie Lunsford out of her bedroom and concealing her in his trailer just yards from the Lunsford home for several weeks before he was caught. Had he not been a sex offender with prior records, how much longer might he have been able to pull off concealing his crime? No criminal mastermind there.

I remember watching a program about three teenage boys, one of whom lived with an elderly female relative. The boys decided to kill the woman for the inheritance the one boy would receive. With just a little internet research and a few television shows for guidance, they pulled off disguising her murder as a fall down the stairs. It fooled police and the medical examiner, and the death was ruled accidental. The only reason the boys were caught--one of them bragged to a fourth boy, who told his father, and those two turned the murderers over to the cops. They were home free if they hadn't bragged about it. Just teenagers, not criminal masterminds.

As for "clean up," not all deaths involve cleaning up bloody crime scenes. Strangulation, suffocation, and drugs come readily to mind. Theoretically speaking, a person could be drugged in one location, then moved while drugged to another location and killed there.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by logicworks

In the RG case, we have _________________ (fill in the blank).
Was the laundry done before LE arrived?
Did the vacuum cleaner have a new bag in it, and was the used bag collected by LE?
Were the sheets changed and laundered when LE arrived?
Were the sheets removed and the mattress checked?
Were all the dishes washed and put away when LE arrived?
Were any car cleaning rags, bucket, etc. clean, dry, all put away when LE arrived?
Were all other cleaning rags that might have been used either disposed of or laundered when LE arrived?
Had the fridge been cleaned? Was there an OJ container in it?
If the trash was hauled away, let's say on Monday, was there trash enough for five-six days with mail in it from all week there at the house on Saturday?
Were any items, the mop, the cleaning rags, anything luminol tested?
If all were clean and nothing standing out as noticeable as they were in the SP case, how easy is it for LE to then say 'nothing was out of place'.

[snip]

The protocol followed in missing person cases has too many gaps for the 'not really as brilliant as they think they are or as some others might think they are' criminals to slip through. What's the sense in giving a criminal a 'head start'?
Collect the evidence while it's there.
Later is, in most cases, too late.
JMO

Off the top of my head, I would add to that most excellent list

**did LE ask/check what dinner preparations PF had made for RG for Friday evening while she considered him "merely late"? Was there a meal cooked for the two of them or at least something prepared and waiting for his return?
**did LE ask to see the note left for RG regarding the calling if he went out and would not be there for dog care?
**did LE verify that PF arrived at the gym when she said she did and stayed there for the time she said she reported?
**if PF had a cell phone, did LE check all calls made from her cell phone in the days prior to the disappearance?

The problem with U.S. "protocol" is that there really is none, leaving it up to each PD department to decide on a case by case basis, resulting in an procedures that often treat missing teens as runaways even when families *know* that their young person is not the kind who would willingly leave home and that often treat adults as having voluntarily left home when they, too, could be in danger. (The Tanya Rider case should be a wake up call, not that the husband was involved or that a crime had occurred, but that was a situation where quicker action by LE could have saved that poor woman a lot of physical damage.) Treating every missing person's case as a potential foul play situation and preventing potential evidence from being destroyed should be part of the protocol. MOO.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley

However, 2.5 yrs. later, the fact remains that the following was done or not done by LE to prove or disprove any theory, as per media releases:


*PF's house was not searched by LE.


Yes it was.


*Neighbors were not interviewed.


Neighbors, at least had the opportunity to walk up to LE and report something suspicious.


*Co-workers were not interviewed.


According to JKA, they were.


*Information on the brown car, the Tyrone MW, the Lewisburg MW, were not made public for a year after the disappearance.


The woman in Lewisburg appeared in the EN forum in the Fall of 2005, so there was some public knowledge of it. The Tyrone siting was not reported until after the first anniversary, IIRC.


*The mysterious book found on MS's desk was not printed.


Nobody knew it was a mystery book until it fell open.


*PF was allowed to participate in LE meetings.


Huh? All meeting or just the witness reports? She wasn't in the CIA review, or at least there is no metion of it.


*All of RG's past cases were not checked out.


There were several thousand cases, spanning a 32 year career. That's not exactly easily. When you add the loved ones of both the accused and the victims, and their loved ones, that becomes an impossible task.


*BJL was eliminated as a suspect immediately.


BJL was eliminated after a time line was created, by the PSP. Now, what they did, I don't know.


*Not sure whether JL was ever checked out.


Because JL was incarcerated, they would have DNA samples.


And, the fact remains that, until Ray Gricar or his body is located, all of the above entities will remain suspects. That includes PF.



No, you are assuming a fact not in evidence, that there was a murder. Before we look for a murderer, we should try to determine if there has been a murder.

But there is still one problem, even assuming that this was a murder.

In all the cases mentioned, the crime scene was either contaminated or the murderer did not spend an hour in an enclosed space. The victim was not seen up and around after the murder supposedly took place. The victim did not leave his scent in the same area where he was seen alive.

There is simply too much evidence that puts RFG behind the wheel of the car driving to Lewisburg on 4/15/05. RFG drove the car.

[Politigal]

This has been posted about before, but I was just reading thru all of Tony's posts, and he previously posted that the first place looked at for the car was Jacob's Field in Cleveland.

He also stated that he was previously unaware of RG's trip there (when he hadn't told anyone he was going there.)

Originally posted by TonyGricar
Yes, Jacob's Field security was contacted to see if Ray's Cooper might be in one of the lots there. I was not the one who made the call on this. If you look at the text you pasted, I only said that The Jake was contacted ahead of any antique shop, not that I had anything to do with that. As I mentioned in a prior post, I was not aware of Ray's previous "field trip" to The Jake. Antique malls, as it relates to the canvassing, were not an early thought of his car's possible location (and that region is littered with them).

Was it ever determined who told law enforcement to look at Jacob's Field in Cleveland, (wasting precious time) instead of looking at antiques shops down 192, especially the Street of Shops, where RG & PF had been before?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


Who was actually at work with her that day?

RG wasn't there

The other receptionist apparently wasn't there

Stephen Sloane wasn't there

And JKA wrote this:

I don’t remember anyone saying that Ray was not in, that he had decided to take a day off, that he had made any contact with the office or that anyone had contacted or attempted to contact him.
[/*]

But then KA wasn't remembering a whole lot on that day was she? Didn't she say she didn't know who was in the office that day, working phones? Was she even in the office that day? Did anyone see her there? What time was she seen leaving the courthouse by the outside camera?

Mark Smith wasn't there either. Anyone else not accounted for?

PF could have been seen by others in the courthouse. Someone could have come to the DA's office. There were other ADA's in that office. Who all was working that day? But even if KA were there she did not comment on PF's actions, her mood or anything on the 15th.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


So your unregistered vote would now make the poll an even split among voters.

I'm actually flabbergasted that anyone could vote "Yes" in this poll thinking that PF had been "fully investigated" when every article I reviewed last night quoted Dixon and Zaccagni as saying that PF had never been considered and was not considered a suspect in the case, with Zaccagni saying that the polygraph "might have been given earlier" if there had been strong suspicion of her. One article even said (prior to the actual poly) that LE might consider giving her a poly *IF* Ray turned up dead.

Where's the room for "fully investigated" in that scenario? [/*]

I have not voted on the poll and don't plan to.

[Laws]

Originally posted by Politigal
This has been posted about before, but I was just reading thru all of Tony's posts, and he previously posted that the first place looked at for the car was Jacob's Field in Cleveland.

He also stated that he was previously unaware of RG's trip there (when he hadn't told anyone he was going there.)

Originally posted by TonyGricar
Yes, Jacob's Field security was contacted to see if Ray's Cooper might be in one of the lots there. I was not the one who made the call on this. If you look at the text you pasted, I only said that The Jake was contacted ahead of any antique shop, not that I had anything to do with that. As I mentioned in a prior post, I was not aware of Ray's previous "field trip" to The Jake. Antique malls, as it relates to the canvassing, were not an early thought of his car's possible location (and that region is littered with them).

Was it ever determined who told law enforcement to look at Jacob's Field in Cleveland, (wasting precious time) instead of looking at antiques shops down 192, especially the Street of Shops, where RG & PF had been before? [/*]

Stephen Sloane was quoted in an interview as being the one who informed LE of the trip to Jacob's Field. I did post it when I read it, probably in the last month or so.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Laws


Stephen Sloane was quoted in an interview as being the one who informed LE of the trip to Jacob's Field. I did post it when I read it, probably in the last month or so. [/*]

thx Laws

but I'm still curious why antiques shops were not thought of...

[Laws]

Originally posted by gstickley
I cannot understand why LE didn't investigate PF the way other family/SO's are investigated in other areas. Why never "a person of interest" even? Why wait for unknown period of time to see if RG turned up dead to start investigating? Could it actually be the "comes from a prominent family" comments stated some time ago? Surely not . . . [/*]

Weren't Det.Z & PF schoolmates, or did I day dream that?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Laws


Weren't Det.Z & PF schoolmates, or did I day dream that? [/*]

Not sure if they were schoolmates, Laws, but one article said they DZ had known PF since he was a rookie cop and she was in high school. Long time.

[Tree_of_Life]

Keep looking, I'm sure there's a conspiracy there somewhere! :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
Keep looking, I'm sure there's a conspiracy there somewhere! :rolleyes: [/*]

You have to be honest & admit - it's a little more down to earth than the paranormal stuff......

[Laws]

For now obvious reasons there is something very familiar about this situation to me & have felt that way for a long time & today it kind of put that light bulb effect into play........ Columbo. Looked it up in Wikipedia.

A pilot movie was broadcast in 1968; the series aired regularly from 1971 to 1978, and later, sporadically from 1989 to 2003, when the last episode was broadcast.

Columbo uses his deferential and absent-minded persona to lull criminal suspects into a false sense of security; meanwhile, he solves his cases by paying close attention to tiny inconsistencies in a suspect's story and by hounding the suspect until he or she confesses.

In most episodes of Columbo, the audience sees the crime unfold at the beginning and knows exactly who did it and how it was done; the "mystery" from the audience's perspective is spotting the clues that will lead Columbo to discover and expose the killer's guilt. This allows the story to unfold more from the criminal's point of view, rather than that of Columbo himself; in fact, in some episodes, Columbo doesn't even appear until as late as 30 minutes into the story, the preceding time being taken up by depicting the often-complex nature of the crime, including the history between the killer and the victim.

That's why the pattern at lunch time of Mr. Gricar & PF prior to March 15, 2005 is an important element to me. For some unknown reason everything is secret, well than privacy must be an issue for some reason about such routine happenings. It's not coming forward is quizical to me.

[Laws]

Also the glaring absence of anybody other than PF having spoken with or seeing Mr. Gricar after his leaving the courthouse 4/14/2005 @ 9:07 PM.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Laws
Also the glaring absence of anybody other than PF having spoken with or seeing Mr. Gricar after his leaving the courthouse 4/14/2005 @ 9:07 PM. [/*]

I was just reading more of Tony's posts - and he said that he & his brother were sort of down on the list as far as who was notified first of RG not coming home that Friday.

He posted this 7/28/06
Yes, to varying degrees we were all notified in advance of the car being found. My brother and I were further down the list of notifications in hopes of Ray turning up. Patty did not want to subject us to the 2nd round of this until it was absolutely necessary. When I received the call, I immediately drove from Dayton to Columbus where I picked up my brother, and then drove straight to Lewisburg. I believe we received the call soon after we left Columbus that the car had been found. We arrived on site at approximately 7:30pm Saturday, with Lara arriving via flight from the West coast later that night.

That means that from 9:07 PM Thursday 4/14/05 til at least approx 8:30pm Saturday 4/16/05 (since he & his brother went directly to Lewisburg first) - they were not in PF's home. (almost 48 hrs) And Lara arrived even later.

True, police were probably there some during the day Saturday though.

Tony had also previously posted (IIRC) that Lara stayed the night with her mother when she got into town. And, he & his brother stayed somewhere else. None of them stayed at PF's home overnight.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Laws

That's why the pattern at lunch time of Mr. Gricar & PF prior to March 15, 2005 is an important element to me. For some unknown reason everything is secret, well than privacy must be an issue for some reason about such routine happenings. It's not coming forward is quizical to me.

We must be on the same wavelength tonight, Laws. I have been contemplating tonight a long list of little details we have never been able to get straight answers on, things that would not seem to be on the face of them "investigative secrets," and all things that if answered simply and honestly could in fact potentially reduce much of the suspicion around PF. Tonight I have been wondering *why* it is that those things have never been answered simply and in a straightforward way. The devil is in the details sometimes.

[Politigal]

I've searched but I've never ever found any published statements by anyone in Patty's family regarding the disappearance.

I wonder why none of them commented to the media - whether it be about the relationship or the disappearance.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Laws


Weren't Det.Z & PF schoolmates, or did I day dream that? [/*]

No, it was reported that Z was hired when PEF was in high school, and had known at least who she was.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
This has been posted about before, but I was just reading thru all of Tony's posts, and he previously posted that the first place looked at for the car was Jacob's Field in Cleveland.


From whgat you have posted, it was not the "first" place checked. It was one of the avenues LE was pursuing of 4/16/05.

At the same tme, they had a plane up checking 192.

[J. J. in Phila]

Boy is this reaching!

Originally posted by logicworks
Continuing to research the 'overlapping' from one case (SP) to another (RG) to create a 'story'; using the only case that has 'matches'.

Laci was tired, and was napping during the day when cleaning lady was there.
RG was tired, and napping during the day.


RFG was reported to be tired and napping for two weeks prior to the disappearance; he was also reported to be "distraught," the week he disappeated.


SP called within ten minutes of leaving the house.
RG called within 10-20 minutes of time likely to have left the house.


Try a minimum of 25 minutes and possibly several hours, since we don't know when he left.


SP tried repeatedly to call Laci on his way back from 'fishing'; no answer.
PF tried repeatedly to call RG on what would have supposedly been his return home; no answer.


PEF called from the house; I think it reported to be from the land line.


LP's sister tried to call SP the day LP went missing; no answer.
PF tried to call RG the day he went missing; no answer.


That is quite different.


When SP's father called to ask about the missing LP, SP says he was going to the gym to work out.
PF, surprised RG isn't home, goes to the gym to work out.


No call in to the house in the case at hand.


LP's cell phone was said to have been found on the front seat of her vehicle.
RG's cell phone was said to have been found on the seat of 'her' vehicle.


Where was Laci's car. If it wasn't 50 miles away, again there is no parallel.


I decided to search today to see if there was anything in the SP files about the laptop that might also fit into the 'story'.
I found a detailed description in the transcripts/trial testimony from the forensic expert on 'how the hard drive is removed for forensic testing'.


As far as I know, there was no destroyed laptop in the Peterson case.

Until you cas show how the Mini got from Bellefonte to Lewisburg with someone other than a RFG driving it, this is complete nonsense.

[UndertheRadar]

There is no rocket science in getting the Mini from Bellefonte to Lewisburg with someone other than RG driving.

All of the scientific data and statistical evidence collected by LE departments across the country I have previously posted on the board demonstrates the low incidence of finding forensic evidence at crime scenes, including hair, fiber, DNA, and fingerprints. There is nothing necessarily "magical" about five minutes vs. fifteen minutes vs. an hour.

In fact, in all likelihood, PF was in the Mini for time accumulating to well over an hour prior to the car being dusted for prints, and yet no readable prints from PF were collected from the car. There is absolutely zero evidence that RG had the car detailed on 4/14 or even in the week prior to the disappearance. Being "meticulous" about one's car does not necessarily mean having it detailed every week, every two weeks, or even every month. Washed, perhaps vacuumed out, kept free of trash collecting in it, but not every conceivable surface where PF might have left her fingerprints in all the times she rode in the vehicle polished clean once a week. If we are to believe her version of the visit to the Tyrone antiques shop which occurred in the few weeks just prior to the disappearance, she would have ridden in the Mini from Bellefonte to Tyrone and back, and yet no readable prints from PF were found in the car. Where is the actual account--not the guess, but the proof--that RG had the Mini detailed or detailed it himself just prior to the disappearance?

That no *readable* prints from PF were in the car does not mean that there were no *prints* from PF (or from anyone else) in the vehicle. And this would certainly square with data collected by LE departments across the country, tallied from over 100,000 different cases showing that readable prints were found in only 45% of all cases. Anyone who recalls when I posted this information before will remember that the 45% represents readable prints, the overwhelming majority of which belonged to people who had every right to be at a particular scene and not a suspected perpetrator of a given crime. Actual readable prints belonging to perpetrators were a small slice of that 45%.

I was reading a "stupid criminals" log the other night where a perpetrator had gotten angry after stealing a car and had slammed his hands, open faced, on the outside of the vehicle, often enough that the lead investigator was able to recover no fewer than 55 sets of readable prints from the outside of the car. Dumb criminal. But what's relevant here is the investigator's observation that he is "actually shocked" when he finds ANY prints from a perpetrator in a stolen vehicle these days. He said that with shows like CSI and the like on the air, criminals are so well prepared that it's very rare for LE to recover prints from perpetrators anymore and he couldn't believe he managed to get 55 from a single vehicle!

[Laws]

Hi LW, et al,

Laci Peterson's disappearance was my first following, using the internet. It was of great interest to many throughout the country & let's face it much was gleened about naievity meeting up with evil, greed & selfishness. Naievity LOST.

Having the ability to look up the different resources disclosed as being accessed from the Peterson home computer. Having the ability to discuss the various materials introduced as evidence real time with others who were following the trial was tremendous. Those interested learned of the availability of cell phone records, pings, GPS placement by LE, what could be done, without being seen during the darkness of night, etc. Remember Lee Peterson testifying about SP as a child "rescuing the baby bunny" from the pool? In retrospect, that was the first thoughtprint I analyzed. How many baby bunnies have you ever heard of being found in someone's backyard pool? NONE. The criminal was trying to drown that poor little bunny & got caught & turned it around on the dime as a pathological liar to become the martyr & he was a child.

Personality disorder 101. Remember Laci's Mom, rest of family supporting the creepy evil criminal? I couldn't believe it myself but then that is part of what I learned from that case, how secrets & deceit could easily fool intelligent loving people. IF the criminal had not avoided being in the family's presence & answering ?'s they had they probably would have continued supporting him. Laci did not disclose what she felt would negatively influence her family's opinion of her SO, those she trusted the most were kept naieve, although she did disclose the infidelity to a few of her closest friends. Laci was naieve, she thought with love & nuturing she could change the SO & his insecutities, she was wrong.

No, I don't believe that Mr. Gricar was doing his own undercover investigations which laid him bare to foul play, that's what they have detectives for. Mr. Gricar, a prosecutor, I believe became a victim though deceit & betrayal & it appears that there is a small group that was lucky enough to be in that circle.

LW, it is understandable that Laci would be recalled while looking at Ray Gricar, imo.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Boy is this reaching!



RFG was reported to be tired and napping for two weeks prior to the disappearance; he was also reported to be "distraught," the week he disappeated.



Try a minimum of 25 minutes and possibly several hours, since we don't know when he left.



PEF called from the house; I think it reported to be from the land line.



That is quite different.



No call in to the house in the case at hand.



Where was Laci's car. If it wasn't 50 miles away, again there is no parallel.



As far as I know, there was no destroyed laptop in the Peterson case.

Until you cas show how the Mini got from Bellefonte to Lewisburg with someone other than a RFG driving it, this is complete nonsense. [/*]

And LP was pregnant which would explain her taking a nap and being tired.
RG wasn't. :D

I agree JJ, this is really reaching! Going across the US to get a connection is getting desperate to connect PF to the disappearance or to get comparisons.

Maybe no one comes up with new ideas because there are no logical ones other than what has been posted. JMO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981

I agree JJ, this is really reaching! Going across the US to get a connection is getting desperate to connect PF to the disappearance or to get comparisons.

Maybe no one comes up with new ideas because there are no logical ones other than what has been posted. JMO


I am reasonably certain what Logic meant was that *perpetrators* tend not to come up with new ideas but instead use what has worked, or almost worked, to fool LE in the past--not a commentary on what people are posting here.

As for reaching, why is it "reaching" when copycat crimes are a well-known feature of criminal behavior? Why is it "reaching" when criminals have often researched what other criminals have pulled off effectively? IIRC, for instance, that's what did in Justin Barber in the death of his wife, April. He apparently spent at least six months before the murder researching on the internet before he killed her.

[Politigal]

I posted a while back that I saw similarities to the Scott Peterson case with this case ---

In watching various videos of PF - her mannerisms, her words, her tears, etc....were just not genuine or sincere IMO, and that's the same way it was with Scott Peterson in all his TV interviews.

I'm just not buying it.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar



I am reasonably certain what Logic meant was that *perpetrators* tend not to come up with new ideas but instead use what has worked, or almost worked, to fool LE in the past--not a commentary on what people are posting here.

As for reaching, why is it "reaching" when copycat crimes are a well-known feature of criminal behavior? Why is it "reaching" when criminals have often researched what other criminals have pulled off effectively? IIRC, for instance, that's what did in Justin Barber in the death of his wife, April. He apparently spent at least six months before the murder researching on the internet before he killed her. [/*]

But PF & RG's home computer was checked by LE. If any researching of other murders showed up on their computer she would have been sitting in jail, but she isn't.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


But PF & RG's home computer was checked by LE. If any researching of other murders showed up on their computer she would have been sitting in jail, but she isn't. [/*]

ahhh, but the laptop that both RG *and* Patty used....for "internet searches"

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal
I posted a while back that I saw similarities to the Scott Peterson case with this case ---

In watching various videos of PF - her mannerisms, her words, her tears, etc....were just not genuine or sincere IMO, and that's the same way it was with Scott Peterson in all his TV interviews.

I'm just not buying it. [/*]

Do you know her that you could make that judgement of her? Was her mannerism so insincere that the people who work with her every day didn't notice it, make comments to it? She is around LE, DA and ADA's, lawyers and judges all the time and no one has ever made that comment that I remember seeing.

And I am sure someone would have commented early on - KA???

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Do you know her that you could make that judgement of her? Was her mannerism so insincere that the people who work with her every day didn't notice it, make comments to it? She is around LE, DA and ADA's, lawyers and judges all the time and no one has ever made that comment that I remember seeing.

And I am sure someone would have commented early on - KA??? [/*]

Someone was "whispering" - so much so that she felt the need to *ask* to be polygraphed.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


ahhh, but the laptop that both RG *and* Patty used....for "internet searches" [/*]

Yea, I'm sure she would have been researching "how to get rid of the DA or boyfriend" when RG lived there with her and could have used the laptop and found it. streeeeeeetch

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Yea, I'm sure she would have been researching "how to get rid of the DA or boyfriend" when RG lived there with her and could have used the laptop and found it. streeeeeeetch [/*]

Not really....

Scott Peterson researched the bay (while living with Laci)

UTR cited another case where research was done

It's not a stretch at all..

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal


ahhh, but the laptop that both RG *and* Patty used....for "internet searches"

Exactly, and that is a reason that might *possibly* explain why a laptop which PF could not even remember RG last using was missing from the closet.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


Someone was "whispering" - so much so that she felt the need to *ask* to be polygraphed. [/*]

Probably more than one person, and most on here, which would be why she didn't post, but it still was never in black and white that she was putting on a fake tear or two.

I can just imagine the tears that woman has shed and my heart goes out to her. JMO

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Exactly, and that is a reason that might *possibly* explain why a laptop which PF could not even remember RG last using was missing from the closet. [/*]

And ....kept in an upstairs closet in their home.

I still say they were probably the only 2 people who even knew where that laptop was.

*One* of them threw it in the river.

IMO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal


Not really....

Scott Peterson researched the bay (while living with Laci)

UTR cited another case where research was done

It's not a stretch at all..

And RG was not particularly computer literate, whereas we might expect that PF likely was more computer savvy than RG, being 17 years younger (younger people generally being more computer familiar than those of RG's age on the whole) and having been in jobs that likely would have required more computer familiarity.

It's easy enough to do a privacy sweep and clear history so that a non-computer savvy S.O. would be unaware of computer searches. Wouldn't keep LE from being able to have computer technicians access stuff on a hard drive, but it could be easily hidden from an S.O. As it was from Laci and from April Barber.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Exactly, and that is a reason that might *possibly* explain why a laptop which PF could not even remember RG last using was missing from the closet. [/*]

She didn't have to ask them if they wanted the laptop but she did.

RG could have taken the laptop out of the house days or weeks before his disappearance. It could have been in his car on Thursday.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


She didn't have to ask them if they wanted the laptop but she did.

RG could have taken the laptop out of the house days or weeks before his disappearance. It could have been in his car on Thursday. [/*]

It could have easily been in *her* car

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


It could have easily been in *her* car [/*]

You've talked to LE , why didn't you ask them if they searched her car? Did a fingerprint test on the laptop after it was found?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


You've talked to LE , why didn't you ask them if they searched her car? Did a fingerprint test on the laptop after it was found? [/*]

They didn't search her home. What makes you think they would have searched her car?

IMO, she was given "preferential treatment" from the get-go.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


She didn't have to ask them if they wanted the laptop but she did.

RG could have taken the laptop out of the house days or weeks before his disappearance. It could have been in his car on Thursday. [/*]

I agree, she didn't have to volunteer to go look for the laptop. But . . . LE would have gotten around to asking for it soon enough, so *if* she was the one who removed it, it certainly looks better for her if she is the one who volunteers it first.

And I also agree that RG *could* have taken the laptop out of the house prior to the disappearance. However, PF recalled it being in the closet, and all the peripherals were there, so it wouldn't have lasted long without those. And it still seems highly unlikely to me that a "meticulous" man like RG would be carrying the laptop hither and yon without the case, especially since it was not his personal property but county-issued property. The employer-issued laptop I had at one point never went anywhere with me without its padded carrying case for precisely that reason--it wasn't my property, and I wouldn't take the chance that an expensive piece of electronic equipment I didn't own might be damaged in transit without the case.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


I agree, she didn't have to volunteer to go look for the laptop. But . . . LE would have gotten around to asking for it soon enough, so *if* she was the one who removed it, it certainly looks better for her if she is the one who volunteers it first.

And I also agree that RG *could* have taken the laptop out of the house prior to the disappearance. However, PF recalled it being in the closet, and all the peripherals were there, so it wouldn't have lasted long without those. And it still seems highly unlikely to me that a "meticulous" man like RG would be carrying the laptop hither and yon without the case, especially since it was not his personal property but county-issued property. The employer-issued laptop I had at one point never went anywhere with me without its padded carrying case for precisely that reason--it wasn't my property, and I wouldn't take the chance that an expensive piece of electronic equipment I didn't own might be damaged in transit without the case. [/*]

But that could be said about PF too. She worked for the county too. And if either of them were going to throw the computer away, why not just let it in the case?

TG has also said IF the laptop were charged it could have been used for a longer amount of time.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


But that could be said about PF too. She worked for the county too. And if either of them were going to throw the computer away, why not just let it in the case?

TG has also said IF the laptop were charged it could have been used for a longer amount of time. [/*]

The laptop battery would have only about 2-4 hours actual *use* time without re-charging. It could sit there, powered down, for longer than that, and not lose its charge. But if RG had taken it somewhere for a reason to use it, without the peripherals or a dock station to re-charge, the battery alone doesn't give him much use time. Many people plug their laptops in when using them where an outlet is available to avoid running down the battery, and those cables were apparently sitting in the closet.

As for parallels with PF, in this hypothetical, we're talking about PF as potentially involved in a felony. Do you agree that *if* she were involved in a felony, worry about damage to county-issued property would be the least of her worries?

[Laws]

Tony Gricar wrote 9/25/07 1:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tonyGricar
<*>I'm under the impression that he was not planning on taking the whole day off, but changed his mind.
Excerpt from the PPG:

$5,000 reward offered in case of missing Centre County DA
Friday, April 22, 2005

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

BELLEFONTE, Pa. --A $5,000 reward now offered in the case of missing Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar has done nothing to generate information on his disappearance.

Gricar, the lead prosecutor in Centre County since 1985, was reported missing one week ago by his girlfriend, whom he last spoke to about 11:30 a.m. last Friday.

<*>During that telephone conversation, Gricar told Patty Fornicola, who also works in his office, that he would not be in for work that day.
Http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156683,00.html
FORNICOLA: No. When I left for work that morning he had indicated that he was going to take the day off and he had fallen back to sleep. I left him a note asking that if he decided to go anywhere to let me know, so that I could go home and take care of the dog.

So on or prior to 4/22/05 Paula Reed Ward is informed by PF that the "phone call" was partly to inform of taking the rest of the day off then on 5/13/05 it is indicated to Greta Van Susteran that PF was informed by Mr. Gricar of taking the day off the morning of 4/15/2005 before he rolled over & went back to sleep. IIRC there was also a story about Mr. Gricar drinking orange juice before going back to sleep.

Again, maybe it's me but in all the writings on this thread I don't recall ever hearing about any "corrections being published" on the varying inconsistent statements that have appeared, have any???

[Laws]

Worked myself in a municipality that, unless you were born there you were considered 2nd class regardless of stature or commitment to the community. It didn't matter how many years one lived there or contributed unless BORN there they were considered "outsiders".

Does anybody local have any knowledge of whether something similiar to above is the status quo within the communities that make up Centre County?????

[Laws]

Originally posted by Laws
Worked myself in a municipality that, unless you were born there you were considered 2nd class regardless of stature or commitment to the community. It didn't matter how many years one lived there or contributed unless BORN there they were considered "outsiders".

Does anybody local have any knowledge of whether something similiar to above is the status quo within the communities that make up Centre County????? [/*]

Perhaps Chump 7 could weigh in with his/her take!!

[Laws]

Didn't understand the above to be a reality until the information was offered by a number of "locals" who had no reason to misinform me & it did explain a good amount of how things were handled within the municipality. Other, outsider's never offered me any information on the subject.

[Laws]

Bringing this over from Gricar cases as think it fits into the discussion:

Chump#7
Member

I realize I'm being vague, Sherrijean. I just think it would be irresponsible to actually be naming names from my personal observations, but I'll try:

I meant 'incestuous' as more of an adjective than literal blood relation (although that is true often as well). It's like this: It just never ceased to amaze me how intertwined a lot of seemingly autonomous 'entrepreneurs' in the area were with store fronts, real estate!, history, restaurants (sorry, UtR), etc. No matter what angle I'd look at it, they all knew each other intimately, and had common business interests other than that that you would see on the surface. Not to mention the trivial things - marriages, drinking buddies, common ancestry, 'their Dad's knew each other'... The stuff soap opera's are made of... Again, sorry to be vague, but I'm not naming names at this point. What do I know?

The point is: You kick a little dirt in one direction it affects a lot of others. Can. Of. Worms.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee sorta said that during his case that MM knew where to kick the dirt when it needed kicked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh really?!??? Ping!!!
10-19-2007 03:45 PM

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks


We did get a new lead detective whom we were to 'back' back at the beginning of the year sometime, but we have yet to hear ONE word from him either.
The new group's name appears to be..........................Silence.
JMO [/*]

TG has talked to the detective and has said there are things going on in the "silence" background. As said before they are not going to tell the public the things they are working on and most definitely not this public forum. jmo

[Laws]

So is very feasible that the "local" circle the "local" mentality is ALIVE & WELL OPERATING in good ole Bellefonte, PA.

Local trumps the importance of an "outsider" any day of the week, even a dedicated County DA who moved in from another state. Sickening.

Right or wrong is not relative, local is of the import. Wonder if anybody ever informed Tony Gricar that mentality is the functioning mentality?

When this was experienced by myself, I had NO IDEA. If the "locals" had not informed me due to their caring about me. I was clueless & would have remained so. Even my boss who had lived there 18 years did not inform me of same & he was an "outsider" as was I.

[Chump#7]

Laws:
Worked myself in a municipality that, unless you were born there you were considered 2nd class regardless of stature or commitment to the community. It didn't matter how many years one lived there or contributed unless BORN there they were considered "outsiders".
Does anybody local have any knowledge of whether something similiar to above is the status quo within the communities that make up Centre County?????

Laws, that would be a big fat 'YES'! I can't speak for Bellefonte, exactly, but I know it's true of other communities in the area. I grew up in one, and was an 'outsider'- same stuff you encountered. The municipality, school board/administration, etc. was nothing more than the 50's/60's wrestling/basketball team of that town when I grew up. Same is true now. Runs generations deep. Philipsburg, Clearfield, DuBois, Bellefonte... All the same. Stuff is thick!

Are there any Bellefonte locals on these boards?

[ladyheartfixer]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Laws:
Philipsburg, Clearfield, DuBois, Bellefonte... All the same. Stuff is thick!
[/*]

I'm very familiar with the area you are mentioning here. It runs very deep. I live in a town 10 miles from my hometown and am still considered and "outsider". Even tho I have lived here 25 years. Same for the town I work in. In the facility I am employed at all of the supervisors are "locals" and no one else is allowed into the management team. Doesn't matter about qualifications or education...it is all local people. Go figure! Same in local government...if you aren't born and bred there you don't stand a chance! I find this true for most of rural PA. MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not really seeing that in this case.

RFG was not born there, neither were JKA and MM. Z seems to have been a transplant as well.

There is one major difference between Centre County and the rest of Central PA, Penn State. You have a lot of folks moving in that are associated with the university. The population is more fluid than a number of other areas.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
How much did the "comes from a prominent family" come in to play during the investigation?? [/*]

I think *that* is what Laws is getting at with the insider/outsider thing, not anything to do with RG, MM, KA, etc. JMO.

[Chump#7]

There is one major difference between Centre County and the rest of Central PA, Penn State. You have a lot of folks moving in that are associated with the university. The population is more fluid than a number of other areas.

That is true, JJ. The population is more fluid in State College due to Penn State, but if you were to take a stroll down College Avenue and back Beaver, you would be shocked to know very few people actually own that real estate, and have for decades. I'm talking one guy owning several blocks. Underneath it all, the increased population, State College is still that 'small town' it was back when Bellefonte was larger.

RFG was not born there, neither were JKA and MM. Z seems to have been a transplant as well.

What about PF?

gstickley beat me to it, but only a local would know.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Chump#7


That is true, JJ. The population is more fluid in State College due to Penn State, but if you were to take a stroll down College Avenue and back Beaver, you would be shocked to know very few people actually own that real estate, and have for decades. I'm talking one guy owning several blocks. Underneath it all, the increased population, State College is still that 'small town' it was back when Bellefonte was larger.



What about PF?

gstickley beat me to it, but only a local would know. [/*]

You are absolutely correct about State College and its environs, Chump. There is the fluid "university" community and then there is the stable Centre County community in the State College area, with generational roots that go back a long, long ways.

As for PF, her uncle Gino was born in Bellefonte in 1929 and graduated from Bellefonte High School in 1947. He managed the Bush House and operated the Sunburst Insulation Company. He was a 4th Degree Knight of the Knights of Columbus Lodge 1314, a member of St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Bellefonte, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1600, Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks Lodge 1094, Bellefonte Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis of Bellefonte and Nittany Valley Lodge of the Sons of Italy, a former member of the Jaycees of Bellefonte, etc., etc, as well as mayor of Bellefonte, all according to his obituary found online.

That's a family pretty well rooted in the Bellefonte community for well over seven decades.

[Serendipitous1]

And roots are bad because.........?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
How much did the "comes from a prominent family" come in to play during the investigation??

Probably LE listened to her a bit more intently when she reported RFG missing. I've been pretty clear in the past that I thought if this Ray Gricar, tax attorney, and Patty Smith, the BPD would have said, **Call back Monday.**

Was PEF above suspicion at the start? No, LE went so far as to search the house. The problem is evidence.

[Laws]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
I'm not really seeing that in this case.

RFG was not born there, neither were JKA and MM. Z seems to have been a transplant as well.

There is one major difference between Centre County and the rest of Central PA, Penn State. You have a lot of folks moving in that are associated with the university. The population is more fluid than a number of other areas. [/*]

My boss was the Town Manager, I was the Finance Director. After the "locals" have the experience of a responsible job being filled by an uneducated "local" they tend to hire a qualified "outsider" who they can get rid of with little to no trouble if need be. I submitted my resignation following their firing my boss "for no good reason", a "local" who was a secretary, went out on sick leave after being spoken to for inappropriate behavior to a Department Head. She returned immediately after my boss was fired, he had served them for 12 years.

[Laws]

Thank you lady & chump, now understanding is not elusive.

There was no reason for any local criminal element to disappear Ray Gricar, he was gone in 8 months, on his own. If vengence was a motive, waiting until he no longer held office would have been the more prudent move. I personally don't believe that Ray Gricar would alter his ethical standard to protect ANYBODY, if he knew something that involved criminality he would have informed the appropriate investigative department, whether that was at the state level or local level, he wouldn't have been arranging secret meetings to negotiate or investigate on his own or warn the criminal.

I stick to my gut instinct on this one, it was PERSONAL.

The locals know what "most likely happened", what is the old saying "ignoring the elephant in the room" & more importantly "you know who" KNOWS, but they aren't telling are they? In my old town the buzz would have been on the streets within 2 weeks, but of course with no concrete details. Rumors would surface & will say that 95% of the time the rumors were absolutely the truth. Never had any murders while I lived there, the locals circling the wagons per se had never entered my mind to this extreme before today. What a disgrace.

[Amused]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
J.J. I agree with your post.

First I want to add that RG was not just a SO. He was the DA of CC. He was working on many cases at the time. He had been tired to the point PF was concerned for him and ask him to see a doctor.

She was calling his cell, and she called her brother which probably calmed her down. They might be very close to each other and talk daily. Nothing wrong with that. Later she called LE. They would know if any accidents happened on the highways. They had access to other LE departments and PSP.

It was unusual for RG to be out like that, that late, without a call.
He wasn't answering his phone, both things that could mean he had an accident. I think she did the right thing.

I don't understand what the questions are concerning PF calling her brother. Her brother for goodness sake. He is family, maybe her support system, in all things. Don't we all have someone in our family we can call and worry with? I do.

JMO [/*]


Actually, I know her brother and he is one of the nicest men you'd ever want to meet.

He would certainly be the type that someone would call if worried, etc.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Amused



Actually, I know her brother and he is one of the nicest men you'd ever want to meet.

He would certainly be the type that someone would call if worried, etc. [/*]

I think the point is getting lost here.

I don't believe anyone here has ever said PF's brother isn't nice or that sisters calling brothers for emotional support is somehow suspicious.

I believe what people have questioned is calling the brother *instead of,* rather than *in addition to,* calling RG's friends/family and hospitals.

[Politigal]

"Reviving" my thread Not One Iota

http://tinyurl.com/yv5s3d

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
And roots are bad because.........? [/*]

S1, we seem to have some posters that wan't the "Vast Bellefonte Conspiracy." More Patty Bashing. :rolleyes:

In this case, it's a bit more ridiculous than most, as of the initial interviews were done by the PSP, in another county, where there were no "roots."

The difference, if any, was with the initial report. I'm certain that the fact that the reporting person had the last name Fornicola didn't hurt, but neither did the fact that missing person was the sitting District Attorney.

[day2day]

IMO this case was blown on DAY1. If i typed ALL the mistakes i think LE made..i could be here all day..so i won't do that ..lol!

It took them HOW long to find the mini? (c'mon-planes n every darn thing..and they ACCIDENTLY find it HOW many hours later-then they give it RIGHT back to her) PUHLEASE...

CB-Detz knew on Day1 if she was onto something. I want to know WHY they chose to spend SO much time with her and NOT take time to interview friends/relatives/co-workers.

And while i think most of us would call our family if our SO "vanished"..i am pretty darn sure it wouldnt be the ONLY call we made...

IMHO-i think that LE either didnt care..or turned their head. One or the other. I will never believe that the laptop left the home with Mr. Gricar and I will NEVER believe that Mr. Gricar left the courthouse on 4/14 made it home...got into the mini...without ONE single person seeing him ..(unless he was invisible ;) )

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Why would LG, living on the west coast, & the nephews, not living in PA, be "hurt" if RG was having an affair?? RG was not a married man. IMO, the person who may have been "hurt" or embarrassed was the SO, so the information was not released for a year after RG's disappearance. A year in which someone in the public might have remembered something had they had the information at the time. Impartial, complete investigation? I think not!

JMO [/*]

even though it "might" hurt or embarass you to know that your Dad/Uncle was having an affair..LG and T/CG aren't 2 ..and they HAD the right to know...

This IMHO was just the opposite of an impartial and a complete investigation...

That year was spent with CB..and if her "leads" aren't credible (which we know they weren't) ..someone SHOULD be held accountable...IMO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


Why would LG, living on the west coast, & the nephews, not living in PA, be "hurt" if RG was having an affair?? RG was not a married man. IMO, the person who may have been "hurt" or embarrassed was the SO, so the information was not released for a year after RG's disappearance. A year in which someone in the public might have remembered something had they had the information at the time. Impartial, complete investigation? I think not!

JMO [/*]

And why is it even evidence of or necessarily even suggestion of an AFFAIR to be seen "in the company of" another woman at an antiques mall when described as together but "not lovey-dovey" and with "no physical contact between the two"? Remember that the report of the Tyrone MW brought tears and denial that RG would ever cheat, yet it, too, was simply a report that RG was in a store "in the company" of a woman, talking and shopping and nothing beyond that.

I agree it was protection of the SO, not the family, the that kept LE from asking the public for help with information about the Lewisburg MW sighting for more than a year.

I also don't know of another case where the SO of a missing person and purportedly the last person to see him before he went missing went three months before taking a polygraph and was the one to volunteer to take the test rather than have LE "volunteer" him or her for the poly early on.

[Politigal]

TWO places equally familiar to *both* Patty Fornicola and Ray Gricar

1) the upstairs closet at the home, where the laptop was kept

2) the Street of Shops where they had both been shopping before


Looking at these facts from a common sense view ---

Who would have had access to that upstairs closet?

Patty Fornicola or Ray Gricar

Who would have been familiar with the Street of Shops parking lot, the park, the bridge, etc?

Patty Fornicola or Ray Gricar

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Why would LG, living on the west coast, & the nephews, not living in PA, be "hurt" if RG was having an affair?? RG was not a married man. IMO, the person who may have been "hurt" or embarrassed was the SO, so the information was not released for a year after RG's disappearance. A year in which someone in the public might have remembered something had they had the information at the time. Impartial, complete investigation? I think not!



I would believe that something like that could damage RFG's reputation and, by proxy, hurt LG.

That isn't a stretch.

[day2day]

Anyone ever think that it might leave LG to answer the question- WAS your Dad having an affair? Who was the MW?...

Mhmmm..If i was LG i wouldn't have wanted that on top of my Dad vanishin into thin air..

jmo...

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


The information on the MW, etc., was not made available to the family at the time LE learned of it; it was not made available to the family until a year later. TG apparently never heard about it until the press release in May 2006; remember his "odd little bombshell" remark.

I believe LG & the family would rather have had the information a year earlier & had it made known to the public just in case someone had the information on the brown car, the MW, the construction worker. Instead, LE held onto the information (as noted in previous quotes from DZ) for a year.

The man having an affair (& just being seen with a MW does not mean he was having an affair) would mean nothing compared to having the father vanish & LE holding possible pertinent information for a year, then making a press release about it when it was about to become public.

JMO [/*]


Oh i agree...I am pretty sure they (or any family would want the facts out in the public!!) It also leaves me wondering what else LE has held back...:(

I just wouldn't want to be LG and have to answer the questions from PF....

For the life of me i just don't how LE can make SO many mistakes in one case?! :shrug: JMHO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Ray Gricar was an adult male.
Ray Gricar was not married.
Ray Gricar was not engaged to be married.
Ray Gricar was a single man who could date a woman.
Ray Gricar was an unmarried man who could have an affair.

Why would the thought that Ray Gricar might be having an affair "hurt" or embarrass LG? Ray Gricar was already living with a woman to whom he was not married.

IMO, it wasn't LG that LE was "concerned" about. [/*]

RFG was in a relationship at the time he disappeared. Another woman would be considered "cheating" in my book.

A second relationship, or sexual contact, very easily could be regarded as embarrassing. It could damage RFG's reputation.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

I've pointed out before that the Lewisburg MW was not kept secret and was reported in the press in the Fall of 2005; it just wasn't emphasized.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
Ray Gricar was an adult male.
Ray Gricar was not married.
Ray Gricar was not engaged to be married.
Ray Gricar was a single man who could date a woman.
Ray Gricar was an unmarried man who could have an affair.

Why would the thought that Ray Gricar might be having an affair "hurt" or embarrass LG? Ray Gricar was already living with a woman to whom he was not married.

IMO, it wasn't LG that LE was "concerned" about. [/*]

I think you are correct on this point, GS.

Two divorces while in office had not hurt RG's reputation among voters in Centre County, and either *could* have if voters were going to be swayed by elements of his personal life rather than by his record of excellence in office. The first was a dissolution of a marriage with a young child in the mix. The second was a marriage of only about five years duration followed soon by another relationship. Either of those situations would be far more ripe for reputation damage than merely being seen "in the company" of a woman in a public space engaging in a thoroughly non-romantic, non-date-like activity like looking at antiques and collectibles, especially given that RG was neither married nor engaged at the time of his disappearance.

The purported Lewisburg sighting was in fact so non-romantic that it was not even clear to witnesses whether the man and woman were shopping "together" or whether they were meeting up by chance at the SOS and chatting "together." As ambiguous as you could get.

I would suspect there is more than has been revealed in the decision not to ask the public for help with identifying the Lewisburg MW, and at the same time, that it reveals more than is obvious at first glance. JMO.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by logicworks
Why couldn't the Tyrone MW be just as little of a deal as possibly a Lewisburg MW, without the need for 'RG would never cheat on me' and the rush to tears? What's to say meeting a friend, albeit a female, had to = 'cheating'?
JMO

This question is precisely what led me to observe earlier today that there is more here than meets the eye.

I sincerely doubt that most of us who are blessed with a secure, happy relationship would rush to tears and a judgment of "cheating"/"not cheating" were we to learn that our beloved had been seen at a store in the company of another person of the opposite sex.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


This question is precisely what led me to observe earlier today that there is more here than meets the eye.

I sincerely doubt that most of us who are blessed with a secure, happy relationship would rush to tears and a judgment of "cheating"/"not cheating" were we to learn that our beloved had been seen at a store in the company of another person of the opposite sex. [/*]

But wasn't DZ the one who actually brought up the insinuation of cheating with his statement of RGbeing seen with another woman, someone smoking in the car, RG getting away to think about things, having to exlpain himself to PF? There is more to that statement but couldn't find it right now.

Then the MW in Tyrone comes out a year later?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


This question is precisely what led me to observe earlier today that there is more here than meets the eye.

I sincerely doubt that most of us who are blessed with a secure, happy relationship would rush to tears and a judgment of "cheating"/"not cheating" were we to learn that our beloved had been seen at a store in the company of another person of the opposite sex. [/*]

Wasn't PF quoted as saying it was "gut wrenching" hearing the reports about RG possibly being in the company of another woman?

I wonder why she apparently immediately thought that it would be of an adulterous nature?

[Politigal]

Something that puzzles me about PF....

She was supposedly alarmed enough that RG had not come home, to phone her brother Tom. And IIRC, Tom told her something like ...well, he does prosecute a lot of cases. (I don't have a link for that but recall reading it on the board here somewhere in the past.)

If, Patty agreed with her brother - at that moment in time - that it could be something serious - like foul play - due to Gricar's position, and then she phoned police because of that fear --

Why after months & months, and after Gricar's family saying pretty much that they tend to believe foul play was involved & that they don't believe Gricar is still alive, and police saying virtually the same thing, would Patty continue her public comments that she believes "he's still out there somewhere."

I mean -- she's talking with her brother & they're apparently thinking something could have happened to Gricar - because he was a District Attorney.

But then - she's making statements in the media - that she thinks he's still out there somewhere.

It just doesn't make sense IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Something that puzzles me about PF....

She was supposedly alarmed enough that RG had not come home, to phone her brother Tom. And IIRC, Tom told her something like ...well, he does prosecute a lot of cases. (I don't have a link for that but recall reading it on the board here somewhere in the past.)


I believe TF's response was more along the line that men do "get out" to blow off steam. He said, "Don't worry."



Why after months & months, and after Gricar's family saying pretty much that they tend to believe foul play was involved & that they don't believe Gricar is still alive, and police saying virtually the same thing, would Patty continue her public comments that she believes "he's still out there somewhere."


I'm not sure PEF does hold out that much hope at this point. Some of this, initially, was that RFG would contact someone, if alive.

Some of it might be wishful thinking, like the friend that thinks it was walkaway. Friend may be thinking RFG was so bright that he could have walked away and he chooses to believe that. The may be more substantial reason for that belief. PB, get to ferreting the truth out.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I believe TF's response was more along the line that men do "get out" to blow off steam. He said, "Don't worry."


. [/*]
That is what i remember also.

[Politigal]

posted by Billywahoo

billywahoo
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A
i think some of you might be misinterpreting the phone call into the office. he was clearly calling to speak to patty, or catch her voicemail, it just so happens that she was also the person who answered the phone. patty's concern began to grow when she called him in the early evening. she received no response, so she periodically continued to call. when it became very late, she asked her brother if she was being paranoid, he said "no" since he is a public official involved in the prosecution of criminals. the decision was made to contact police, who concurred.

snipped

jmo


Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-04-2005 09:25 AM

[day2day]

Not real sure that bw would have first hand knowledge of PFs phone calls...

i was pretty sure that wasn't reported by le or in the press..but who really knows..anymore?

[Politigal]

If Billywahoo's post was accurate though.....

It sort of depicts a troubling disconnect between why police were called to begin with, and how PF thinks he's "still out there somewhere."

IMO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal
posted by Billywahoo

billywahoo
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A
i think some of you might be misinterpreting the phone call into the office. he was clearly calling to speak to patty, or catch her voicemail, it just so happens that she was also the person who answered the phone. patty's concern began to grow when she called him in the early evening. she received no response, so she periodically continued to call. when it became very late, she asked her brother if she was being paranoid, he said "no" since he is a public official involved in the prosecution of criminals. the decision was made to contact police, who concurred.



Billywahoo's post both differs from and adds detail to the account given by Erin Nissley in the CDT:

She went to the gym and returned home to find he still hadn't returned. She called her brother as darkness fell.

"I said, 'Maybe he just needed to get away. Don't worry yet,'" Tom Fornicola said.

But she continued to fret, calling Gricar's cell phone again and again.

"I kept trying to get through to him," Patty Fornicola said. "The voice mail kept coming on. I must have left dozens of messages."

She called police about 11:30 p.m. and, the next morning, called his family to see if they'd heard from him.

Nissley says PF called TF "when darkness fell" (which IIRC would have been about 8:15-ish); BW says PF asked TF if she were being paranoid "when it became very late."

Nissley's account quotes TF as offering the notion that RG might have simply needed to "get away." BW seems to have some kind of inside track to the phone call with details not included in the CDT account and adds a discussion about RG's position as public official involved in the prosecution of criminals.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Billywahoo's post both differs from and adds detail to the account given by Erin Nissley in the CDT:

She went to the gym and returned home to find he still hadn't returned. She called her brother as darkness fell.

"I said, 'Maybe he just needed to get away. Don't worry yet,'" Tom Fornicola said.

But she continued to fret, calling Gricar's cell phone again and again.

"I kept trying to get through to him," Patty Fornicola said. "The voice mail kept coming on. I must have left dozens of messages."

She called police about 11:30 p.m. and, the next morning, called his family to see if they'd heard from him.

Nissley says PF called TF "when darkness fell" (which IIRC would have been about 8:15-ish); BW says PF asked TF if she were being paranoid "when it became very late."

Nissley's account quotes TF as offering the notion that RG might have simply needed to "get away." BW seems to have some kind of inside track to the phone call with details not included in the CDT account and adds a discussion about RG's position as public official involved in the prosecution of criminals. [/*]

And in your opinion, doesn't it connotate an urgency due to the possibility of foul play being involved?

Yet, PF continues with her statements that she think's he's still out there somewhere - like he walked away.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal
If Billywahoo's post was accurate though.....

It sort of depicts a troubling disconnect between why police were called to begin with, and how PF thinks he's "still out there somewhere."

IMO

IMO, what's reported seems to skew toward the personal as reason for concern. What BW posts tends to skew toward career-related reason for concern.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal


And in your opinion, doesn't it connotate an urgency due to the possibility of foul play being involved?

Yet, PF continues with her statements that she think's he's still out there somewhere - like he walked away.

I'm inclined to think some of this is wrapped up in my observation the other day that there's more than meets the eye with regard to the MW. JMO.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


I'm inclined to think some of this is wrapped up in my observation the other day that there's more than meets the eye with regard to the MW. JMO. [/*]

One article I read (and I'm sure you've seen it many times) is that police checked with Gricar's prior girlfriends, (1 was a nurse) and reportedly, the other, he had still kept in contact with. But, it was reported she hadn't seen or spoken to Gricar when he disappeared.

Perhaps the one he continued contact with, was the mystery woman at Tyrone?

[day2day]

IMO.. IF we are "assuming" bw knows what was said during the phone call.... TF is the one who said she wasnt being paranoid due to his job. that doesnt say what patty was thinking.

Edited to add: i am not sure anyone that has never gone through this before can say how they would feel or what they would think..if they found themselves in this position.

[Politigal]

quote from the CDT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Police say they've received no reliable information that Ray Gricar was dating anyone while living with and seeing Patty Fornicola. Soon after his disappearance, a witness in Lewisburg said he saw Gricar either April 15 or April 16 (he wasn't sure) and he was possibly with a woman, according to Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni. Police aren't sure who that woman might have been, and no one has come forward and said "I was with him." Other whispers surfaced soon after Gricar disappeared about a possible relationship with a nurse, and police found out he'd once dated a nurse several years ago. That woman has moved out of state but was contacted by police in her area, Zaccagni said. Another old girlfriend, who now works in Harrisburg, has remained friends with Gricar over the years and had ties to the Lewisburg area. She's also been contacted by police, Zaccagni said, but said she did not see him on April 15 or 16. "No one has come forward and said 'I was dating him' and no one has come forward and said 'Yeah, I saw Ray and someone together a lot,'" Zaccagni said. Patty Fornicola, Gricar's girlfriend and housemate, said she doesn't believe Gricar was seeing someone in addition to her. "I don't know where he'd find the time," she said. "We worked together, we lived together. We were together most of the time."
Erin Nissley 10/13/05

[Politigal]

I still think it would be interesting to know from Patty's previous relationships, if she was the jealous type.

[day2day]

Patty Fornicola, Gricar's girlfriend and housemate, said she doesn't believe Gricar was seeing someone in addition to her. "I don't know where he'd find the time," she said. "We worked together, we lived together. We were together most of the time."


She said she doesn't "believe"..would YOU want to believe that your SO was cheating on you..? I believe it is denial...

I want this case solved just as bad as ya'll do ..but i can't see one thing that proves pf has commited a crime? If you find something and i am missing it..please point it out!

jmo of course

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by Politigal
quote from the CDT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Police say they've received no reliable information that Ray Gricar was dating anyone while living with and seeing Patty Fornicola. Soon after his disappearance, a witness in Lewisburg said he saw Gricar either April 15 or April 16 (he wasn't sure) and he was possibly with a woman, according to Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni. Police aren't sure who that woman might have been, and no one has come forward and said "I was with him." Other whispers surfaced soon after Gricar disappeared about a possible relationship with a nurse, and police found out he'd once dated a nurse several years ago. That woman has moved out of state but was contacted by police in her area, Zaccagni said. Another old girlfriend, who now works in Harrisburg, has remained friends with Gricar over the years and had ties to the Lewisburg area. She's also been contacted by police, Zaccagni said, but said she did not see him on April 15 or 16. "No one has come forward and said 'I was dating him' and no one has come forward and said 'Yeah, I saw Ray and someone together a lot,'" Zaccagni said. Patty Fornicola, Gricar's girlfriend and housemate, said she doesn't believe Gricar was seeing someone in addition to her. "I don't know where he'd find the time," she said. "We worked together, we lived together. We were together most of the time."
Erin Nissley 10/13/05 [/*]

Poligal do you happen to know if one of the two woman mentioned above is named Barbra?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


Poligal do you happen to know if one of the two woman mentioned above is named Barbra? [/*]

I'm sorry, I really don't know

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day


She said she doesn't "believe"..would YOU want to believe that your SO was cheating on you..? I believe it is denial...

I want this case solved just as bad as ya'll do ..but i can't see one thing that proves pf has commited a crime? If you find something and i am missing it..please point it out!

jmo of course

First of all, we might have "wishful thinking" on the part of many people. LG wanted her father to be alive and didn't except the possibility that he was dead as readily as some other family members. We have the "closer friend" that thinks RFG walked away. Is that based on something the friend knows or just wishful thinking?

PEF here doesn't want to think that RFG cheated on her. So, PEF doesn't believe it.

Second, and I think think this in the more factual point, PEF was usually in close proximity to RFG, both at home and at work. It wasn't 24/7, but it wasn't RFG sneaking off from work either.

Now I'll concede readily that RFG could have had a fling or a "booty call," as we say in my neighborhood. Something long term, would have been difficult.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


First of all, we might have "wishful thinking" on the part of many people. LG wanted her father to be alive and didn't except the possibility that he was dead as readily as some other family members. We have the "closer friend" that thinks RFG walked away. Is that based on something the friend knows or just wishful thinking?

PEF here doesn't want to think that RFG cheated on her. So, PEF doesn't believe it.

Second, and I think think this in the more factual point, PEF was usually in close proximity to RFG, both at home and at work. It wasn't 24/7, but it wasn't RFG sneaking off from work either.

Now I'll concede readily that RFG could have had a fling or a "booty call," as we say in my neighborhood. Something long term, would have been difficult. [/*]


I have to side with LG. I would rather believe that he walked away! Isn't it easier that way? Noone wants to think that their Dad has been murdered ..do they?

As for PF-i don't agree with many of the things that she has said and MANY things that she hasn't done..but I can see why she wouldn't want to believe he cheated on her..

[Chump#7]

Within the scope of this thread, I don't 'feel' (or 'think', rather) that there is evidence (for us, the public) that anything has been fully investigated.

A little out of scope of this thread, but this:
Another old girlfriend, who now works in Harrisburg, has remained friends with Gricar over the years and had ties to the Lewisburg area. She's also been contacted by police, Zaccagni said, but said she did not see him on April 15 or 16.

Is new, to me anyway. Was she 'fully investigated'? Just another of many obvious leads. Lewisburg is kind of half way between Harrisburg and Bellefonte. Not the most direct route, but 'she has ties there'.

Now speaking from personal experience (Chump hasn't been single since he was 12 years old), I've met with former girlfriends to talk about something that was bothering them, advice, needed help with something, etc. without my existing girlfriend (now wife) ever knowing, or anyone else for that matter. Nothing romantic going on or anything like that, just helping out without unnecessarily hurting anyone. Ugh - no matter which way you try to take this case, it only leads to more questions with no evidence. Is there evidence of previous contact with her? They were 'friends'. How did they communicate? Could she have been the 'lure'? What was her alibi? What about her 'ties'? Who are they? What were they doing? And on and on...

[Politigal]

Originally posted by day2day


She said she doesn't "believe"..would YOU want to believe that your SO was cheating on you..? I believe it is denial...

I want this case solved just as bad as ya'll do ..but i can't see one thing that proves pf has commited a crime? If you find something and i am missing it..please point it out!

jmo of course [/*]

Since you like to keep threads on topic......

Do you believe PF was fully investigated?

(reading all your previous posts from the start -- I'd say no, or have you had a recent change of heart?)

[Chump#7]

I still think it would be interesting to know from Patty's previous relationships, if she was the jealous type.

Indeed. I'm sure opinions would vary, but did Ray think she may be the jealous type? That may clue us in as to how he would handle those... uh, 'situations'?

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal


Since you like to keep threads on topic......

Do you believe PF was fully investigated?

(reading all your previous posts from the start -- I'd say no, or have you had a recent change of heart?) [/*]

Yup just call me on topic D2D :D I don't mind at all. And to answer your question- nope.
But then again with everything i have read, everything i have learned on this forum and things i have learned from other "sources"..I don't really believe that anyone was fully investigated. Hell, some people weren't even questioned.

jmo..as usual...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day
IMO.. IF we are "assuming" bw knows what was said during the phone call.... TF is the one who said she wasnt being paranoid due to his job. that doesnt say what patty was thinking.

Edited to add: i am not sure anyone that has never gone through this before can say how they would feel or what they would think..if they found themselves in this position.

I do continue to wonder about how much BW knew. Unless he was hiding in the house and had the phone tapped, there are some things he posted as fact that do not seem factual.

As someone who had a father that had late night meetings some distance in a rural area, my first thought would have been an accident. I wouldn't think it after six hours, but after twelve, at around 10-11 PM, I would.

I do disagree with your claim that there were errors from Day 1, especially looking at other cases. PEF called within 13 hours of the last contact; LE began searching within 12 hours of the report. LE didn't limit this to just considering a car accident.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Within the scope of this thread, I don't 'feel' (or 'think', rather) that there is evidence (for us, the public) that anything has been fully investigated.

A little out of scope of this thread, but this:


Is new, to me anyway. Was she 'fully investigated'? Just another of many obvious leads. Lewisburg is kind of half way between Harrisburg and Bellefonte. Not the most direct route, but 'she has ties there'.

Now speaking from personal experience (Chump hasn't been single since he was 12 years old), I've met with former girlfriends to talk about something that was bothering them, advice, needed help with something, etc. without my existing girlfriend (now wife) ever knowing, or anyone else for that matter. Nothing romantic going on or anything like that, just helping out without unnecessarily hurting anyone. Ugh - no matter which way you try to take this case, it only leads to more questions with no evidence. Is there evidence of previous contact with her? They were 'friends'. How did they communicate? Could she have been the 'lure'? What was her alibi? What about her 'ties'? Who are they? What were they doing? And on and on... [/*]

The article says she didn't speak to or see Gricar on 4/15 & 16.

But it doesn't mention the 14th...

[Chump#7]

The article says she didn't speak to or see Gricar on 4/15 & 16.

I was wondering prior to that. They 'remained friends'. How so? They communicated I assume. How?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7


I was wondering prior to that. They 'remained friends'. How so? They communicated I assume. How? [/*]

She would be the "second tier" that should be looked at by LE, and wasn't, so far as we know.

One problem is that she lived out of the area. To meet some place, they would have to communicate with each other. Unless both were really making strong efforts to do so, LE would catch it.

The first group should be the local friends who would not leave an electronic trail.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Chump#7


I was wondering prior to that. They 'remained friends'. How so? They communicated I assume. How? [/*]

The article said she lived at Harrisburg & had ties to Lewisburg.

It would be interesting to know if she's a smoker, and perhaps the killer (assuming there is a killer) was *trying* to point law enforcement toward this woman, with the location of the Mini and the cigarette ash in the car.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal


The article said she lived at Harrisburg & had ties to Lewisburg.

It would be interesting to know if she's a smoker, and perhaps the killer (assuming there is a killer) was *trying* to point law enforcement toward this woman, with the location of the Mini and the cigarette ash in the car. [/*]

I have had this possibility in the back of my mind for a long time, what with Lewisburg being more or less a "halfway" point between Harrisburg and Bellefonte, and the smoke and ash traces standing out as unlikely to have come from RG himself, except under the "wild weekend" theory put forth by DZ.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
Really hate to bring it up again, after all the agonizing days of the past. However, it must be done! "They" could have kept in touch by TracPhone, with no electronic record left behind. ;) [/*]

Every time I walk past this bin of TracFones next to the batteries and trash bags and stuff at the grocery store, I have to suppress the urge to laugh hysterically.

[Chump#7]

It would be interesting to know if she's a smoker, and perhaps the killer (assuming there is a killer) was *trying* to point law enforcement toward this woman, with the location of the Mini and the cigarette ash in the car.

Good one, Politigal.

And here I was just about convinced that these ashes and the odor of cigarette smoke was left by none other than Detective Z himself. In a clown suit. Ashes flying aimlessly off his giant shoes like magic bullets, his smoke filled balloons popping as he practices getting in and out of the mini...

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


Had to go get my hair dyed, cuz I turned completely gray back then. [/*]

Did I mention it was a 24-hour grocery store?

:D

[Politigal]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


I have had this possibility in the back of my mind for a long time, what with Lewisburg being more or less a "halfway" point between Harrisburg and Bellefonte, and the smoke and ash traces standing out as unlikely to have come from RG himself, except under the "wild weekend" theory put forth by DZ. [/*]

What's puzzling to me is why the car was locked. That fact sort of shows "personal" attention to the car.

[tiredoftheguff]

I wonder if she had any connection to DeNaples. I wonder if Ray found out about DeNaples shenanigans and did not say anything to Patty because DeNaples and Tom Fornicola are both on the Gaming Board? Is that right? I think they should take the sniffer dogs to every landfill that he owns. Is there a woman connected to LD who fits the description of the mystery woman? I think they should bring this nurse in and really have a chat with her.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
I wonder if she had any connection to DeNaples. I wonder if Ray found out about DeNaples shenanigans and did not say anything to Patty because DeNaples and Tom Fornicola are both on the Gaming Board? Is that right? I think they should take the sniffer dogs to every landfill that he owns. Is there a woman connected to LD who fits the description of the mystery woman? I think they should bring this nurse in and really have a chat with her. [/*]

Did you mean to say Tom Corbett above?

[tiredoftheguff]

Truthfully Politigal I dunno. I have been out of town alot lately and have not been able to keep up with the boards like I used to. I am a bit confused at the moment. Is'nt Denaples the guy connected to organised crime and he owns landfills?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
Truthfully Politigal I dunno. I have been out of town alot lately and have not been able to keep up with the boards like I used to. I am a bit confused at the moment. Is'nt Denaples the guy connected to organised crime and he owns landfills? [/*]

yes, but you posted Tom Fornicola as being on the gaming board

[tiredoftheguff]

Yes I vaguely remembered someone saying something about TF being on the Gaming Board. Do you know if that is true? Is he on the gaming board?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
Yes I vaguely remembered someone saying something about TF being on the Gaming Board. Do you know if that is true? Is he on the gaming board? [/*]

I truly don't know

[Politigal]

I don't know if Tom Fornicola was just helping a friend at the Grange Fair or if he works in the landscaping business, but I found this on CDT archives:

Tom Fornicola of Bellefonte slides a bag of blacktop to the the next spot to fill after installing brick-patterned concrete slabs Sunday in front of the Krape family tent at the Grange Fair. ...

Published on 2000-08-21, Page 5A, Centre Daily Times (State College, PA)

(Krape owns a landscaping business in Bellefonte)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
I don't know if Tom Fornicola was just helping a friend at the Grange Fair or if he works in the landscaping business, but I found this on CDT archives:

Tom Fornicola of Bellefonte slides a bag of blacktop to the the next spot to fill after installing brick-patterned concrete slabs Sunday in front of the Krape family tent at the Grange Fair. ...

Published on 2000-08-21, Page 5A, Centre Daily Times (State College, PA)

(Krape owns a landscaping business in Bellefonte) [/*]

I believe he's employed at PSU.

So far as know, no locals are on the board. http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/members.htm

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Chump#7


Good one, Politigal.

And here I was just about convinced that these ashes and the odor of cigarette smoke was left by none other than Detective Z himself. In a clown suit. Ashes flying aimlessly off his giant shoes like magic bullets, his smoke filled balloons popping as he practices getting in and out of the mini... [/*]

I'm curious who the state trooper is that found the car.

[Politigal]

If police possibly believe this was a case of foul play -- I would hope that they look at everything from the beginning again.

IMO, it seems so many investigative opportunities were simply thrown aside in the beginning.

Was Patty's car trunk checked for forensic evidence?

Was her brother's hunting camp searched? or his vehicle?

Was her 680 sq ft 2/room basement inspected during the initial walk thru?

Did Wedler recall the outfit that PF was wearing during the park walk that Thursday evening and were those clothes located or inspected?

Did PF make trips to Lewisburg after the disappearance, like Barbara and Lara did?

so many questions...................

[Cloudbuster]

Pgal I can understand the questions but things are not always what they seem. I understand they look one way when they usually end up a whole another way as seems to be in this case. Everything I started out thinking about this case IMO is wrong. I don't know PF or Ray or the daughter or the newphews so Im not trying to defend someone that I don't even know honestly. But some of what I see now is not at all what I thought.
:rose:

[Politigal]

ParlorElephant made this post a while back and I agree with her sentiments

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=8110152&highlight=home+office+and+parlorelephant#post81101 52

Originally posted by ParlorElephant

A lot of the BPD approach - arguably the entire approach - hinges on "The Call" having occurred when it did and Gricar having said what he is supposed to have said.

When did The Call makes it first appearance? There's no indication there was any investigation on Friday night
after the initial 11:30 PM report. If not, understandable
LE concern over Gricar's being angry if he's on a rendevouz
and they act 'prematurely'. Wait and see if he returns, let's
give him til tommorrow morning?

So when is The Call first mentioned? Saturday in talking with police? Any other staff remember The Call? Remembering PF
mentioning that she got The Call? Just think, UTR, that no matter which way you turn it, and no matter which scenario you consider, it comes back to hard questions about potential involvement by PF. Its kind of like those circular plastic container lids after they've gone through the dishwasher a few times. You push them down in one place, go around the edge to seal them, then they pop out at another place. (PE's LW has billions and billions of same.)

Its a matter of logical possibilities, more importantly probabilities IMO. Hundreds of questions present themselves. If its a walkoff from Bellefonte and he's off to Tahiti never to return, why does he take the keys to a car legally owned by PF? If he didn't make the 11:30 AM call, why is it important that his disappearance time be set back to that point? If he did make the call, why would he risk spoiling the ruse by returning to the courthouse? If he planned a voluntary disappearance, why did he take no clothes (or money)? If he was abducted by an irate person, how likely is it person could have found him, gotten rid of him, put mini 60 miles away in under 2 hours? What does the laptop have to do with anything? Why has the story on the laptop changed from surprise/surprise, went to get it and its gone to the current 'certainty' that it was 'always' at the house until 4/15/05. WHAT DOES IT MATTER? Why does PF meet 25+ hours (according to Saunterer, per billywahoo) with police and manage not to mention even once the Tallyrand park encounter, which apparently would never have been mentioned at all had Wedler not brought it up?


Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-04-2006 11:01 AM

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Politigal
ParlorElephant made this post a while back and I agree with her sentiments

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=8110152&highlight=home+office+and+parlorelephant#post81101 52

Originally posted by ParlorElephant
[/*]Tony thinks that he's sure if Parlor were still here, he or she, would also take Ms. Arnold to task for waiting 2 years to say anything. Especially if so much insight was to be offered, and since Parlor had no problem taking the family to task, as Arnold also did, Tony's sure Parlor would agree that a proper course of action, if he or she deemed the investigation ineffective, would have been to contact the easily reachable family and voice her concerns. Tony further feels that many of the assertions by Arnold were filled with a rich hypocrisy for the aforementioned inference and can't help but think Parlor would raise his or her voice in agreement.

In all honesty, Tony just misses Parlor's writing style...

p.s.
Tony also thinks that Arnold slapped the prolific Lustor and Parlor in the face by never mentioning them in the last section of her manifesto.

p.s.s.
I think I just gave myself a headache.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Tony thinks that he's sure if Parlor were still here, he or she, would also take Ms. Arnold to task for waiting 2 years to say anything. Especially if so much insight was to be offered, and since Parlor had no problem taking the family to task, as Arnold also did, Tony's sure Parlor would agree that a proper course of action, if he or she deemed the investigation ineffective, would have been to contact the easily reachable family and voice her concerns. Tony further feels that many of the assertions by Arnold were filled with a rich hypocrisy for the aforementioned inference and can't help but think Parlor would raise his or her voice in agreement.

In all honesty, Tony just misses Parlor's writing style...

p.s.
Tony also thinks that Arnold slapped the prolific Lustor and Parlor in the face by never mentioning them in the last section of her manifesto.

p.s.s.
I think I just gave myself a headache. [/*]

How do you know that JKA didn't tell police what she felt?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


ParlorElephant made this post a while back and I agree with her sentiments

Originally posted by ParlorElephant
When did The Call makes it first appearance? There's no indication there was any investigation on Friday night
after the initial 11:30 PM report. If not, understandable
LE concern over Gricar's being angry if he's on a rendevouz
and they act 'prematurely'. Wait and see if he returns, let's
give him til tommorrow morning?


Well, RFG was missing, at that point for 12 hours; that is NOT a lot of time. I've indicated that LE in Phila would say, call back in 36 hours.


So when is The Call first mentioned? Saturday in talking with police?


I would suspect that the BPD asked, **When was the last time you heard from him?**

The source of the call (Brush Valley) was confirmed by Saturday afternoon.


Any other staff remember The Call?


Why would they, especially if it was about the dog?


Remembering PF
mentioning that she got The Call? Just think, UTR, that no matter which way you turn it, and no matter which scenario you consider, it comes back to hard questions about potential involvement by PF.


This might raise substantial questions about JKA's involvement, if she expects PEF to stand up and announced, **Ray called and asked me to walk the dog.**


Its kind of like those circular plastic container lids after they've gone through the dishwasher a few times. You push them down in one place, go around the edge to seal them, then they pop out at another place. (PE's LW has billions and billions of same.)


Yes, why would someone with the alleged suspicions, who was a senior member of the DA's office, not speak to the family or police?


Its a matter of logical possibilities, more importantly probabilities IMO. Hundreds of questions present themselves. If its a walkoff from Bellefonte and he's off to Tahiti never to return, why does he take the keys to a car legally owned by PF?


Two reasons. First, RFG doesn't own a car, and may not want to leave the keys in it, in a public parking lot. Second, who said he's heading for Tahiti first and not back to Bellefonte to get something.


If he didn't make the 11:30 AM call, why is it important that his disappearance time be set back to that point? If he did make the call, why would he risk spoiling the ruse by returning to the courthouse?


To establish his presence in Lewisburg and retrieve something from the house.


If he planned a voluntary disappearance, why did he take no clothes (or money)?


So that it wouldn't immediately look like he walked away. One of those things that walkaway sites tell you is leave some money in the bank. Clothes are easy. He had enough time to buy some new ones on 4/15, if not earlier.


If he was abducted by an irate person, how likely is it person could have found him, gotten rid of him, put mini 60 miles away in under 2 hours?


He probably wasn't abducted, at least not before he drove the Mini to Lewisburg. The odds that it wasn't planned are strongly against a random encounter by an enemy.


What does the laptop have to do with anything?


Potentially, a lot.


Why has the story on the laptop changed from surprise/surprise, went to get it and its gone to the current 'certainty' that it was 'always' at the house until 4/15/05.


Well, neither JKA nor her coworkers seem to remember RFG using it at the office.


WHAT DOES IT MATTER? Why does PF meet 25+ hours (according to Saunterer, per billywahoo) with police and manage not to mention even once the Tallyrand park encounter, which apparently would never have been mentioned at all had Wedler not brought it up?


Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-04-2006 11:01 AM


http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=8110152&highlight=home+office+and+parlorelephant#post81101 52



Why is a walk in Tallyrand Park worthy of mention to LE. There is evidence that RFG was alive after that. If it related to demeanor, it was of PEF and RFG looking like they had, a "perfect couple," though RFG looked "depressed." Neither description is exactly damning.

Perhaps JKA thinks PEF should have said, **Vikki Wedler saw us in in Tallyrand Park said we looked like a 'perfect couple.'" :rolleyes:

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Politigal
How do you know that JKA didn't tell police what she felt? [/*]Call it a hunch.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Call it a hunch. [/*]

If it's only a hunch - you could be mistaken.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


How do you know that JKA didn't tell police what she felt? [/*]

Well, because she lists her contact with LE, and doesn't mention it. She also stated that she said to LE that didn't know anything about the PEF/RFG relationship. Now, either she's telling the truth, she lying in her "Pitiful Pages" or she lied to the police. I think she's telling the truth about her contacts.

As to her knowledge of the relationship, she got the date of the Mini purchase wrong by at least 4 months. That doesn't sound like she was close, personally, to PEF or RFG (or her memory is really bad).

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by Politigal


What's puzzling to me is why the car was locked. That fact sort of shows "personal" attention to the car. [/*]

Good point Pgal! What I think is RG intended to return to the car but got into another car. I don't feel at this point he was in immediate danger I think he hought things could be negotiated and talked about.

JJ another question? If RG had a centre county commissioner laptop as per inventory tag then would his CELL phone also he centre county comissioner inventory tagged ????? Another question is this What if Ray had his real cell phone on him in another vechicle and one of those centre county cell phones was left in the mini cooper so they wouldn't need to return at that point to the mini cooper?????? Or you could reverse the scenario with the cell phones. Also I know many who have passwords on their cell phones so you can't get into their messages. Could RG's cell phone had one?

[Cloudbuster]

Oh crap another thought lol. What if Ray just left his cell phone cause he was told no call out AND when they get into this other vechicle Ray wants to call PF cause it could have been a lie ect basically to tell her he would be out a Whole day.

Question? if he used another cell phone thats tagged centre county tagged (just like the laptop) then wouldn't that pan out that RG made the call? After all it would still come out a centre county commioner tagged inventory item right????????

What do you all think?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Well, because she lists her contact with LE, and doesn't mention it. really bad). [/*]

lol

There are lots of things that Tony doesn't discuss or mention either......

I sincerely doubt that JKA posted everything she knows or everything that transpired on her googlepages.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


lol

There are lots of things that Tony doesn't discuss or mention either......

I sincerely doubt that JKA posted everything she knows or everything that transpired on her googlepages. [/*]

Tony may not tell us things, but he doesn't give false information knowingly. TG may say, effectively, **I'm not going to tell you what type of accounts RFG had, and the exact balance,** but he doesn't make up a number.

JKA said, effectively, **This is the contact I had with LE.** In tyhis particular case, she told us that LE (IIRC, the BPD) ask her what she knew about RFG relationship with PEF, and JKA said that didn't know anything about it.

CB, I don't understand your question. As far as I know, LE was able to track the cell calls.

[UndertheRadar]

Oh, come on, JJ. Are you God?

How are you able to determine that KA would potentially give misleading information but that TG has never done so on these boards?

This is not a slam on TG.

Just pointing out the absurdity of a claim that KA would provide misleading information but that TG has "never" done so knowingly.

How the heck would you know without omnipotence?

Oh, right. I forgot.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I'm not God, but I can read.

Here is what JKA said:

As far as I can recall, this was the last time that I spoke to Officer Zaccagni in connection with the investigation. (4/16/05)

I was asked about Ray's live-in relationship and indicated that I knew little about it. (4/17/05)

Within a few days after Ray's disappearance I sent an email to then-Chief Dixon of BPD about an incident referred to BPD a few weeks before. An attorney previously involved in a murder case which Ray had been prosecuting at the time of his disappearance had contacted our office from a mobile phone requesting that Bellefonte police meet him at his office. He was agitated and the conversation a bit hard to follow, but his concern appeared to be that an individual associated with the case was en route to his office. I don't know why he didn't simply dial 911 and perhaps he originally called hoping to speak with Ray. Ray was gone for the day, as were most of the remaining staff, and I answered the call and made the referral to BPD.

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

Either JKA is being honest on these points, has an even worse memory than I thought, or she's lying. Forgive me, but I actually think she's being honest.

Now, if I believed that JKA did give deliberately misleading information in her pages, that would be extremely suspicious activity. I don't, but P'gal raised that possibility, expressed in her "doubt."

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I can read perfectly well thank you.

You made the claim that TG never knowingly posts information that is misleading.

You don't know this.

For all you know, he has his uncle stashed away in a five-star hotel in Tahiti for safe-keeping for some reason, and isn't saying. No polygraph on TG, right?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, Tony has from time to time said that there were things he was unwilling to disclose; that is understandable. He identifies them. That is very different from claiming that he knowingly posted something that was false.

In JKA's case, she made a statement:


I was asked about Ray's live-in relationship and indicated that I knew little about it.

Now, either:

1. JKA knows more, and lied to LE, or;

2. JKA told LE more and lied when she posted that statment, or;

3. JKA told LE more and forgot, or;

4. JKA is being honest and accurate in her statement about what she told LE.

I think #4 is the most likely situation, and I'm surprised about the implication that JKA is either lying or has an exceptionally poor memory, even worse than I thought, beyond the point that would make her of any use as a witness. Yes, ironically, I'm defending JKA here.

I think if she caught being so false and possibly dishonest publicly, she kiss any hope of a political career or legal career goodbye in Centre County, not to mention making herself a suspect in the potential murder of RFG. I don't think she would do that just to impress us or some readers.

When she made that statement, I think she was being honest and at least trying to be accurate.

[Politigal]

Once again JJ you've twisted the conversation ...






:rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Once again JJ you've twisted the conversation ...






:rolleyes: [/*]

No, I'm just calling a spade a spade.

She made those particular statements about her activities and signed her name to them, publicly. If it turns out that her statements were false, either deliberately or unintentionally, it reflects on her.

That doesn't mean that she's posted everything that she knows, but what she's posted as to what she did or said, is accurate or it's her backside.

JKA said: I was asked about Ray's live-in relationship and indicated that I knew little about it.

Okay, she either knew more, and didn't tell LE, told LE more, but didn't tell us, or she said, forgot what she told LE, or said, "I was asked about Ray's live-in relationship and indicated that I knew little about it." If you think that the options are any of the first three, you really should trust anything she says. I think the fourth option is the most likely, and I find it ironic that I'm the guy defending a statement from JKA.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal
Once again JJ you've twisted the conversation ...






:rolleyes: [/*]

Yep . . .

[J. J. in Phila]

Since you don't believe JKA is honest when she tells us about her contact with LE, I'll take that into account. :rolleyes:

[Serendipitous1]

Counsel: You didn't care for Gricar's style of lawyering, did you?

JKA: Not so. I knew him professionally for 19 years and worked for him for 18 of them. The most rewarding reason to work for him was "his commitment to making decisions basely [sic] solely on the facts and the conduct..."...his "evenhandedness" ["Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: The Ray Gricar Disappearance"].

Counsel: So you agreed with Gricar's prosecutorial descretion.

JKA: Ummm...well...actually..."In later years, Ray became a little rigid in his positions on things." "It's sometimes a thin line between taking a firm stand in a particular case, and becoming rigid and treating every case of that type alike" [DA campaign, radio interview].

Counsel: So you didn't always agree with his decisions, did you?

JKA: Well...no, I guess not. "I think that, having seen that happen, that I would be reluctant to fall into the same path" [ibid].

Counsel: Do you recall if Gricar was in his office at all on Thursday, 4/14/05?

JKA: "Gricar was in the office for at least part of Thursday afternoon, 4/14." [opening remark in response to the CDT article, "Gricar family, friends hold onto hope"].

Counsel: How is it that you can be so certain of that? Did you speak with him?

JKA: Ummm...well...actually..."I don't recall seeing him or talking to him..." But, "my impression has always been that he was present in his office at some point during the afternoon of Thursday, April 14, 2005." See, "he had this peculiar and long-standing habit..." ["Ladies and Gentlemen..."].

Counsel: So you don't know for a fact whether or not he was in his office that day, do you?

JKA: Well...no, I guess not...not with absolute certainty.
--------------------------------
...Shall I go on?

[Politigal]

I don't get what point you're trying to make.

So no, I guess there's no need to go on....:tongue:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Several times today, I've read the posts of the past couple days. At no time have I ever seen anyone accuse, or question in any way, Karen Arnold of lying, misdirecting, or anything else. Except JJ keeps bringing this up with more of his smoke & mirrors. Pgal. stated she doubted if KA told everything she knew in her Magnificent Manuscipt. I would think anybody with any common sense whatsoever would realize KA worked with RG for 20 yrs. There is no way she could, would, should write about every memory of RG during that 20 yr. period. And, if I'm not mistaken, KA was asked about her knowlege of the RG/PF relationship. She said she had no knowledge of it. Why would you think she did have knowledge of their relationship??? In fact, I believe the illustrious DZ even stated that you couldn't tell they were a couple around the office. Apparently, there wasn't any huggy/kissy activity between RG/PF around the office. So, how would KA have knowledge of their relationship; I seriously doubt if RG bragged or talked about it around the office. According to credible sources, RG had only 2 close friends & didn't mingle with other office personnel except on occasion.

The nonsense about KA lying to LE, or KA lying in her Magnificent Manuscript, or KA making false statements, is just more of the "Get KA" attitude. Wonder why KA is such a threat to some????????????????

JMO [/*]

There are smoke and mirrors, with JKA.

JKA came here, and attempted to make something of the PEF/RFG relationship, including this:

ParlorElephant
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

....

Instead she's just finished work for the day, presumably ready to go home and its right at dinnertime. He's to be home later that night, at which time they can talk to their hearts' content. So why is the choice of an hour's conversation/promenade in the park, with no dinner and followed by G's heading back to the office to work for 3 hours? IMO, there's much to suggest that at that point PF and RG were no longer living under the same roof.

PE

07-08-2006 12:33 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged ...

What evidence does she think would "suggest" this? His things were out of the house? He made arrangements to spend the night outside of the house? She saw them arguing? She saw that RFG was wearing the same clothing as the day before? She found out that RFG had told his family or the office not to send anything to PEF's house?

If she thought there was something to "suggest" this, why doesn't she mention it to LE.

Why does PF meet 25+ hours (according to Saunterer, per billywahoo) with police and manage not to mention even once the Tallyrand park encounter, which apparently would never have been mentioned at all had Wedler not brought it up?


Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-04-2006 11:01 AM

My answer would be that it wasn't relevant, as we know that RFG was alive and well four hours after that. It would be relevant if there was something unusual in eithers demeanor, i.e. if they were arguing. Does Wedler say anything about them arguing, discussing something intently; Wedler says, that for a long time, they looked like a "perfect couple," which doesn't indicate they were fighting. RFG doesn't running back to the office after that until a half hour to 45 minutes later (it's not a long walk either).

Now, we have JKA claiming to say to LE:

I was asked about Ray's live-in relationship and indicated that I knew little about it.

I can believe the accuracy of that statement, but P'gal says: "I sincerely doubt that JKA posted everything she knows or everything that transpired on her googlepages." Note that this is P'gal's comment, not mine.

If she knew something more, something relevant, why didn't she post it? If she told LE more, why didn't she post what she said? If that is all she told LE, and she knew something more, why didn't she tell LE (who seem to have been looking at PEF at that point)?

I frankly suspect that JKA posted under her own name about what she knew about the PEF/RFG relationship is an accurate and honest statement. I also would suspect that she would answer LE honestly about the question. We have P'gal, however, saying, in regard to this statement, "I sincerely doubt that JKA posted everything she knows... ."


In regard to that statement, I do not doubt JKA; I do not expect her to be too familiar with the relationship between RFG and PEF. I do not expect JKA to logging PEF's every move in the months prior to RFG's disappearance. I do not JKA to looking out the window to see what car PEF is driving up in on a particular day.

In terms of evidence, I do not expect JKA, to claim that there is "that at that point PF and RG were no longer living under the same roof." Likewise, I would not expect JKA to ask the question, "Why does PF meet 25+ hours (according to Saunterer, per billywahoo) with police and manage not to mention even once the Tallyrand park encounter,...," as that "encounter" was several hours before there was a video of RFG and the report only indicated that there was nothing negative about their demeanor.

There are smoke and mirrors, or should I say an attempt to poison the well with irrelevancy and inaccuracy, from JKA, in doppleganger form. The question is, why?

(I will say that I strongly doubt that the answer involves covering up criminal activities.)

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila



There are smoke and mirrors, or should I say an attempt to poison the well with irrelevancy and inaccuracy, from insert JJ here, in doppleganger form. The question is, why?

(I will say that I strongly doubt that the answer involves covering up criminal activities.) [/*]

looks more like a crush to me....:D

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
I don't get what point you're trying to make.

So no, I guess there's no need to go on....:tongue: [/*]

:lol:

I think the point is, since you don't get her point, is that her memory is quite different from some things her doppleganger posted, and that when she has to sign her name to it, a lot of those opinions vanish.

The question is, if not pursing a hypothetical, why does she post them in the first place?

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Politigal
I don't get what point you're trying to make.

So no, I guess there's no need to go on....:tongue: [/*]No...I suppose you do not and, therefore, there is not. MO

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
No...I suppose you do not and, therefore, there is not. MO [/*]

We were discussing whether she included everything she knew about the case or Gricar, etc in her googlepages.

And I posted that I didn't believe she would have put everything on google.

Simple as that.

Just like Tony doesn't tell us everything he knows.

And just like you don't tell us everything you know.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


looks more like a crush to me....:D [/*]

It is possibly that JKA had a crush on RFG, obviously.

Some interesting things:

1. RFG was dating a woman 19 years younger. It was enough that, at first, I thought he was having a midlife crisis, coupled with the Mini.

JKA was 2-4 years younger than RFG, and she had trouble typing the name "Fornicola."

2. When fired, she sued on the basis of age discrimination, though I've never heard anyone saying, **Gee, you're too old to be an ADA.**

She seems to be concerned about her age (and if she knew the ages of some of the professionals I've used, she wouldn't be).

[Politigal]

I was referring to *your* crush JJ.....:cool:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


We were discussing whether she included everything she knew about the case or Gricar, etc in her googlepages.

And I posted that I didn't believe she would have put everything on google.

Simple as that.

Just like Tony doesn't tell us everything he knows.

And just like you don't tell us everything you know. [/*]

No actually, I was referring to the accuracy of what JKA posted that she said to LE. You expressed "doubt."

Ironically, I think she was being accurate and have little "doubt."

Come on P'gal. It isn't very likely that JKA would know a great deal about RFG's relationships, in the first place. It isn't very likely that, if she had something relevant to say about the relationship that she would not have told LE, and that she wouldn't have included it in her pages. She made a point of saying that she knew little about it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
I was referring to *your* crush JJ.....:cool: [/*]

No, I don't have one, but we can not rule one out or in.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
I want to know how & why certain posters would "know" that Parlor Elephant or any other poster would be KA.

I know I've been practically accused of being KA &/or Par., & I guarantee you that I am neither. That goes to show you how much you know about who is who on this board!

Unless KA herself told you she was posting on this board under an assumed identity, or unless Coldwater told you, there is no way you'd know. I also thought this type thing (accusation?) was a violation of TOS.

JMO [/*]

Perhaps she did, in a way. :)

[UndertheRadar]

I would like to know how anyone can come to this board and claim that KA posted or posts under any name.

JJ does it on this thread. Others have done it in the past as if it is a given. S1 has claimed KA is still a current poster and has alluded to several of our posters as possibilities.

Short of LE having a warrant, CTV is not supposed to reveal any information about posters. So either these are merely guesses about past and present posters, or some people are in possession of information they don't have any legal right to have.

Making guesses . . . probably not good. Teetering on the edge of violating TOS, no? Possessing information that's not legal to have . . . ?

[UndertheRadar]

Sorry, GS, I see I was typing almost the same thoughts you were--but you beat me to the punch.

[J. J. in Phila]

As I said, in a way. I noted the similarity in writing style between PE and Lustor just in reading their posts. I recognized a similar style in some other writing samples that were self identified.

Not a TOS violation. You must really be scared.

I'll also add neither Lustor or PE is a member.

As for LE, of course the could get a warrant, but I've given Tony permission to give LE my identity; they don't need one. I take it neither of you would have a problem with that either, if you have not already?

[J. J. in Phila]

It is interesting that I mention JKA's age concerns (she has filed an age discrimination suit), and GStickly begins to refer to TOS violations.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I am not "scared" of anything, and I am not at all interested in your identity.

But neither am I going to let you weasel out of anything.

You said that KA "came here," said X, Y, and Z about RG and PF's relationship "including this:" and then proceeded to copy and paste a post from someone who *was* a member at one point. (You know perfectly well the "Guest" status is an after-the-fact label applied and that the same is apparently true of Billywahoo and other folks whose posts remain but whose accounts are no longer active.)

There is no way to weasel out of that, no matter how hard you try, and it's not the only time you've done it. But you're not alone.

Now, if it's okay to do that, maybe we should all just start snarking about who Billywahoo is and who S1 is, which usernames seem to be one person posting under multiple nics and which nics seem to be multiple people posting under one name--all right here out in the open even though it's a violation of TOS. Whaddya think?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
JJ, I am not "scared" of anything, and I am not at all interested in your identity.

But neither am I going to let you weasel out of anything.

You said that KA "came here," said X, Y, and Z about RG and PF's relationship "including this:" and then proceeded to copy and paste a post from someone who *was* a member at one point. (You know perfectly well the "Guest" status is an after-the-fact label applied and that the same is apparently true of Billywahoo and other folks whose posts remain but whose accounts are no longer active.)

There is no way to weasel out of that, no matter how hard you try, and it's not the only time you've done it. But you're not alone.

Now, if it's okay to do that, maybe we should all just start snarking about who Billywahoo is and who S1 is, which usernames seem to be one person posting under multiple nics and which nics seem to be multiple people posting under one name--all right here out in the open even though it's a violation of TOS. Whaddya think? [/*]

Actually, JJ can post a link that would have been left from a previous poster, if the post had been quoted on and is still on the forum. We all quote people and it shows up above our post.
If you go back over old postings there are still quotes from Sauntere, Billywahoo, and ParlorElephant. I have seen many others quote those same long gone people and had wondered who they were, most having been gone when I came on.

Also to wondering who everyone is, we have certain person(s) on the forum now who check others out with all their Intellus links, etc. I have even been told who I am! But then again, haven't we all checked a member name out? To see where they are from, Birthdates, etc? To find out why their posts sound like another poster? and why they would even care who I am?

I also have identified myself to LE, Sheriff Nau, PSP in Milton and State College. I have nothing to hide and have no connection to RG or PF.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Actually, JJ can post a link that would have been left from a previous poster, if the post had been quoted on and is still on the forum. We all quote people and it shows up above our post.


Sure, SJ. JJ can do THAT.

What he cannot do is what he **DID**, and that is quote a post and identify the poster as a *REAL IDENTITY**, a real flesh and blood person rather than a screen name.

Put simply, if one of your children anonymously posted on this board, would you want JJ to copy one of his/her posts and say, "Jane Doe came here and said blah blah blah . . . "

If you say it would be fine with you, I'll eat my hat.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


I have absolutely nothing to be scared about!

Any time LE wants to check me out, I'd love to talk to them.

BTW, I don't have to hang onto TG's shirttails to give LE permission to get my identity. You seem so certain LE monitors this board, so I would assume they wouldn't need TG's permission to get my identity!!! This isn't TG's message board, and regardless of what you say, it isn't yours either! [/*]

No, but if you don't they cannot identify you, unless they compare writing styles. Hummm.

And UTR, I do see a great deal of fear in you. The fear is about what I'm posting, not me finding out who you are (largely because I have not made refference to it). Not to mention a non answer to be identified to TG. Now, if I saw your writing style off this board, with a signature, I may comment on it.

And there has been a lot of speculation about BW, though you claim that BW and S1 are one and the same is laughable. :) Even JKA, under her signature, doesn't claim that.

I will say this, you have been close to violating TOS before, so I can't stop you.

I can think of several current posters that are similar in style and content to previous posters, but I have not identified them. I don't intend to.

Someone who isn't currently a member is a different story. Oh and BTW, I have the name of one of the frequent posters (from a public source), but I have not researched it, and don't intend to.

[J. J. in Phila]

You hat is probably better poached.

You know we have one poster who claimed that the was ample evidence that RFG didn't live with PEF, with no evidence. Now we have one that say the same poster have a very similar writing style to one to point of being convincing. No secret information needed, because there is evidence. It seems to be a double standard on your part. Humm.

You know, UTR, I have not attempted to identify you. I don't intend to.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm probably going to be accused of "Karen Bashing," but let';s see what I've actually said about her.

Let's see:

"4. JKA is being honest and accurate in her statement about what she told LE.

I think #4 is the most likely situation, ... "

"In regard to that statement, I do not doubt JKA; I do not expect her to be too familiar with the relationship between RFG and PEF. I do not expect JKA to logging PEF's every move in the months prior to RFG's disappearance. I do [n]not[/u] JKA to looking out the window to see what car PEF is driving up in on a particular day."

"I will say that I strongly doubt that the answer involves covering up criminal activities."

Oh, and of course, that I would hire professionals in her age range (actually older).

Wow, such nastiness! You'd probably take a sign that said "Arnold for DA" as a physical assault. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

JJ:

1) Again, I am not afraid of anything. You might like that to be true, you thinking it doesn't make it true.

2) I never said (and LOL, have NEVER even thought!) that BW and S1 were the same person.

Either CTV has released information to you that you should not have AND/OR you (and others) have no business claiming in open forum that ANY username here has ANY REAL IDENTITY.

It's that simple, and it has nothing to do with fear, nothing to do with TG, nothing to do with writing styles you can identify, or any other twisty things you want to use for smoke and mirrors.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


I'm pretty sure LE could identify anyone here . . . with a search warrant. [/*]

Probably, if they have not already. It is interesting to note that you wouldn't volunteer that information to LE. That's your right however.

It is interesting that when P'gal said LE was interested in "J. J in Phila," I said, "Contact TG; he has my permission to give it too them."

Of course, I did know there were a record of multiple posts from me on 4/15/05, from my home computer. :)

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Sure, SJ. JJ can do THAT.

What he cannot do is what he **DID**, and that is quote a post and identify the poster as a *REAL IDENTITY**, a real flesh and blood person rather than a screen name.

Put simply, if one of your children anonymously posted on this board, would you want JJ to copy one of his/her posts and say, "Jane Doe came here and said blah blah blah . . . "

If you say it would be fine with you, I'll eat my hat. [/*]

If one of my kids were posting anonymously on this board I would eat my own hat!!!! They think I am out of my mind for being here.

Why are you now complaining of what he has said? There were comments made previously as to who those people were, when JKA first posted the manuscript, and no one minded then that they related her to them. He has thought so all along as have others.

But since JJ doesn't know for a fact who that person is, is he in the wrong for putting a name up, that isn't the person? Or are you saying he is right in who he THINKS it could be and he is wrong for being right?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


If one of my kids were posting anonymously on this board I would eat my own hat!!!! They think I am out of my mind for being here.

Why are you now complaining of what he has said? There were comments made previously as to who those people were, when JKA first posted the manuscript, and no one minded then that they related her to them. He has thought so all along as have others.

But since JJ doesn't know for a fact who that person is, is he in the wrong for putting a name up, that isn't the person? Or are you saying he is right in who he THINKS it could be and he is wrong for being right? [/*]

I am saying this, SJ:

1) It is perfectly okay to discuss anything KA wrote on her website and say that KA wrote it. The same is true for anything anyone else wrote and put in print with his/her name on it, or any quotes from any people in the news media.

2) It is perfectly okay to discuss anything a poster said on these boards using that poster's username.

3) CTV's policy is that all personal information, including posters' real identities, is CONFIDENTIAL. The only exception to that is a warrant from LE.

4) Either JJ is "just guessing" when he claims that "KA said this, KA said that" OR he has confidential information he should not be posting on the board. I don't know which it is. But if he is doing the first, he has no right to claim that "KA said this, KA said that" when he is just guessing. If he has confidential information he should not have and should not be posting, what is he doing in possession of that information, and what is he doing posting it?

[sherrijean981]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


There are smoke and mirrors, with JKA.

JKA came here, and attempted to make something of the PEF/RFG relationship, including this:

ParlorElephant
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

....

Instead she's just finished work for the day, presumably ready to go home and its right at dinnertime. He's to be home later that night, at which time they can talk to their hearts' content. So why is the choice of an hour's conversation/promenade in the park, with no dinner and followed by G's heading back to the office to work for 3 hours? IMO, there's much to suggest that at that point PF and RG were no longer living under the same roof.

PE

07-08-2006 12:33 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged ...

[/*]

If this is the post you are talking about, I question why PE feels RG and PF shouldn't be able to go for a walk in the park? They are a couple and if he is working late, maybe he wants to spend time with her. He was seen holding her hand. Doesn't sound like a forced walk to me.

He also could have picked up a sandwich on the way back to work or they could have had plans for when he got home.

Sounds a little like PE was having a problem with the RG/PF relationship. Just don't know how that situation would lead a person to believe they were living apart.

And the writing does read like a certain person. JJ is right on that one, as are the others who have thought so. Don't you think KA set herself up for all the speculation by putting her manuscript on the internet? And then bringing the forum and certain of us into her little story book? Whatever was the need to do that since we are anonymous and meaningless to the investigation of RG's disappearance?

[J. J. in Phila]

Hypocrisy, thine name is Under the Radar.

We've seen so many scenarios from you involving PEF, and she could be a member, and you object when, based on evidence, I conclude that someone no longer a member is the same person who has publicly disclosed her interest in this board, to the point of quoting it, a witness in the case we are discussing, at least (okay, not a great witness). And you get upset about it. :rolleyes:

I must really be hitting close to home with you tonight.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Golly gee, I didn't know that posters on a message board had to check in with LE. Don't remember reading that when I signed on CTV message boards. I certainly will immediately contact all PA law enforcement & announce who I am, what I am doing, where I live, the names of my grandchildren, all pertinent information. I'm sure that will aid in the "investigation" into the disappearance of Ray Gricar. Wait . . . maybe I ought to contact all LE throughout the US, since maybe they're all interested in who I am. Is there a special form, do I write a letter, do I call, do I e-mail . . .?

:santa: [/*]

No, posters don't and you have a right not to disclose.

I look at the case of PEF, who voluntarily gave information to LE, and permitted a warrantless search. No evasion, no suggestion of a court order, no Santa. It seems like she has nothing to hide.

Oh, and then there is me. One poster suggest LE is interested in "J. J.," so I tell Tony, openly, give them my information if they want it, and I proceed to post how LE can find it. No court order, no fuss. Nothing to hide (at least in the RFG case).

SJ volunteered that LE has her contact information; nothing to hide.

As I said, it is interesting how people respond.

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley
Golly gee, I didn't know that posters on a message board had to check in with LE. Don't remember reading that when I signed on CTV message boards. I certainly will immediately contact all PA law enforcement & announce who I am, what I am doing, where I live, the names of my grandchildren, all pertinent information. I'm sure that will aid in the "investigation" into the disappearance of Ray Gricar. Wait . . . maybe I ought to contact all LE throughout the US, since maybe they're all interested in who I am. Is there a special form, do I write a letter, do I call, do I e-mail . . .?

:santa: [/*]


I agree gs. I would find it strange that LE would even bother with "anonymous" posters on a message forum, when they didn't even BOTHER to interview Mr. Gricar's friends, co-workers and associates...

[day2day]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


I am saying this, SJ:

1) It is perfectly okay to discuss anything KA wrote on her website and say that KA wrote it. The same is true for anything anyone else wrote and put in print with his/her name on it, or any quotes from any people in the news media.

2) It is perfectly okay to discuss anything a poster said on these boards using that poster's username.

3) CTV's policy is that all personal information, including posters' real identities, is CONFIDENTIAL. The only exception to that is a warrant from LE.

4) Either JJ is "just guessing" when he claims that "KA said this, KA said that" OR he has confidential information he should not be posting on the board. I don't know which it is. But if he is doing the first, he has no right to claim that "KA said this, KA said that" when he is just guessing. If he has confidential information he should not have and should not be posting, what is he doing in possession of that information, and what is he doing posting it? [/*]


You are absolutely right. Information submitted to CTV is CONFIDENTIAL..and if..."LE" is more concerned with anonymous posters on message board than with those who dealt with Mr. Gricar on a daily basis...that would REALLY raise a few red flags, dontcha think?

jmo

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Well, I sure don't have anything to hide either. I can't understand why PF would "voluntarily"give information to LE & "permit" a warrantless search. Gee, maybe it's because it was RG's home too or maybe it was because that was "supposedly" the last place he was seen. Can't imagine why LE would even want information from her or why they would want to "search" the place (not that they did!)

I'm glad to know SJ has also volunteered to give her info. to LE. I really didn't think she had anything to hide either, cause I really didn't think she had a connection to RG.

I'm perfectly willing for LE to come to my house. They can search all they want, as long as they take a feather duster & swish it around while they're looking for whatever they think might be here. (Actually, will make a list of things I've misplaced, so maybe they can find them too during their search!). Also, will gladly give them any/all information I have on RG now & what info. I had on him on 04/14 (the date I think he disappeared) or 04/15, for that matter. Would love to take a polygraph test too. Am willing to be hyptnotized too. Absolutely no blood tests, however.

The only thing is: if they plan on coming on Thanksgiving Day, could they give me some advanced notice so I can prepare extra food????? Ya might tell them there isn't a dog, but there's a mean cat; if she rolls over, DO NOT try to scratch her tummy!

Like I said before, why ride on TG's shirttails to contact LE. Why not just pick up the phone & tell them directly; I'm sure they're all waiting patiently for the call . . . or letter . . . or e-mail . . . or in person . . . . [/*]


:santa: Now there is an idea...we all know Detz has MANY talents, patrol officer-detective-crossing guard..I wonder IF he can cook? Heck-if so..I'm jumpin RIGHT in front of ya gs..I can ALWAYS use help cooking for my huge family on Thanksgiving..

:seeya:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Well, I sure don't have anything to hide either. I can't understand why PF would "voluntarily"give information to LE & "permit" a warrantless search. Gee, maybe it's because it was RG's home too or maybe it was because that was "supposedly" the last place he was seen. Can't imagine why LE would even want information from her or why they would want to "search" the place (not that they did!)


Well, if PEF was involved in a crime which took place at the house, which several posters have suggested, it isn't very likely that she would permit a search. Likewise, if the laptop is in the house, it isn't very likely that she would.


I'm perfectly willing for LE to come to my house. They can search all they want, as long as they take a feather duster & swish it around while they're looking for whatever they think might be here. (Actually, will make a list of things I've misplaced, so maybe they can find them too during their search!). Also, will gladly give them any/all information I have on RG now & what info. I had on him on 04/14 (the date I think he disappeared) or 04/15, for that matter. Would love to take a polygraph test too. Am willing to be hyptnotized too. Absolutely no blood tests, however.


Humm, but you are unwilling to give your address to the nephew of the man that disappeared and give him permission to give that info to LE if they should ask.


Like I said before, why ride on TG's shirttails to contact LE. Why not just pick up the phone & tell them directly; I'm sure they're all waiting patiently for the call . . . or letter . . . or e-mail . . . or in person . . . .

IIRC, TG noted that he had been about the identity of at least one poster by LE; IIRC it was BW. In my case, because they never asked (and I would suspect because they already knew).

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Yep, it is kinda funny that "LE" would be interested in us, when they weren't interested enough to speak with RG's 2 best friends, his co-workers, his neighbors, etc. Doncha just luv it????? [/*]

I'm looking at which activities are suspicious. In looking at RFG's two best friends, his SO, and his relatives, the is nothing to be suspicious about.

I can't say that about all of RFG's coworkers at the time.

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Yep, it is kinda funny that "LE" would be interested in us, when they weren't interested enough to speak with RG's 2 best friends, his co-workers, his neighbors, etc. Doncha just luv it????? [/*]


..i really don't believe they care about a few posters on a message board. obviously NONE of us knew the man..and if they couldn't find the time to interview the IMPORTANT people in his life, i really doubt they will be at my house for Thanksgiving. Although i could USE the help and i really do love company!

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Why would it be necessary for me or anyone else to give the nephew of the man that disappeared my address or give him permission to give that info to LE if they should ask?????

Frankly, my address is none of his business, nor anyone else's; however, since LE "supposedly" monitors this board, LE can obtain a search warrant to get that information any time LE feels I am a suspect in this case or that I have pertinent information concerning same.

Methinks there's more than one ditz around here!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/*]


Seeing as TG could be anyone (although i believe he is TG)..it isn't SAFE to give out personal info on the net. I can't believe ANYONE in their right mind would hand out personal info to just anyone...
:no:

I don't want anymore missing person's cases to follow. IF LE needs names and addies we can call them. Period.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


Activities which are suspicious??? They didn't even bother interviewing them to find out whether there was anything "suspicious" or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, it seems what you're saying or trying to insinuate is that those people closest to RG apparently weren't "suspicious" & that posters here are "suspicious"!

Like I said before, there may be more than one ditz here! [/*]

Good grief, more than one ditz is right. What passes for reasoning around here is enough to make your head spin sometimes.

I personally think all the emphasis on giving TG our personal information (Huh??? Why??? When we don't even have any way of knowing for certain that "TG" is "TG"???) is a diversion to keep from looking at the real issue:

1) Whether it's Barack Obama, Rudy Guiliani, Mary Smith, or Bill Jones, EVERYONE has a right to post here anonymously under an anonymous username.

2) Barack, Rudy, Mary, and Bill also have a right to publish things on the web, be quoted in news articles, write articles for magazines or newspapers, etc.

3) No poster has a right to then say on these boards, "Rudy Guiliani came here and said . . . " and follow it up with a post written by "Snugglebunny" simply because someone thinks "Snugglebunny" and Rudy Guiliani have similar writing styles.

This has nothing to do with KA, EXCEPT that KA happened to be the person JJ was substituting for Rudy Guiliani last night. Last night, it was KA. Today, it could be you, or you, or you, or you.

Who knows whether "Snugglebunny" is really Rudy? Does the poster saying this have a background in linguistic analysis or as a document examiner? Is it all guesswork? Is there any proof "Snugglebunny" is really Rudy? And even if there is, do the rules of CTV permit a poster to "out" "Snugglebunny" as Rudy?

The answer is "no." It's that simple. And why a post doing that is left to stand is beyond me.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


There are smoke and mirrors, with JKA.

JKA came here, and attempted to make something of the PEF/RFG relationship, including this:

ParlorElephant
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

<snip>
[/*]

Just wanted to make sure everyone sees this again today!!! [/*][/QUOTE]

I assume since you were able to cut and paste it, the post **still stands.**

[J. J. in Phila]

Since, as usual, you have nothing new to say UTR, we can look at this:

1. We have someone "close" to RFG, who should be someone LE should look at, along with other "close" people.

2. We have an SO that was looked at by LE, with more scrutiny than anyone else "close." (And rightly so.) LE found nothing.

3. We may have one of the "close" people coming on to websites and do everything to cast suspicions on the SO.

4. It seems that the "close" person saying things online that are different than what the person has told LE, or at least publicly claiming so.

5. This "close" person does so for more than a year and started within a month after RFG disappeared.

6. The "close" person claims she has questions about posters on a web site, and then doesn't want answers.

7. The "close" person doesn't speak to the family, though the spokesman is accessible.

The "close" person is acting extremely suspiciously, a bit like that policeman, Peterson, whose wife vanished. Peterson, so far as I know, hasn't been charged with any crime, but many people think his actions are suspicious (I think his actions are).

I use the word "close" in the sense of being close geographically and with access to RFG.

Proof of anything not, but it certainly raises questions.

[UndertheRadar]

Since you like to do anything to take the focus off an issue you don't want anyone to focus on, JJ, try this on for size:

A number of people are convinced *you* are Pete Bosak.

While I can tick off a number of similarities, I personally do not subscribe to that theory.

However, imagine that one of the people who does believe you are PB comes to the board and writes

There are smoke and mirrors, with PB.

PB came here, and attempted to [blah blah blah] including this:

J. J. in Phila . . . .

followed by a post from JJ.

Would you condone that?
Would PB condone that?

How about the people who think they know who S1 is? Should they come here and post

There are smoke and mirrors, with [insert name of identifible person here].

[Identifiable person] came here, and attempted to [blah blah blah] including this:

Serendipitous1 . . . .

followed by a post from S1.

Would you condone that?
Would S1?

What if it was SJ's granddaughter?
Would you condone someone linking a screen name with the real life name of SJ's granddaughter on this board?

I thought GUESSING the real identities of screen names was forbidden as a subject for discussion on this board.
And someone just guessing shouldn't double the transgression by asserting that a screen name IS a real life identity when it's just a guess.

[J. J. in Phila]

Believe me, if I were PB, I'd be posting a lot more information. :) I wouldn't make a few of those mistakes that he has made, e.g. no search when EN reported one on several occasions. I'd also have done a story in October, unless I was otherwise occupied (I was this October).

It's more than just a guess.

I will say something that I said to Lustor, well before I had any idea who she was, I will paraphrase, "If you [Lustor] were deliberately trying to mislead the posters about what happened to RFG, you couldn't be doing a better job."

I would say the nearly the same thing to JKA. The anonymous Lustor was better.

Oh, and if SJ's granddaughter signed her name to it, commented on this site and the posters here, and was a witness in the case, yes.

Note that before JKA did so, I said very little about her, expect that she probably didn't murder RFG. Why, I didn't know what her opinions were, because she never expressed them.

[UndertheRadar]

And . . . as usual, JJ misses the point, spins off into side issues to distract, and won't just say he did something wrong (this case) or got something wrong (other situations).

For once, be a mensch.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you raised PB.

Guessing the real identities of posters may be a violation of TOS; neither Lustor or PE (or Saunterer or BW, for that matter) are posters. Nor, so far as I know, is comparing the published and signed writing samples of real people with posters.

I repeat:

I will say something that I said to Lustor, well before I had any idea who she was, I will paraphrase, "If you [Lustor] were deliberately trying to mislead the posters about what happened to RFG, you couldn't be doing a better job."

I would say the nearly the same thing to JKA. The anonymous Lustor was better.

JKA, in her Googlepages, is doing a somewhat good job of distracting people from what happened to RFG. So did Lustor. The question is why?

Now, when you respond, you tap dance around it, you and GS don't give straight answers and you try to change to subject and do your general shuck and jive. That is interesting, very interesting.

Now, as I've indicated, I think it is very unlikely that this answer involves some criminal activity. I can even see how it could be considered honorable some circumstances, but that still doesn't answer the question of why?

[UndertheRadar]

Still not a mensch, though you had the opportunity.

Meanwhile, I'm sure some will find your claim that you have "more than a guess" very interesting, since there is no gray area between a guess and a confirmation when one has chosen to assert than X=Y, as you have done. Some may find it interesting that you are therefore saying you have **confirmation** of the real life identity linked to usernames on this board and want to explore how such confirmation came into your hands.

Edited to add this lesson in being a mensch, not that it will do any good:

Do the right thing the right way. A mensch always does the right thing the right way. . . There is a bright, clear line between right and wrong, and a mensch never crosses that line.

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/02/how_to_be_a_men.html

[J. J. in Phila]

Still with shuck and jive, UTR. That is interesting and telling. I asked the question of why, and we still don't have a straight answer, just more smoke and mirrors from GS and UTR.

Now, we have remarkably similar writing styles and content between two ex-posters and a published writing source, signed.

The published source is a witness that was "close" to RFG, in terms of proximity and access.

The two posters have directed suspicion on PEF of murder, but their evidence falls flat. The witness, who is a prosecutor, knows full well that the evidence is against PEF being involved in criminal activity; the odds are likely that PEF was not within forty miles of Lewisburg. The odds are overwhelming that RFG drove the Mini alone.

Okay, is the ex-prosecutor a murderess? Well, it's equally as hard for her to drive the Mini and plant it. We also know, sort of, where she was at the time, the same forty miles from Lewisburg.

Now, in theory, she could have drive after work, but that creates another problem. How does the now exprosecutor know RFG is in Lewisburg. He could call her and sit in a parking lot for five hours, but that is really unlikely.

Her motive is clearly unapparent; no one said, **I saw them having an argument the day before.**

Yet, we certainly seem to have the same person trying to involve PEF (and not being very convincing). Why?

There are a number of possibilities, but some are not criminal, and possibly honorable.

Hypothetically, any person doing this could make a commitment to a respected colleague, possibly a friend, to divert attention from what really happened. What really happened may have been a walkaway, or it may been a breakdown followed by suicide. The person may not have wished that the colleague, a respected member of the community, be seen as having some mental problem. The person might have been willing, not to lie, but not reveal everything that he or she knows, so that the friend can walk away from his past life.

Interestingly, I've used several terms in describing JKA's activities over the last two days. These have included:

4. JKA is being honest and accurate in her statement about what she told LE.

I think #4 is the most likely situation, ... "

"In regard to that statement [about what she told LE in her Gogglepages], I do not doubt JKA.

And I've just suggested that her actions may be "not criminal, and possibly honorable."

I suggest, since both P'gal and TG, have made reference to LE asking about posters, that it would be a good idea to give TG their information. Yet, we see the reaction (and we can contrast that with PEF's cooperation). We can also see the similarly in JKA's reaction when I offered to give her my information.

Now, I would say if a someone "close" to a missing person would post on the Internet, even if it was likely, and attempt, covertly, to lead posters in a specific direction, where ultimately there is no evidence, that is suspicious.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley



Frankly, my address is none of his business, nor anyone else's; however, since LE "supposedly" monitors this board, LE can obtain a search warrant to get that information any time LE feels I am a suspect in this case or that I have pertinent information concerning same.



I just wanted to remind everyone of this.

It is interesting that we have a poster who criticizes PEF, who willing answered question, took a polygraph, let her house be searched without a warrant, then says this.

PEF never said, "obtain a search warrant." GStickley did.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I just wanted to remind everyone of this.

It is interesting that we have a poster who criticizes PEF, who willing answered question, took a polygraph, let her house be searched without a warrant, then says this.

PEF never said, "obtain a search warrant." GStickley did. [/*]


JJ..
How can you even COMPARE a poster on a forum (which is supposed to be anonymous)..to PF? GS has NEVER met Mr. Gricar ..PF is his live in lover?

that is beyond a stretch...in my opinion..

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day



Seeing as TG could be anyone (although i believe he is TG)..it isn't SAFE to give out personal info on the net. I can't believe ANYONE in their right mind would hand out personal info to just anyone...
:no:

I don't want anymore missing person's cases to follow. IF LE needs names and addies we can call them. Period. [/*]

D2D, I'm not suggesting posting it but TG does have private e-mail, and according to both P'gal and TG, LE has asked about posters.

I have found the responses interesting, to say the least, especially from people that claim PEF didn't do enough.

And in all fairness, I'd be more willing to give TG my contact information than I would to let LE search my house.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day



JJ..
How can you even COMPARE a poster on a forum (which is supposed to be anonymous)..to PF? GS has NEVER met Mr. Gricar ..PF is his live in lover?

that is beyond a stretch...in my opinion.. [/*]

Bluntly, because it has been reported that LE is interested, and in one case at least, contacted TG about a poster (BW). P'gal said that LE asked her about me (which is why I gave TG permission to give them my contact information).

We also have a case where someone who is connected to the case may have posted and attempted to direct posters in a specific direction, but one that is not indicated by the evidence.

I'm also not suggesting that LE search GStickley's house, but maybe look her up in the phone book. I'm not suggesting that they post her number.

If you were to look me up in the phone book, you could verify who I am; so could LE.

This is a case where foul play could be involved. If this were a murder case, I would be very troubled by someone that was at least a close associate of the victim attempting to direct or misdirect posters. I certainly would find the act suspicious, not criminal and possibly well intended, but still suspicious. In all honesty, wouldn't you?

Now, I do not include you in my suispicions.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Hey, Day! This just keeps getting richer & richer, doesn't it.

Ole girl, you might want to watch out. You've been posting here a lot longer than I have, & most of your thoughts & ideas have run parallel to mine. Have you volunteered your information to LE??? Be careful, be very careful, you just might be next poster to be considered a suspect too, according to the current garbage being spewed forth.


Well, as has been noted, LE has[ expressed an interest in posters. They are free to see my contact information.

Of course, I can be verified as being from Phila, from that information. In this case we have GStickley saying:


LE can obtain a search warrant to get that information any time LE feels I am a suspect in this case or that I have pertinent information concerning same.

So we have a situation where PEF, much criticized by you, permits her house to be searched. If LE is even interested in the city that you live in, you say "LE can obtain a search warrant." You don't have to cooperate, but PEF did.


I know you're a pretty smart girl; read my posts, then read the garbage, read my posts, then read the garbage. I think you will, if you haven't already, seen a long-standing pattern.


She does, well before RFG went missing. In the case of two posters I can think of the appeared after. Even JKA noted that such behavior was unusual.



The forum has its share of what I would think of as ‘recreational posters’ or 'true crime buffs'. They stand apart as they normally have offered opinions in a variety of different cases over time and their posts may be found on many different forums. Tara Grinstead, Jon Benet, Ray Gricar.

With one or two exceptions, the screen ‘personalities’ on the Gricar site are not of that character. The majority participate only in the Gricar discussion. Many participants with the most prolific output did not first join the discussion until between 12 and 18 months after Ray's disappearance, long after the case was receiving any significant publicity, even locally, and when logic would suggest that posters with no particular stake in the matter would long since have moved on to cases of more current vintage. The majority of these 'late-comers' appeared during the months between the expiration of the original 7/31/06 deadline for the cia review report and the time it was actually completed in November of 2006.

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/partiii:onlinediscussion



Do you think it might be a good idea for all posters here to contact LE & give our information, let them search our homes, & whatever else is being spewed?


No, but I think it's a very good idea to verify that claim that you don't live in PA, not with me, but through TG.


But . . . you never know. Maybe we're lying . . . cause the computer has ears & knows all . . .
:chicken: (Need more than one!) :chicken:

Yes there may posters that have. Their purposes may be related to the case. If you don't find that disturbing, you should.

And at least two chickens are appropriate for you.

[gstickley]

Wow! This is scary! All you posters who have also posted on other forums better beware! You could be considered a suspect in any/all of the cases you followed. You might want to send your telephone numbers to LE in the states of the cases you followed so LE can check you out!!!!! :biggrin:

[gstickley]

Once again, it's none of TG's business where I live, nor yours, nor anyone else's, unless I decide to tell them. Once again, if LE want to know, LE can find out.

(The chicken was used because there's no "crazy" smilie.) :santa:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Just an additional thought.

If LE monitors this board & has a question about any of the posters, LE can obtain a subpoena & get the information on the poster from CTV.

If LE in the state of PA or anywhere else is seriously interested in any poster on this board, after obtaining personal information from CTV, LE can then contact LE in the home state of the poster. For example, if PA LE considers any poster a suspect, PA LE would contact the poster's home state LE & have the home state LE contact & interview the suspect poster, or PA LE would meet with the home state LE & they would contact the suspect poster together. It's the way it's done.


There is no question that this would be your right, but I'm willing to cooperate with LE, at least to extent that if they wish my contact information (which can be independently verified), I'll permit TG to forward it.



I can see no reason for sending any such personal information to TG. What would he need our personal info. for? To give it to LE? If LE wants it, LE knows how to get it---by the book.



That is interesting, because, "by the book," LE might not have been able to search PEF's house. What evidence they collected in the first week was that RFG was in Lewisburg, a phone call, the car, his scent, the witnesses (even Fenton doesn't place him in the house). The family that was in the house, or the responding police, so far as we know, didn't see anything suspicious. Yet, you've been one of the people that have critical of PEF's actions.

PEF never said, "obtain a search warrant," to search her house, and the computer. GStickley did, to verify her address.

[gstickley]

Hummmmm. Just thought of something. Did "TG" contact any of you & ask for your personal information? I don't remember seeing him post anything indicating he wanted the information on any poster(s).

Also, though it's no one's business, I exchanged e-mail with "TG" a couple of times in the past; never did he ask for any information on myself. I'd think maybe "TG" might be able to get my e-mail information, since he was in the computer business, as well as being able to obtain e-mail information on any poster who exchanged e-mail with him.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Wow! This is scary! All you posters who have also posted on other forums better beware! You could be considered a suspect in any/all of the cases you followed. You might want to send your telephone numbers to LE in the states of the cases you followed so LE can check you out!!!!! :biggrin: [/*]

It's very scary that someone potentially involved in the case might come the board to misdirect posters, for their own motives.

Nothing to grin about, though.

Oh, and as P'gal has found, some information, like an address, is public information. It's not a question of where you live, but are you being honest with the the reader? Were some former posters being honest or were the posting for some other reason?

PEF never said, "obtain a search warrant." GStickley did.

Unfortunately, we don't have a hypocrisy icon.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Hummmmm. Just thought of something. Did "TG" contact any of you & ask for your personal information? I don't remember seeing him post anything indicating he wanted the information on any poster(s).


No, he contacted me when I started posted, and I volunteered it. I also volunteer to let TG furnish it to LE, when P'gal raised the question.


Also, though it's no one's business, I exchanged e-mail with "TG" a couple of times in the past; never did he ask for any information on myself. I'd think maybe "TG" might be able to get my e-mail information, since he was in the computer business, as well as being able to obtain e-mail information on any poster who exchanged e-mail with him.

So, would be willing to let him furnish to LE, if they requested it in regard to this case? Or will still demand a warrant?

Interestingly, that is more contact than JKA had.

BTW, it should take LE a whole ten minutes to get mine, or at least narrow it down to less than 10 possibilities.

I notice yo are still avoiding the question of why?

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


No, he contacted me when I started posted, and I volunteered it. I also volunteer to let TG furnish it to LE, when P'gal raised the question.



So, would be willing to let him furnish to LE, if they requested it in regard to this case? Or will still demand a warrant?

Interestingly, that is more contact than JKA had.

BTW, it should take LE a whole ten minutes to get mine, or at least narrow it down to less than 10 possibilities.

I notice yo are still avoiding the question of why? [/*]

Well, "TG" has never asked me for any information. And if "TG" asked me other than in person, I would not give him the information because I don't know who "TG" might be. And I still can see no reason why "TG" would want or need any information on me. As I've stated what seems like a gazillion times, if LE wants my information, LE can contact me directly. Why would any person with any brain give personal information to a total stranger on the computer? After all the speculation about which poster may be who, along with the insinuations about me already, "TG" may not be "TG" . . . maybe "TG" is . . . whoever you want it to be.

Now, this is my last post about giving my information to "TG" or anyone else, including LE. Make of it what you want. I think 2 days of this garbage is enough. If you want to tag me as a "suspect" in the disappearance of Ray Gricar, you're barking up the wrong tree. In fact, I believe there are several posters on here who know who I am, and I hope they can see through all your smoke & mirrors---with such ridiculous accusations being made against me, how can anything be believed in the future posts you make?

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Bluntly, because it has been reported that LE is interested, and in one case at least, contacted TG about a poster (BW). P'gal said that LE asked her about me (which is why I gave TG permission to give them my contact information).

We also have a case where someone who is connected to the case may have posted and attempted to direct posters in a specific direction, but one that is not indicated by the evidence.

I'm also not suggesting that LE search GStickley's house, but maybe look her up in the phone book. I'm not suggesting that they post her number.

If you were to look me up in the phone book, you could verify who I am; so could LE.

This is a case where foul play could be involved. If this were a murder case, I would be very troubled by someone that was at least a close associate of the victim attempting to direct or misdirect posters. I certainly would find the act suspicious, not criminal and possibly well intended, but still suspicious. In all honesty, wouldn't you?

Now, I do not include you in my suispicions. [/*]

I'm confused (been a long day) are you saying that GS is connected to Mr. Gricar?

I do believe that TG is Tony Gricar. That being said..I don't think anyone HAS to give him any info. As a matter of fact...people should be allowed to remain "anonymous" here. It might be the ONLY way this case is EVER solved. IF LE believes someone here is involved..they should do the right thing and get a warrant.

IMO i think most of us here including gs..have never met the man.

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Hey, Day! This just keeps getting richer & richer, doesn't it.

Ole girl, you might want to watch out. You've been posting here a lot longer than I have, & most of your thoughts & ideas have run parallel to mine. Have you volunteered your information to LE??? Be careful, be very careful, you just might be next poster to be considered a suspect too, according to the current garbage being spewed forth. I know you're a pretty smart girl; read my posts, then read the garbage, read my posts, then read the garbage. I think you will, if you haven't already, seen a long-standing pattern.

Do you think it might be a good idea for all posters here to contact LE & give our information, let them search our homes, & whatever else is being spewed? Maybe we could all get together & go . . . go where??? Of course, since LE is apparently still waiting for "someone" to come in with information, maybe we can help them out by contacting them. Let's see. Neither of us or Pgal. lives in PA, so maybe we'd be way down on the suspect list. But . . . you never know. Maybe we're lying . . . cause the computer has ears & knows all . . . Maybe we're all KA or Porn Buddy or John the College Guy . . .

:chicken: (Need more than one!) :chicken: [/*]


IMO -i don't think LE gives a rats arse about the posters here. LE doesn't have time to interview those who are closest to him..let alone people who have never met him. I don't understand why JJ thinks posters should turn over private info to TG. Working in LE himself..I would think he would lead folks to their door. IF something God forbid would happed to a poster here because they gave their personal info out...someone here would be very responsible.