Pete Bosak's Question and Answer [Archive] - Page 2

Cinderella

02-13-2008, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by OOBrett
I'm probably wrong about the person that I thought the police thought might be the mystery woman.

On April 15, 2005, she was an employee of the state (Pennsylvania) government, I think. I know at some point between April 15, 2005, and the past several months or year she was.

It was my understanding that she's moved on to bigger and better things.

Since we're not going to mention any names on a public message board, I'm just going to forget about it and come back and see you 'uns yinze youse again some time. [/*]

Come on OOBrett, drop some clues. Spill your guts. It does a person good.

Cloudbuster

02-13-2008, 10:37 PM

J. J. in Phila

02-13-2008, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by OOBrett
I'm probably wrong about the person that I thought the police thought might be the mystery woman.

On April 15, 2005, she was an employee of the state (Pennsylvania) government, I think. I know at some point between April 15, 2005, and the past several months or year she was.

It was my understanding that she's moved on to bigger and better things.

Since we're not going to mention any names on a public message board, I'm just going to forget about it and come back and see you 'uns yinze youse again some time. [/*]

The was an old girlfriend who had a staff position (non-policy making, non-investigatory) with a state agency at the time of RFG's disappearance. LE thought it might have been her, but it wasn't. I don't know if she's still employed with the state.

J. J. in Phila

02-14-2008, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by OOBrett
Cloudbuster, did your ghost say the name "Barbara?" I seem to recall reading that in one of your posts.

My inbox situation is noted and corrected, I think. [/*]

She, and I won't mention the name, was with the state well before RFG disappeared (I've forn references from late 2000) and was still in the same position after RFG disappeared (I also found references from the summer of 2005). I do not know if she still is with the state.

tonyGricar

02-14-2008, 02:24 PM

For those that would seem to want her name to be posted, this is one reason I would hope that any cell records released would have some liberal redaction.

J. J. in Phila

02-14-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
For those that would seem to want her name to be posted, this is one reason I would hope that any cell records released would have some liberal redaction. [/*]

As would I. Let's leave her out of this, since LE accounted for her.

Cloudbuster

02-14-2008, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by OOBrett
Cloudbuster, did your ghost say the name "Barbara?" I seem to recall reading that in one of your posts.

My inbox situation is noted and corrected, I think. [/*]
Yes I did say Barbara some time ago and recently. You can see that name on the unphemeomenal board that I added her name to the list on the tape. I did forget to add Mary which was brought up in a song. I had no idea who Barbara was other than she is refered to as a pig. Sorry thats how it was put.

Seems I just cleaned my PM box out too. I hadn't really kept up with that latly. I had a list of names of 8 people for a while on that thread. Mary would be a 9th but she is only in a song. I don't know if she exists yet.:read:

tonyGricar

02-15-2008, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by logicworks
Question here........If LE was immediately out checking with these women RG used to date by the next day, at what point did the mystery woman enter the picture considering the SOS was likely closed when the car was found? [/*]The topic didnt come up until the employees of the SOS were interviewed. LE checked after that point. I don't believe the names of possible fits came into play until during the week.

sherrijean981

02-15-2008, 01:10 AM

tonyGricar

02-15-2008, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by logicworks
Just one more question about it........It has always bugged me that it almost seemed TOO fortuitous in so far as the investigation. Have you ever thought it may have been a 'trump' card to stall things. It has always appeared that way to me......a known beforehand hinderance.........No need to answer if you are not comfortable. I am just telling you what it looks like to me, and of course, JMO. [/*]Not so much to me. There have been just as reliable (meaning "not so much"), far stranger, "tips" that have come in that could have further been used as a stall, derailer, or trump. This is one where a woman's description was given and some felt that it was a match for a friend of his. It was immediately checked out, and that was it.

Keep in mind that it was parent's weekend at Bucknell. On those weekends, or any midwest or east coast college town, you can't walk 50 feet through town without tripping over people of their same description. Now, if you said there was a brunette in Austin, Texas, I might have given pause...

Now, do I think that there's validity to the SOS witness? Who knows? Something was up that day(s). Ray is not here now. Anything could have happened. I've never closed my mind to any scenario, but I need more than uncorroborated accounts. Physical evidence, paper trail, something...

tonyGricar

02-15-2008, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by sherrijean981

Wasn't Det. Z the first to insinuate that RG was having a wild weekend and would have to answer to PF for it? To me it sounded like he thought RG was having an affair.

Also JB, attorney, said RG traveled west, not east. [/*]Detective Z was never a "detective". He was given that portrayal, he was given the responsibilities of the largest case in that region's history, but he was an officer throughout his career, and retired an officer. Must have been similar to the fingerprints story. Another "mistakement"...

(seriously, the term will catch on)

tonyGricar

02-15-2008, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by logicworks

Did you personally ever talk to the person who made the claim, not DetZ? [/*]Yes, and I also talked to others at the SOS, as did some reporters. The clarity was minimal, which is why I've never put all of my eggs in that basket. That's not to say I don't recognize it, or that I don't use the information to work through various scenarios. The Lewisburg accounts are just there with the other piles of circumstantial evidence.

sherrijean981

02-15-2008, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Detective Z was never a "detective". He was given that portrayal, he was given the responsibilities of the largest case in that region's history, but he was an officer throughout his career, and retired an officer. Must have been similar to the fingerprints story. Another "mistakement"...

(seriously, the term will catch on) [/*]

Officer Z was quoted as saying it, though. I never thought he was much of an officer either. JMO

tonyGricar

02-15-2008, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by logicworks
Is there any witness out of all you have talked to, you personally, that you find so credible that it is possible for you to say without any hesitation, Ray was definitely there on Friday? [/*]Not at all. Fwiw, the same goes for the various LE that worked the case there as well.

If I did think there was no doubt, I'd not likely be sitting here right now, or at any previous point, until I knew what happened that day. The problem is, we have nothing like that to go with.

Now, do I think he was there? Yes, but that level of confidence has pulled waaay back due to the fingerprint issue.

J. J. in Phila

02-15-2008, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Not at all. Fwiw, the same goes for the various LE that worked the case there as well.

If I did think there was no doubt, I'd not likely be sitting here right now, or at any previous point, until I knew what happened that day. The problem is, we have nothing like that to go with.

Now, do I think he was there? Yes, but that level of confidence has pulled waaay back due to the fingerprint issue. [/*]

FWIW, I gave a 95%+ confidence level that RFG drove the Mini to Lewisburg, and was the last person to drive it.

That is now down to about 75%+ likelihood that he drove it to Lewisburg and a 50% chance that was the last person to drive it.

Based on the witnesses and the scent, absent a revelation, or "mistakement," I 'm unchanged on the probability of RFG being in Lewisburg at some point after noon on 4/15/05. That is at 90%+.

I think the two events, being the last person to drive the Mini and being [i]in[/] Lewisburg have to be separated.

gstickley

02-15-2008, 02:59 PM

Under what circumstances would Meticulous Ray Gricar allow someone other than himself, esp. a stranger or someone he didn't completely trust, to drive his precious Mini?

Cloudbuster

02-15-2008, 03:15 PM

I also believe he drove there but after that nay.
JMHO

tonyGricar

02-15-2008, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
Under what circumstances would Meticulous Ray Gricar allow someone other than himself, esp. a stranger or someone he didn't completely trust, to drive his precious Mini? [/*]This isn't entirely directed at you, but this meticulous thing has spun more than a bit out of control over the last 3 years. It's like the antique near-fetish that has become. Somehow "meticulous" has become "overly anal control freak". Neat and tidy would be a more apt description.

Re: your point, I'm not sure if you're looking for a response, or stating the obvious as a rhetorical question. As for a stranger or someone he'd not entirely trust driving the car, he'd let that happen as quick as you, or any un-meticulous person would: likely never. I know of 5 others who have driven the car. He knows what I did with it. I wasn't gentle... ;) He saw the devilish smile on my face when I got out of it. And then I explained to him how fast we got it up to.

Cinderella

02-15-2008, 05:13 PM

gstickley

02-15-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
This isn't entirely directed at you, but this meticulous thing has spun more than a bit out of control over the last 3 years. It's like the antique near-fetish that has become. Somehow "meticulous" has become "overly anal control freak". Neat and tidy would be a more apt description.

Re: your point, I'm not sure if you're looking for a response, or stating the obvious as a rhetorical question. As for a stranger or someone he'd not entirely trust driving the car, he'd let that happen as quick as you, or any un-meticulous person would: likely never. I know of 5 others who have driven the car. He knows what I did with it. I wasn't gentle... ;) He saw the devilish smile on my face when I got out of it. And then I explained to him how fast we got it up to. [/*]

My "meticulous" is a compliment to the man that I have built up into somewhat of a hero in my mind, & IMO, "meticulous" is the same as "neat & tidy".

And, yes, I was looking for an answer as to whether RG would allow someone unknown or untrustworthy to drive his car.

IMO, there is absolutely no proof RG drove the vehicle to Lewisburg. However, even if he did so, why would someone else have moved the vehicle once there, and who would have done so? Under what scenerio would RG have allowed someone unknown/untrustworthy to drive the vehicle to Lewisburg or move it around while there? None that I can think of. If he allowed someone known & trusted to drive the car, under what circumstances did that occur?

JMO

J. J. in Phila

02-15-2008, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by gstickley

IMO, there is absolutely no proof RG drove the vehicle to Lewisburg. However, even if he did so, why would someone else have moved the vehicle once there, and who would have done so? Under what scenerio would RG have allowed someone unknown/untrustworthy to drive the vehicle to Lewisburg or move it around while there? None that I can think of. If he allowed someone known & trusted to drive the car, under what circumstances did that occur?

[/*]

Setting the scene for a walkaway might be one.

gstickley

02-15-2008, 07:17 PM

Yes, & being deceased or disabled might be an answer too,

J. J. in Phila

02-15-2008, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
Yes, & being deceased or disabled might be an answer too, [/*]

You make several assumptions:

1. RFG let someone else drive the car.

2. Someone else drove the car.

3. RFG wasn't the one who left the prints.

4. RFG didn't smear the prints, deliberately or accidentally.

The only thing we can say is that we cannot say who drove the Mini last.

Serendipitous1

02-15-2008, 08:14 PM

Yeah, geschtick...if I have to buy a new needle for my old record player, I am going to break out the 33-and-a-thirds before I listen to the 45s. MOO

Politigal

02-15-2008, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Yeah, geschtick...if I have to buy a new needle for my old record player, I am going to break out the 33-and-a-thirds before I listen to the 45s. MOO [/*]

I had the "Louie Louie" on 45 when I was a kid...

After my mom heard the words, she politely snapped it into pieces.

:eek:

J. J. in Phila

02-18-2008, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Politigal

I had the "Louie Louie" on 45 when I was a kid...

After my mom heard the words, she politely snapped it into pieces.

:eek: [/*]

Fine little girl waits for me
Catch a ship across the sea
Sail that ship about, all alone
Never know if I make it home

CHORUS

Three nights and days I sail the sea
Think of girl, constantly
On that ship, I dream she's there
I smell the rose in her hair.

CHORUS

Okay, let's give it to 'em, right now!

GUITAR SOLO

See Jamaica, the moon above
It won't be long, me see me love
Take her in my arms again
Tell her I'll never leave again

http://www.lyricsondemand.com/onehitwonders/louielouielyrics.html

Not exactly obscene. Much like this case, someone is reading at bit too much into it.

Politigal

02-19-2008, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by logicworks

Looks like the same problem now as then.
The wrong words got out there somehow.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/441686

JMO [/*]

Thx Logic

Politigal

02-27-2008, 10:22 PM

Bosak's update

http://www.realcities.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/qa_forum.html?forumId=1882&mode=display&action=&type=list&pageNo=1

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 05:14 AM

Pete should have clarified the book thing. The book on Smith's desk was not open to any page.

J. J. in Phila

02-28-2008, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Pete should have clarified the book thing. The book on Smith's desk was not open to any page. [/*]

Tony, you've lost me on the reference to the Purdon book. I didn't see the reference to it in this latest round of stories.

Politigal

02-28-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

Tony, you've lost me on the reference to the Purdon book. I didn't see the reference to it in this latest round of stories. [/*]

Qi see alot of references in these answers to the almighty "time line". i also see alot of references as to how intelligent and street smart ray gricar is or was. who would know the bellefonte police dept. better than ray? he would know how to throw them off track and cover his own. also, other than patty, have there been any other county employees questioned as suspects. the book that was found open to the "how to replace a missing DA" section really nags at me.
rose 2/27/08
AThanks for your question rose. No one inside the courthouse was ever considered a suspect, to my knowledge. I'm with you on the book of county code found on the desk of the man who would take the helm after Ray disappeared. Strange, to say the least.
Pete Bosak 2/27/08

J. J. in Phila

02-28-2008, 12:27 PM

Thanks, I didn't see the question.

I've never given a great deal of weight to the volume of Purdon being out. I've assumed that someone may have checked, been embarrassed about it, even forgotten that the checked, or were looking at another section.

Serendipitous1

02-28-2008, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila <Snip>
I've never given a great deal of weight to the volume of Purdon being out. I've assumed that someone may have checked, been embarrassed about it, even forgotten that the[y] checked, or were looking at another section. In a roundabout way, PB seems to be saying there is yet no explanation for the county code book thingy. Your assumption does not make sense to me...especially in light of your recent hype regarding Wiley, and West's novel. MOO

Politigal

02-28-2008, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
In a roundabout way, PB seems to be saying there is yet no explanation for the county code book thingy. Your assumption does not make sense to me...especially in light of your recent hype regarding Wiley, and West's novel. MOO [/*]

Maybe my signature should be --

"Consider those who had access to the Purdon Book of County Code".....:tongue:

Cinderella

02-28-2008, 07:40 PM

Yes and I am sure that she knew what was contained in the book.

Great post.

Politigal

02-28-2008, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Cinderella
Yes and I am sure that she knew what was contained in the book.

Great post. [/*]

It seems very people were actually working in the DA's office that Friday - but from what we know - Patty was there.

Cinderella

02-28-2008, 07:59 PM

http://www.dailyitem.com/panews/local_story_057131958.html

Here is something that I found.

SNIP
__________________

Gricar, in the late 1980s, helped West research the 1969 murder of Penn State student Betsy Aardsma, whose killing in the stacks of Pattee Library remains unsolved. He even encouraged her to write about the case.

“He thought maybe it would lead to a break in the case,” said West, a former thesis editor at Penn State. “I had met with Ray back in the late ’80s, and he had encouraged me to write the nonfiction book.”

He didn’t envision the fictional, futuristic novel based on the case that she ended up writing, set in a fictional town modeled after State College.
________________________
SNIP

Ray had encouraged her to write a nonfiction book. He thought that it would lead to a break in the case.

Then she goes on to say, He didn't envision the fictional, futuristic novel on the case that she ended up writing.

I don't think that Ray encouraged her to write that type of book. He wanted something to lead to clues.

I read an article about the "Dana Bailey Murder" in which Ray said that everytime he walked on the street, by her apartment he thought of her.

I didn't know Ray, but I don't think that he would have approved of the murder being turned into Sci. Fi. I don't think that would be why he helped the author.

gstickley

02-28-2008, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Politigal

It seems very people were actually working in the DA's office that Friday - but from what we know - Patty was there. [/*]

Was the office open on Sat. or Sun.?

I feel certain the janitorial service & any of the general public would have no reason whatsoever to seek out a dried up, boring, book from the many others, as I understand there were several different books. And I feel just as certain that, if they did, they'd have no idea where to find a particular section.

IMO, only someone with knowledge of the 'code' would have any idea of where to look. That seems to narrow down the field as to whomever left the book on Smith's desk.

Further, why would anyone be checking out a section on 'how to replace a district attorney'. By Sat., 04/16, 11:30 PM, RG had only been unaccounted for for 24 hrs. By Sun., 04/17, 11:30 PM, RG had only been unaccounted for for 48 hrs. It was a weekend; he could have just gone on a mini-vacation, maybe to a ballgame, maybe just away for the weekend. After all, he wasn't 'required' to be anyplace until court time on Mon., 04/18.

So, can anyone explain how & when Smith actually "found" the famous book? It was my understanding it was when he returned to work after his camping trip; don't know if it was Sun. or Mon. that he supposedly foudn the book, but whichever it was, it seems pretty obvious to me that WHOEVER LEFT THE BOOK ON SMITH'S DESK KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

From Fri. evening until Mon. morning, who had access to Smith's office; who knew where to find the book; who knew which book held the information on 'replacing a DA'? Smith supposedly on camping trip, Sloane supposedly on sick leave, RG hadn't been in office since 9:07 PM, Thu., 04/14. Who had access to the office? WHOEVER IT WAS KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

Another funny thing (actually, not funny at all!!!). Can anyone explain the "wake" on Mon. AM when RG didn't show up for court?? Why counseling availability & a "wake" atmosphere? RG could have just been delayed in showing up for court. SOMEONE KNEW RAY GRICAR WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

Really funny (and this is funny). The famous book is on the desk. It is picked up & held by the covers to see which section appears; the section on replacing a DA appears, of course. Yeah, right!

JMO

Cloudbuster

02-28-2008, 08:49 PM

gstickley look toward a ADA male for your answer.

gstickley

02-28-2008, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
gstickley look toward a ADA male for your answer. [/*]

Clerical staff should also be checked out, as they usually know where to "find" things quicker than the "big guns".

Just my opinion & my experience talking.:D

Cinderella

02-28-2008, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by gstickley

Was the office open on Sat. or Sun.?

I feel certain the janitorial service & any of the general public would have no reason whatsoever to seek out a dried up, boring, book from the many others, as I understand there were several different books. And I feel just as certain that, if they did, they'd have no idea where to find a particular section.

IMO, only someone with knowledge of the 'code' would have any idea of where to look. That seems to narrow down the field as to whomever left the book on Smith's desk.

Further, why would anyone be checking out a section on 'how to replace a district attorney'. By Sat., 04/16, 11:30 PM, RG had only been unaccounted for for 24 hrs. By Sun., 04/17, 11:30 PM, RG had only been unaccounted for for 48 hrs. It was a weekend; he could have just gone on a mini-vacation, maybe to a ballgame, maybe just away for the weekend. After all, he wasn't 'required' to be anyplace until court time on Mon., 04/18.

So, can anyone explain how & when Smith actually "found" the famous book? It was my understanding it was when he returned to work after his camping trip; don't know if it was Sun. or Mon. that he supposedly foudn the book, but whichever it was, it seems pretty obvious to me that WHOEVER LEFT THE BOOK ON SMITH'S DESK KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

From Fri. evening until Mon. morning, who had access to Smith's office; who knew where to find the book; who knew which book held the information on 'replacing a DA'? Smith supposedly on camping trip, Sloane supposedly on sick leave, RG hadn't been in office since 9:07 PM, Thu., 04/14. Who had access to the office? WHOEVER IT WAS KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

Another funny thing (actually, not funny at all!!!). Can anyone explain the "wake" on Mon. AM when RG didn't show up for court?? Why counseling availability & a "wake" atmosphere? RG could have just been delayed in showing up for court. SOMEONE KNEW RAY GRICAR WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

Really funny (and this is funny). The famous book is on the desk. It is picked up & held by the covers to see which section appears; the section on replacing a DA appears, of course. Yeah, right!

JMO [/*]

IIRC, Det. Z was checking Ray's computer on Saturday at the Courthouse. Remember he wanted JKA to help him. She said that she didn't know the password. He then called her back and said that someone else had it or something like that. I take that it was PF.

So Det. Z and PF, I think were there.

IIRC, Mark Smith found the book on his desk on Monday.

I will do some resarch and let you know if I am wrong. I think most of your answers are in the JKA writings. Not who all was at the courthouse, but most of your answers.

Cloudbuster

02-28-2008, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by gstickley

Clerical staff should also be checked out, as they usually know where to "find" things quicker than the "big guns".

Just my opinion & my experience talking.:D [/*]

Only problem is the clerical staff wouldn't have known RG was not coming back, but only a k would, that what be the big guns.
:rose:

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
Smith supposedly on camping trip, Sloane supposedly on sick leave, RG hadn't been in office since 9:07 PM, Thu., 04/14. Who had access to the office? WHOEVER IT WAS KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

Can anyone explain the "wake" on Mon. AM when RG didn't show up for court?? Why counseling availability & a "wake" atmosphere? [/*]You've illustrated my point I made the other day re: your ability to manipulate information for the sake of intrigue. It's well-established that Smith was on a camping trip. No "supposed" about it. It is also equally well-established that Sloane was out on medical leave. Again, no "supposed" about it.

As for the "wake", as Parl... JKA described it, that's her prerogative. I think she's done a pretty good job of demonstrating a lack of balance on more than one occassion. The "wake" (she's shown she likes to use a variety of unique terms, no?) was exactly the same thing you see in any school or workplace in America when a tragedy has occurred. Discussion and the availability of a grief counselor. We were given the option, as well. That's not my thing, and I had other things to be doing. But how people can keep questioning the "event" is really beyond me. JKA sees conspiracy everywhere... or so I've been told by many people.

Politigal

02-28-2008, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
You've illustrated my point I made the other day re: your ability to manipulate information for the sake of intrigue. It's well-established that Smith was on a camping trip. No "supposed" about it. It is also equally well-established that Sloane was out on medical leave. Again, no "supposed" about it.

As for the "wake", as Parl... JKA described it, that's her prerogative. I think she's done a pretty good job of demonstrating a lack of balance on more than one occassion. The "wake" (she's shown she likes to use a variety of unique terms, no?) was exactly the same thing you see in any school or workplace in America when a tragedy has occurred. Discussion and the availability of a grief counselor. We were given the option, as well. That's not my thing, and I had other things to be doing. But how people can keep questioning the "event" is really beyond me. JKA sees conspiracy everywhere... or so I've been told by many people. [/*]

Do you know who was actually in the office that Friday? (besides Patty)

Serendipitous1

02-28-2008, 09:13 PM

MOO - If there was an innocent explanation for that particular code book to be where it was, why would that not be known...and published? And yet, no one has apparently come forward. More to the point, why would anyone feel a need to point a lawyer to the law? And, as to the way the book apparently opened for MS...completely believable...try it yourself, as I have done.

gstickley

02-28-2008, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
You've illustrated my point I made the other day re: your ability to manipulate information for the sake of intrigue. It's well-established that Smith was on a camping trip. No "supposed" about it. It is also equally well-established that Sloane was out on medical leave. Again, no "supposed" about it.

As for the "wake", as Parl... JKA described it, that's her prerogative. I think she's done a pretty good job of demonstrating a lack of balance on more than one occassion. The "wake" (she's shown she likes to use a variety of unique terms, no?) was exactly the same thing you see in any school or workplace in America when a tragedy has occurred. Discussion and the availability of a grief counselor. We were given the option, as well. That's not my thing, and I had other things to be doing. But how people can keep questioning the "event" is really beyond me. JKA sees conspiracy everywhere... or so I've been told by many people. [/*]

Sorry, but as of Mon., 04/18, Mr. Gricar had only been gone 'for the weekend'. I don't understand why grief counseling was required so soon. Only a weekend. On Mon., I don't quite understand his 'only a weekend' away being considered in the same category as a 'tragedy'. Yes, it did turn out to be a 'tragedy'; however, IMO, somebody 'jumped the gun'.

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by gstickley

Sorry, but as of Mon., 04/18, Mr. Gricar had only been gone 'for the weekend'. I don't understand why grief counseling was required so soon. Only a weekend. On Mon., I don't quite understand his 'only a weekend' away being considered in the same category as a 'tragedy'. Yes, it did turn out to be a 'tragedy'; however, IMO, somebody 'jumped the gun'. [/*]Those of use who actually knew Ray were very concerned from the beginning and some clearly saw a benefit to the counselor availability. To sit in judgment of that is pretty sad.

JKA, the voice of reason on this? I don't think so...

Cinderella

02-28-2008, 09:20 PM

In reply to G. Stickley post:

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

SNIP
__________________

I was asked to come to the DA Office to let Officer Zaccagni into Ray's office to look at his computer. I told him I was glad to come down but that I did not have Ray's personal password and that it would take me a short time to get ready. I called my relatives, explained the circumstances and cancelled the trip. Before I left for the office, I got a second call from Officer Zaccagni, telling me it was no longer necessary that I come, as one of the clerical staff was at the BPD station and would go down and provide the access.

SNIP
______________________

Maybe I assumed wrong in saying that PF was at the courthouse on Saturday. JKA states that one of the clerical staff was there to let Det. Z into the office.

I don't think that JKA states when the book was brought up by Mark Smith. I thought that I saw that it was Monday though. Probably on Gricar Question and Answer Forum.

gstickley

02-28-2008, 09:21 PM

gstickley

02-28-2008, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
You've illustrated my point I made the other day re: your ability to manipulate information for the sake of intrigue. [/*]

Wow, TG, you think that I, gstickley, have the 'ability to manipulate information for the sake of intrigue'.

I take that as a compliment; someday I may write a book about this case, or a screenplay, but only when it is finally solved.

If I, gstickley, have the 'ability to manipulate information for the sake of intrigue', what must you think of all the manipulation being done about the Wiley case, now the West book, etc.?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

gstickley

02-28-2008, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Those of use who actually knew Ray were very concerned from the beginning and some clearly saw a benefit to the counselor availability. To sit in judgment of that is pretty sad.
[/*]

You are absolutely correct on this. I wasn't there, so I have no right whatsoever to question this, especially where the family is concerned. I'm sorry for my remarks.

Cinderella

02-28-2008, 09:35 PM

Well that goes to show you that they treated Ray's disappearance like something really happened to him and then they don't really follow up.

To me the meeting probably meant foul play. So I just don't understand. I don't understand it being so soon either. I would have lost hope when they wanted to schedule this.

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
If I, gstickley, have the 'ability to manipulate information for the sake of intrigue', what must you think of all the manipulation being done about the Wiley case, now the West book, etc.?[/*]Unless something new comes out of the 20/20 thing, it's a dead issue. The only one's who don't seem to recognize that are the people here who think it's being put forth as some smokescreen. Nobody attached to this thinks any differently and see it as a loose coincidence on the date and retirement similarities.

Look, if anyone should be bothered by this 20/20 thing, it's me for a variety of reasons. I'll give you a hint: public perception
Does it bother me? No, because it brought some brief attention back to the case.

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
You are absolutely correct on this. I wasn't there, so I have no right whatsoever to question this, especially where the family is concerned. I'm sorry for my remarks. [/*]Not a problem.

Cinderella

02-28-2008, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Unless something new comes out of the 20/20 thing, it's a dead issue. The only one's who don't seem to recognize that are the people here who think it's being put forth as some smokescreen. Nobody attached to this thinks any differently and see it as a loose coincidence on the date and retirement similarities.

Look, if anyone should be bothered by this 20/20 thing, it's me for a variety of reasons. I'll give you a hint: public perception
Does it bother me? No, because it brought some brief attention back to the case. [/*]

That is true about bringing brief attention back to the case. What about the people that think that Ray is in the witness protection program and now more people will just assume that he walked away. Less people will be complaining about Ray's disappearance. It will take the heat off of Centre County. Those are my feelings.

Rather than that why didn't they do a story on the man that saw Ray in the am instead of the Wiley thing?

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
I don't understand why grief counseling was required so soon. Only a weekend. On Mon., I don't quite understand his 'only a weekend' away being considered in the same category as a 'tragedy'. [/*]I almost forgot one major aspect of this. A very large percentage of us (the family and office) really thought that he was in the river, given the similarities to my Father. JKA must not have quite figured that out. Considering she never introduced herself to us at the Lewisburg site (and we were not hard to miss), coupled with some of her rather cold comments from her writings, my own instincts tell me she's not so polished on the compassionate side of things.

Serendipitous1

02-28-2008, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
Had you been reading that particular section frequently so the book came open?

Known & published???? Why would you think something like that would ever get 'known & published'? Nothing much else has been. LOL. It is one of those 'no answer, so file it away' type things...as PE used to lament about. Then again, PE bristled at anything pointing away from homicide. With this week's 'revelations', I actually expected a 'Reporting or Shilling?' redux thread. MOO

gstickley

02-28-2008, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
I almost forgot one major aspect of this. A very large percentage of us (the family and office) really thought that he was in the river, given the similarities to my Father. JKA must not have quite figured that out. Considering she never introduced herself to us at the Lewisburg site (and we were not hard to miss), coupled with some of her rather cold comments from her writings, my own instincts tell me she's not so polished on the compassionate side of things. [/*]

I thought the grief counseling was for courthouse employees. I didn't know the family was to be involved in it; I understood the entire family was out searching for Mr. Gricar. I surely understand the concern the family felt immediately. I did not understand the courthouse personnel would be so devastated.

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
LOL. It is one of those 'no answer, so file it away' type things...as PE used to lament about. Then again, PE bristled at anything pointing away from homicide. With this week's 'revelations', I actually expected a 'Reporting or Shilling?' redux thread. MOO [/*]I've always found some irony in the fact that some people are viewed as having PF on a pedestal, while other's do the same with KA. The irony lies in the idea that one could quite readily argue that KA had the motive, and means, to do many of the things associated with PF theories.

Just an observation that's neither here, nor there...

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
I thought the grief counseling was for courthouse employees. I didn't know the family was to be involved in it; I understood the entire family was out searching for Mr. Gricar. I surely understand the concern the family felt immediately. I did not understand the courthouse personnel would be so devastated. [/*]The option was extended to us, yes.

And yes, personnel were greatly impacted by Ray's disappearance. I'll give JKA props for indicating Ray's meaning to her, which was conveyed to me many times, by many people, during that time, and to this day.

gstickley

02-28-2008, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
LOL. It is one of those 'no answer, so file it away' type things...as PE used to lament about. Then again, PE bristled at anything pointing away from homicide. With this week's 'revelations', I actually expected a 'Reporting or Shilling?' redux thread. MOO [/*]

Hey, I tried the "book" thing with several different books: Bibles, encyclopedia, thick books, thin books, big books, little books; even went so far as to go to office & check out our Code books. No matter how many times I tried, I never got it to open the way it reportedly opened for Smith. Now breaking the spine of the book might have caused it to open to a particular section. I will say that certain books did open to sections that had been read on a continuous basis; however, I don't believe the particular section on 'replacing a DA' was something checked out on a regular basis in your Code.

J. J. in Phila

02-28-2008, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
MOO - If there was an innocent explanation for that particular code book to be where it was, why would that not be known...and published? And yet, no one has apparently come forward. More to the point, why would anyone feel a need to point a lawyer to the law? And, as to the way the book apparently opened for MS...completely believable...try it yourself, as I have done. [/*]

Well there can be several explanations:

1. Somebody removed it for another purpose and forgot.

2. One staff member was curious and sometime before Smith showed up looked up what happens of the DA's office becomes vacant. The staff member, not wishing to look crass and vulturelike (insert your lawyer joke here), denied it.

The law around replacing a DA is different than most other "row officers," which involve the governor filling the vacancy with the advice and consent of the State Senate. The court fills the vacancy in the case of a DA (It does that in a few other cases, like the Commissioners, as well).

gstickley

02-28-2008, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
The option was extended to us, yes.

And yes, personnel were greatly impacted by Ray's disappearance. I'll give JKA props for indicating Ray's meaning to her, which was conveyed to me many times, by many people, during that time, and to this day. [/*]

Well, I'm certainly not family, certainly not a courthouse employee, certainly not even a resident of the area, but I have felt a 'meaning' about Ray Gricar since first reading about this case. I sincerely hope that he did just walk away from it all, but I will never believe he would allow such a hoax to occur. I don't believe the suicide either. That leaves homicide. And, IMO, this has never been looked at as a 'foul play' scenerio. I am just mad. I am mad at LE & everyone involved for not conducting this investigation as a homicide; I am mad because I think their investigation stinks to high heaven. I am mad at the media for letting Mr. Gricar fall by the wayside. I am mad at the citizens of the area who haven't stood up & screamed all the way to the State Capitol that this has been allowed to happen. (Perhaps I should have said 'angry', but you all must know I'm mad too!)

Serendipitous1

02-28-2008, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
Hey, I tried the "book" thing with several different books: Bibles, encyclopedia, thick books, thin books, big books, little books; even went so far as to go to office & check out our Code books. No matter how many times I tried, I never got it to open the way it reportedly opened for Smith. Now breaking the spine of the book might have caused it to open to a particular section. I will say that certain books did open to sections that had been read on a continuous basis; however, I don't believe the particular section on 'replacing a DA' was something checked out on a regular basis in your Code. Apparently the code book was not one typically used by prosecutors, and/or is one frequently updated and reprinted. If you take such a book and open it to a page, creasing the spine (as I often do to keep it from flopping), it will hold the page later. It would not mean a thing to me, except for the lack of an explanation as to who put the book where it was found. MOO

tonyGricar

02-28-2008, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
(Perhaps I should have said 'angry', but you all must know I'm mad too!) [/*]"Mad" got Howard Beale's point across just fine... :D

Serendipitous1

02-28-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila <Snip>
The law around replacing a DA is different than most other "row officers," which involve the governor filling the vacancy with the advice and consent of the State Senate. The court fills the vacancy in the case of a DA (It does that in a few other cases, like the Commissioners, as well). I think you must be looking in a different class of county. You really need to get out of that city! MOO...and moo! LOL

Cloudbuster

02-28-2008, 10:26 PM

Gstickley I can relate to how you feel too, I actually jugged down a small chocolate Latte Khula' earlier. Im also a outsider and seen things from the very weekend it started and watched it all grow and what I seen bugs me. Maybe they have different ways up there than in larger city type places and yes Im being polite when Mayberry might be a better description.
I have heard every rumor and have seen things posted everywhere from normal to physco types. I have watched to many coindences and have felt things and experienced things I never have before. Before this case I never even been on any message boards. I have grown to accept everyones personalities and actually admire each one for how they are. I have watched people come and go but Im still here and I can't pin point why. There is something about this case that just won't let you and Im glad Im here! Im glad your here too!!! Im glad everyone is here!!! :beer:
RG does need us no matter what!!!!

gstickley

02-28-2008, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
"Mad" got Howard Beale's point across just fine... :D [/*]

Hope you're happy; I had to look up Howard Beale, as I had no idea what you were talking about. (You people keep forgettin' I'm old & set in my ways & have no idea what you & S1 are talking about most of the time.)

Cloudbuster

02-28-2008, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

The law around replacing a DA is different than most other "row officers," which involve the governor filling the vacancy with the advice and consent of the State Senate. The court fills the vacancy in the case of a DA (It does that in a few other cases, like the Commissioners, as well). [/*]

That might be true JJ. I know sorta like J Murtha took over for Sayor in the house of Rep in 1969 due to sayor's death.

J. J. in Phila

02-28-2008, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I think you must be looking in a different class of county. You really need to get out of that city! MOO...and moo! LOL [/*]

No, I actually downloaded a copy of a state issued book on the subject; because of how Phila is set up, most of that doesn't apply. To replace the county treasurer or prothonotary, for example, if they died, it goes this torturous process, involving deadlines and senatorial courtesy. Those are most of the county row offices, but not the DA, Commissioners, or Jury Commissioners.

The book is called Elective Offices in Local Government, from the Department of Community and Economic Development. You can search it out yourself.

I could understand one of the ADA's thinking, **Who's in charge if RFG doesn't come back** and grab Purdon.

J. J. in Phila

02-28-2008, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

That might be true JJ. I know sorta like J Murtha took over for Sayor in the house of Rep in 1969 due to sayor's death. [/*]

That was a special election following nomination by the respective parties. And that was 1974.

J. J. in Phila

02-28-2008, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

The book is called Elective Offices in Local Government, from the Department of Community and Economic Development. You can search it out yourself.

I could understand one of the ADA's thinking, **Who's in charge if RFG doesn't come back** and grab Purdon.

Here is the Link:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:fHL4UUVrqDkJ:www.newpa.com/download.aspx%3Fid%3D39+Elective+Offices+in+Local+ Government&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Serendipitous1

02-28-2008, 11:13 PM

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP9/16.Cp.1.14.html

J. J. in Phila

02-28-2008, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP9/16.Cp.1.14.html [/*]

However, it is different from the other row offices (except as listed). Here is the appointment statute for a controller:

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP3/16.Cp.1.06.html

I can understand why someone would want to look at statute.

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by logicworks

AVM was in prison for two years being held over on first degree murder charges, evidence presented to the judge by RG.
After RG disappeared the judge now changes his mind and says not sufficient evidence, reduce the charges.
Could any misconduct charges have been brought against RG by AVM or his wife for keeping him in prison for two years supposedly without sufficient evidence considering the judge two years later then claimed there wasn't enough evidence?
Just curious......... [/*]

First, vaguely knowing how Purdon is set up, it wouldn't be in that "County Code " volume. Purdon literally has in excess of 20 large volumes. You see some of the subvisions here: http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/Index.html

Second Vargas, waived a quicker trial, so no. The delays were from the defense filing motions.

Third, Vargas was charged with 1st Degree (possible capital) Murder, 3rd Degree Murder, and Voluntary Manslaughter. Judge Brown, IIRC, tossed the 1st Degree charge, on the grounds that it couldn't be sustained. The 3rd Degree and VM charges remained.

Cloudbuster

02-29-2008, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

I could understand one of the ADA's thinking, **Who's in charge if RFG doesn't come back** and grab Purdon. [/*]

It makes sense for a ADA to put the Purdon book on who they already knew would need to take over. problem is why didn't he admit to doing it?

Cloudbuster

02-29-2008, 12:13 AM

If there are 20 Purdon's in the set then it's awfully looking like someone who knew the law well (ADA) knew which Purdon volume to place on Smiths desk. He also had to work for the courthouse to have entry to Smith's desk and for him not to stick out. Meaning he knew the volumes and which one was needed and that really narrows it down. RICKARD where are you?

Serendipitous1

02-29-2008, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by logicworks
Question here.........there are quite a few other things on the page other than filling the vacancy that someone could have been looking at.

AVM was in prison for two years being held over on first degree murder charges, evidence presented to the judge by RG.
After RG disappeared the judge now changes his mind and says not sufficient evidence, reduce the charges.
Could any misconduct charges have been brought against RG by AVM or his wife for keeping him in prison for two years supposedly without sufficient evidence considering the judge two years later then claimed there wasn't enough evidence?
Just curious......... I am no lawyer, but I doubt it.

Side bar: "Don't know whether it adds anything, but from what I've heard, the VM situation during the year of investigation was handled not by [R]G or LM, but the now-'disappeared' KA, including the medical vetting, and up until the time charges were filed and VM was picked up.

With particular reference to S[aunterer]'s recent comment, my information would suggest she was totally onboard as to the appropriateness of 1st degree, the strength of the evidence and was no advocate in defense of VM. Thus, S[aunterer], I believe we can safely assume that if your theory of 'pressure' from 'within the office' would prove true, it was coming from some other source. What I have heard said was that she was less than convinced about the dp request, given VM's age, lack of other convictions, that kind of thing.

At any rate, obviously [R]G did ask for the dp, took the case and of course still had it when he disappeared." lustorumanimae, 1/1/07. (this post continued on, the above being but about 20%).

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

It makes sense for a ADA to put the Purdon book on who they already knew would need to take over. problem is why didn't he admit to doing it? [/*]

Your boss is missing; he may be dead, or he may be injured. It's exceptionally heartless to run to the law library to see who is in charge. [Though most of the politicians I know would either look it up or call me.]

I actually had a friend who wanted an appointment and the incumbent had died on a Tuesday. I got the call on a Thursday about the process of how the vacancy would be filled. :)

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
If there are 20 Purdon's in the set then it's awfully looking like someone who knew the law well (ADA) knew which Purdon volume to place on Smiths desk. He also had to work for the courthouse to have entry to Smith's desk and for him not to stick out. Meaning he knew the volumes and which one was needed and that really narrows it down. RICKARD where are you? [/*]

This one, I'll just put down to a coworker not wanting to look completely heartless.

Serendipitous1

02-29-2008, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
It makes sense for a ADA to put the Purdon book on who they already knew would need to take over. problem is why didn't he admit to doing it? It makes no sense for a lawyer to point another lawyer to the law (outside of courtroom filings/arguments). Whether or not this mystery within a mystery has any significance is the question. MOO

sherrijean981

02-29-2008, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by gstickley

Was the office open on Sat. or Sun.?

I feel certain the janitorial service & any of the general public would have no reason whatsoever to seek out a dried up, boring, book from the many others, as I understand there were several different books. And I feel just as certain that, if they did, they'd have no idea where to find a particular section.

IMO, only someone with knowledge of the 'code' would have any idea of where to look. That seems to narrow down the field as to whomever left the book on Smith's desk.

Further, why would anyone be checking out a section on 'how to replace a district attorney'. By Sat., 04/16, 11:30 PM, RG had only been unaccounted for for 24 hrs. By Sun., 04/17, 11:30 PM, RG had only been unaccounted for for 48 hrs. It was a weekend; he could have just gone on a mini-vacation, maybe to a ballgame, maybe just away for the weekend. After all, he wasn't 'required' to be anyplace until court time on Mon., 04/18.

So, can anyone explain how & when Smith actually "found" the famous book? It was my understanding it was when he returned to work after his camping trip; don't know if it was Sun. or Mon. that he supposedly foudn the book, but whichever it was, it seems pretty obvious to me that WHOEVER LEFT THE BOOK ON SMITH'S DESK KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

From Fri. evening until Mon. morning, who had access to Smith's office; who knew where to find the book; who knew which book held the information on 'replacing a DA'? Smith supposedly on camping trip, Sloane supposedly on sick leave, RG hadn't been in office since 9:07 PM, Thu., 04/14. Who had access to the office? WHOEVER IT WAS KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

Another funny thing (actually, not funny at all!!!). Can anyone explain the "wake" on Mon. AM when RG didn't show up for court?? Why counseling availability & a "wake" atmosphere? RG could have just been delayed in showing up for court. SOMEONE KNEW RAY GRICAR WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

Really funny (and this is funny). The famous book is on the desk. It is picked up & held by the covers to see which section appears; the section on replacing a DA appears, of course. Yeah, right!

JMO [/*]

Ray himself could have put that book on MS's desk on Thursday night. He knew MS was going to be out of the office on Friday. He knew it wouldn't be found until MS got back from his family trip.

I do agree with the "wake" type atmosphere on Monday. I don't believe SS or PF were there. I would have been pi$$ed off about it, not even a couple days of investigating having been done. Who did organize that?

Since the book "20/20 Vision" is now on the table, and Ms West, Detective Rickard, PB and JJ, have found odd clues that could be questionable, the amount of sales on the book will now lead to others from the county reading it. It might just get in the hands of a couple people who could put more info or answers out there.

If RG did think the book special it could very well be with him now, if he walked! On CD or the book itself. Maybe even Wiley's book.

I am looking forward to getting my copy.

sherrijean981

02-29-2008, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
I've always found some irony in the fact that some people are viewed as having PF on a pedestal, while other's do the same with KA. The irony lies in the idea that one could quite readily argue that KA had the motive, and means, to do many of the things associated with PF theories.

Just an observation that's neither here, nor there... [/*]

My thoughts exactly!!

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by sherrijean981

Since the book "20/20 Vision" is now on the table, and Ms West, Detective Rickard, PB and JJ, have found odd clues that could be questionable, the amount of sales on the book will now lead to others from the county reading it. It might just get in the hands of a couple people who could put more info or answers out there.

One of the things I saw in 20/20 Vision, that hasn't been reported, is a car trip. From the description, it might be going in the direction of Lewisburg, either on 192 or I-80. That struck me.

Now, as for clues, why wouldn't RFG have left a Kennedy half dollar and/or some gummy bears in the Mini? Both are clues in the book.

Maybe even Wiley's book.

Wiley's manuscript vanished with him.

sherrijean981

02-29-2008, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

One of the things I saw in 20/20 Vision, that hasn't been reported, is a car trip. From the description, it might be going in the direction of Lewisburg, either on 192 or I-80. That struck me.

Now, as for clues, why wouldn't RFG have left a Kennedy half dollar and/or some gummy bears in the Mini? Both are clues in the book.

Wiley's manuscript vanished with him. [/*]

But, was it ever printed in another name, a ghost writer, or whatever they call it? Could Wiley have sent him a copy, since he was from the general area of RG's work place when in OH.? Just random thoughts, no need to answer those.

tonyGricar

02-29-2008, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by gstickley
Hope you're happy; I had to look up Howard Beale, as I had no idea what you were talking about. (You people keep forgettin' I'm old & set in my ways & have no idea what you & S1 are talking about most of the time.) [/*]C'mon... you've never seen Network? Run, don't walk, to the video store and rent it. Or hit Youtube. I'm sure it'll have his famous rant.

And yeah, I'm happy, although I'm sure S1 appreciates you alluding to him being young. lol Gotta keep ya on your toes.

sherrijean981

02-29-2008, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by gstickley

Hope you're happy; I had to look up Howard Beale, as I had no idea what you were talking about. (You people keep forgettin' I'm old & set in my ways & have no idea what you & S1 are talking about most of the time.) [/*]

GS, I had no idea what he was talking about either. I went to the video to see it. Maybe Bellefontians and Centre Countians should hang out their windows and say the same thing!

gstickley

02-29-2008, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
It makes no sense for a lawyer to point another lawyer to the law (outside of courtroom filings/arguments). Whether or not this mystery within a mystery has any significance is the question. MOO [/*]

Well, the question of 'replacing a DA' had not been too important for the past 20 years. At the end of the year, a new DA would automatically elected. So, who would be checking the Code (20 of them???) to find a section on 'replacing a DA"? On 04/15-16-17-18, who would KNOW that particular Code book, that particular section, would be important? SOMEONE WHO KNEW RG WOULD NOT BE RETURNING.

gstickley

02-29-2008, 08:52 AM

Very good find, LW.

This is the first I've heard anything about the other sections contained within that particular Code. Still, it's very interesting. Could it have been one of the clerks using Smith's desk & leaving the book? (How many clerks/stenographers were employed at the time?) Or could it have been someone checking out the 'how to replace a DA'? The mystery continues . . . or does it?? Seems Smith thought it was the 'how to replace a DA' section.

Politigal

02-29-2008, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by logicworks

It is interesting that the statute for filling the vacancy, 1424, just happens to be one statute away from Clerk salary, 1426, considering it was only 8-10 weeks earlier the clerk position was filled.

1424. Court May Appoint District Attorney for the Time Being.
It shall be the duty of the court of quarter sessions of any county to appoint a district attorney for the time being, in all cases where the district attorney and his assistants shall be absent from the court. Such person so appointed shall perform all the duties of the office until the regular district attorney or one of his assistants shall appear in person to perform the same, and shall be paid such compensation by the county as may be fixed by the court.

§ 1426. Stenographers and Clerks.

The salary board in any county may provide for the appointment by the district attorney of such clerks and stenographers in his office as may be deemed necessary for the proper dispatch of business.

JMO [/*]

I'm confused because JKA referred to a different statute #

I cannot recall Mr. Smith offering the number of the provision to which the book had opened, but believe it must necessarily be 16 P.S. Section 1404(*), which provides that "if any vacancy shall occur in the office of district attorney in a county of the fourth through eighth class, the first assistant district attorney shall become district attorney and discharge the duties of the district attorney until the first Monday in January following the next municipal election occurring not less than ninety days after the occurrence of the vacancy." If the first assistant in counties of the 4th-8th class declines to serve, the vacancy is again filled by the court.

Serendipitous1

02-29-2008, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by logicworks <Snip>
It is interesting that the statute for filling the vacancy, 1424... I was looking at §1421...but I am no lawyer, so maybe this is not correct.
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP9/16.Cp.1.14.html

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by gstickley
Very good find, LW.

This is the first I've heard anything about the other sections contained within that particular Code. Still, it's very interesting. Could it have been one of the clerks using Smith's desk & leaving the book? (How many clerks/stenographers were employed at the time?) Or could it have been someone checking out the 'how to replace a DA'? The mystery continues . . . or does it?? Seems Smith thought it was the 'how to replace a DA' section. [/*]

Actually, a terrible find, because that deals with the decision by the salary board to create a position. The Clerk's position was created well before and was vacant because someone left.

Serendipitous1

02-29-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by tonyGricar <Snip>
And yeah, I'm happy, although I'm sure S1 appreciates you alluding to him being young. lol Gotta keep ya on your toes. Yep...but tonight is Big-Band Nostalgia Night at the home (hoping I get lucky, lol) ;) . Happy Friday, all!

sherrijean981

02-29-2008, 01:32 PM

WJAC-TV 's story on RG. Once to the story follow the video link on the story. It includes a segment of the "code book" with a photo of it.

Is the book a binder book with all the different code sections to it? By the video it has the hole punches in it. I was under the impression it was a hard back book. Hard back book or hard back notebook?

http://www.wjactv.com/news/15415783/detail.html

gstickley

02-29-2008, 01:47 PM

I had read the WJAC-TV info. previously; in reading it again today, I noted we now have someone from the Sheriff's Office who was a good friend of RG, a Mr. Steadman, wasn't it? Wonder where he's been the past almost-3 years. Also noted the last couple days there's been a continuing section about RG in the CDT. Wonder why there was nothing, except the wonderful Q&A section of PB's, for the past almost-3 years.

I seriously think the sky must be falling or about to fall over Happy Valley. All this new-found information is mind boggling after so long with next to nothing.

gstickley

02-29-2008, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by tonyGricar

(snip)
As for the "wake", as Parl... JKA described it, that's her prerogative. I think she's done a pretty good job of demonstrating a lack of balance on more than one occassion. The "wake" (she's shown she likes to use a variety of unique terms, no?) was exactly the same thing you see in any school or workplace in America when a tragedy has occurred. Discussion and the availability of a grief counselor. We were given the option, as well. That's not my thing, and I had other things to be doing. But how people can keep questioning the "event" is really beyond me. JKA sees conspiracy everywhere... or so I've been told by many people. [/*]

The word "wake" was my word. In re-reading KA's Magnificent Manuscript, she used the word "seance'". I could find no place that KA used the word "wake"in her manuscript. (Just trying to keep things straight.)

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by logicworks

The index doesn't say that JJ. Anyone researching might pull it up and find it not useful to them. So what? I research many things that bring up the word and find it doesn't 'fit' exactly what I am looking for.
It appeared to me the big question since the book was found was who would have known, in a 12 volume set, exactly which book, to place on MS's desk.

§ 1424. Court May Appoint District Attorney for the Time Being.
§ 1425. Indictment and Cost Clerk in Counties of the Fourth Class.
§ 1426. Stenographers and Clerks.

JMO [/*]

The question is, why look at the cleark section. It basically says that the pay board can establish clerk positions.

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by sherrijean981

Is the book a binder book with all the different code sections to it? By the video it has the hole punches in it. I was under the impression it was a hard back book. Hard back book or hard back notebook?

http://www.wjactv.com/news/15415783/detail.html [/*]

I can't get the video to play, but the book is a normal paperback.

sherrijean981

02-29-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

The question is, why look at the cleark section. It basically says that the pay board can establish clerk positions. [/*]

Probably trying to bring it back to PF having looked at the book and leaving it there.

Whispers

02-29-2008, 06:19 PM

I don't know what was in the video, but Arnold reported it was Purdons, which is a hardbound set of books.

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 06:29 PM

Which book?

Purdon is 20-40 volume hardbound work. 20/20 Vision is a paperback.

sherrijean981

02-29-2008, 06:41 PM

When I put the post up about WJAC-TV, I was talking about the Purdon Code book being shown on the video. It was a paper book with holes punched they were showing.

Go to WJACTV and put Ray Gricar in the search box. It will come up with a list of sites by date. The latest one has a video in the right hand corner you can watch of the segment and it is showing the book.

So is the book in the news segment the same one they found on RG's desk?

Cinderella

02-29-2008, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Whispers
I don't know what was in the video, but Arnold reported it was Purdons, which is a hardbound set of books. [/*]

Hey Whispers, nice to have you post.

Whispers

02-29-2008, 08:11 PM

Purdons has 130 volumes
http://west.thomson.com/store/product.aspx?r=3265&product_id=22044296

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Whispers
Purdons has 130 volumes
http://west.thomson.com/store/product.aspx?r=3265&product_id=22044296 [/*]

I knew it was larger than my 25 volume Britannica. :)

Whispers

02-29-2008, 09:24 PM

The volume that Mark Smith supposedly was confronted with (i.e. replacement of DA) also contained a lot of statutes pertaining to the operation of county government, including the duties, salaries replacement, scope of authority, etc., of county commissioners, sheriffs, row officers, planning, etc. Perhaps there was another reason it was off the bookshelf.

J. J. in Phila

02-29-2008, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Whispers
The volume that Mark Smith supposedly was confronted with (i.e. replacement of DA) also contained a lot of statutes pertaining to the operation of county government, including the duties, salaries replacement, scope of authority, etc., of county commissioners, sheriffs, row officers, planning, etc. Perhaps there was another reason it was off the bookshelf. [/*]

That was my number one reason. :)

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

Well there can be several explanations:

1. Somebody removed it for another purpose and forgot.

gstickley

02-29-2008, 09:47 PM

From "Courthouse Steps".

May. 25, 2006

In yet another odd twist in the disappearance of former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, his nephew confirmed Wednesday that a legal book containing information on replacing a district attorney was found on the desk of an assistant district attorney the day after Gricar vanished.

Assistant District Attorney Mark Smith, wondering where the book came from, grasped both covers and turned it upside down, in hopes of finding what page it had last been opened to, Tony Gricar said he was told by police.

The book opened to the statute detailing how to replace a dead or retired district attorney, Tony Gricar said.

With rumors about the book swirling through the courthouse and beyond this week, Tony Gricar said he'd placed a call to borough police to find out why the information, which he's known for some time, is coming out now.

"We don't know who put it there," Tony Gricar said.

"It was on Mark Smith's desk. But it still doesn't get us anywhere. It's surprising this got out there."

Bellefonte police would not confirm or deny the account. Smith served as acting Centre County district attorney after Ray Gricar's disappearance until District Attorney Michael Madeira took office in January. Smith could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

"This has been investigated, and it is part of the ongoing investigation," Bellefonte Police Chief Shawn Weaver said Wednesday. "Police simply cannot give out every piece of information on the case or else we could jeopardize the investigation."

The rumors contain inaccuracies -- the story being spread is that the book was found on Gricar's desk, open to the page detailing how to replace a district attorney. "That's not true," Weaver said. "But something similar." He would not elaborate.

Madeira said he first heard the rumor during his campaign for district attorney. "I'd heard it," Madeira said. "But it never crossed my mind this was serious. I'm going to look into it."

Serendipitous1

02-29-2008, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by sherrijean981 <Snips>
When I put the post up about WJAC-TV, I was talking about the Purdon Code book being shown on the video. It was a paper book with holes punched they were showing.

So is the book in the news segment the same one they found on RG's desk? I believe it was the book, but it was found on MS's desk...and it is not Purdons. The county code was originally printed in looseleaf form, held in looseleaf binders, making for easy insertion of periodic amendments. When the initial printing was exhausted, a new edition was printed. The new edition was in bound, soft cover form, punched with holes to fit the old binders. In between editions, all enacted amendments are periodically printed as cumulative supplements.

Call Number - PGA 138.2, C855c, 2000
OCLC# - 46674182
Title - The county code: Act of August 9, 1955 (P. L.323, no.130) as amended.
Issuing Agency - Pennsylvania General Assembly, Local Government Commission.
Date - 2000

sherrijean981

03-01-2008, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I believe it was the book, but it was found on MS's desk...and it is not Purdons. The county code was originally printed in looseleaf form, held in looseleaf binders, making for easy insertion of periodic amendments. When the initial printing was exhausted, a new edition was printed. The new edition was in bound, soft cover form, punched with holes to fit the old binders. In between editions, all enacted amendments are periodically printed as cumulative supplements.

Call Number - PGA 138.2, C855c, 2000
OCLC# - 46674182
Title - The county code: Act of August 9, 1955 (P. L.323, no.130) as amended.
Issuing Agency - Pennsylvania General Assembly, Local Government Commission.
Date - 2000 [/*]

Thank you.

tonyGricar

03-01-2008, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by gstickley

The word "wake" was my word. In re-reading KA's Magnificent Manuscript, she used the word "seance'". I could find no place that KA used the word "wake"in her manuscript. (Just trying to keep things straight.) [/*]You're right. Her descriptor was even more ridiculous than "wake". Go figure...

Serendipitous1

03-01-2008, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Thank you. I have several similar pamphlets. I tried MS's 'trick'...and it worked every time. Someone opened that book to that page...then left it (closed) on MS's desk.

I imagine there is a copy of the code in every office of the county government buildings. If that particular copy was kept in the DA's office, it seems likely it was left on the desk by someone from that office. If it was one of the ADAs, that would not surprise me. But since no one has apparently admitted to doing it, the possibility that it was RG cannot be excluded. JMOO

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 01:22 AM

I'm trying it now with an old copy of The Second Class Township Code. I'll see how it works.

When JKA said Purdon those are very different than the County Code books, in both size and structure.

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 01:29 AM

The Second Class Township Code came open to Section 1130, after I let it sit for about 5 minutes. I'll close it again and see what happens after its been sitting out overnight.

Serendipitous1

03-01-2008, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by logicworks <Snip>
Not certain I understand.......few questions.....(patience appreciated). Are you saying it was not one of the volumes from the Purdon set found on MS's desk, but instead a pamphlet from 2000? I think my use of the word 'pamphlet' was not correct. Think of it as a paperback book. If the WJAC video of 'the book' was correct, it is not the volume of Purdons which would include the County Code, but a separate book devoted to the County Code.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly, Local Government Commission is statutorily required to update, print and distribute the County Code (among others) for distribution to local officials throughout the Commonwealth. http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/whatis.html I imagine that is because local officials need to have better access to the applicable law. As I understand it, the County Code is periodically reprinted (up-to-date, as amended). In between printings, cumulative supplements are issued if the laws are amended.

I do not know how often the County Code is reprinted. The 2000 edition could have been the one referenced. I should think there would be a copy in every row office in the courthouse. But that is just my opinion.

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
The Second Class Township Code came open to Section 1130, after I let it sit for about 5 minutes. I'll close it again and see what happens after its been sitting out overnight. [/*]

After 13 hours, it popped right back to the same page, Section 1130. I'm going to retry for about 3 days.

Same book, Section 1301 this time.

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I think my use of the word 'pamphlet' was not correct. Think of it as a paperback book. If the WJAC video of 'the book' was correct, it is not the volume of Purdons which would include the County Code, but a separate book devoted to the County Code.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly, Local Government Commission is statutorily required to update, print and distribute the County Code (among others) for distribution to local officials throughout the Commonwealth. http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/whatis.html I imagine that is because local officials need to have better access to the applicable law. As I understand it, the County Code is periodically reprinted (up-to-date, as amended). In between printings, cumulative supplements are issued if the laws are amended.

It's basically a soft covered book (at least the Borough and township cods are). They do reprints every 2-10 years, but also send out supplements.

Basically the County Code (for that class of county at least) would contain the statutes for county governments, all in one small book. That isn't Purdon which is multi volume and hard covered. I had another one that I hadn't looked at for several months, prior to October 2007. I tried it with that, and the page that came up was not one that I read or referenced.

While it can not be said that RFG was the one who looked at the book last, it seems possible that he was the person who did.

IEven a lowly borough councilman is supposed to be issued a copy of the Borough Code so I'd strongly suspect that a copy of the County Code would be at the DA's Office. :)

Serendipitous1

03-01-2008, 03:18 PM

I found an older copy of 'The Borough Code', Local Government Commission, 1981...complete with the punched binder holes. It also contains an index...including 'Vacancy in Office', with the section references for the various borough offices. I assume the County Code is similar...user friendly. Therefore, it is possible that anyone with access to any copy of 'The County Code' (and MS's desk) could have looked up the reference and left the book there. JMOO

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 03:33 PM

All my copies have hole punches, but good luck finding a binder to fit them.

The School Code is an exception; it's printed on 8.5 by 11 inch paper.

What are Watering Troughs?

Alex, I'll take Pennsylvania local government codes for $200. :D

Serendipitous1

03-01-2008, 03:44 PM

But here is the thing...the code book was found closed. There was no sticky tab or other page mark. Only MS's inquisitiveness and dexterity yielded the page (supposedly) last opened to. So, when one considers that, and all of the other revealed evidence, can one exclude walk-away? As of this week, MR, with vastly more information, apparently could not.

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by logicworks

Thanks for the info on the difference.
While I now understand the difference, I am still a wee tad confused ......how did this this move from being a Purdon book to now being a PA Codes book?
JMO [/*]

JKA said it was Purdon:

I was asked last year by media if I were aware of an incident in which Mr. Smith found a volume of Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes addressing County Code on his desk after Ray's disappearance, which when handled by him opened to the section providing for replacement of an elected DA who has died, become disabled or, in this case, has disappeared. The answer is yes. Smith brought the incident up to me within a fairly short time after Ray's disappearance.

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

WJAC apparently showed a photo of the book and it wasn't Purdon

I am now experimenting to see if a similar book could hold the page for three days. It does for 13 hours.

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by logicworks

According to the link, the media asked HER about Purdon, NOT the opposite. How did the media know it first to ask her?

Somebody from the office mentioned it, is the likely reason. It was well known that she worked there.

She seems to be affirming what the media has already established somehow, that Smith did mention at sometime it was Purdons. How does that mean SHE brought it up? How does that eliminate media from first knowing? Who told media? If they didn't first know, how could they ask her?
JMO [/*]

JKA stated it was Purdon. I've never seen the name Purdon from any other source that I can recall (I might have missed it).

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by logicworks

The MEDIA said it was Purdon first, when asking her to affirm she had heard it. She was NOT the one to mention it first, if someone from the office mentioned it. She specifically states the MEDIA asked her about Purdon's, NOT the opposite.

The only place where I've seen it listed as Purdon is in JKA's Google pages, that I can recall. It's possible someone said "law book" and she assumed it was Purdon as opposed to the County Code.

If the DA was going to leave instructions behind, IMO, he would have left Purdons, not the PA Code book.

I don't recall that anyone claimed he was leaving "instructions," or that RFG left it. In fact, I've questioned that, and I'm trying to see it it's likely that the pages would come open after three days.

sherrijean981

03-01-2008, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

What are Watering Troughs?

Alex, I'll take Pennsylvania local government codes for $200. :D [/*]

You are kidding right? If not here is an interesting article I was looking at.

http://www.pa-roots.org/data/read.php?728,532953

Quote:
"Watering Troughs
Posted by: december (IP Logged)
Date: December 02, 2007 05:56PM

WATERING TROUGHS
The last watering trough in Somerset stood along the right hand side of West Main Street, just beyond the home of A. W. Barron. For many years it was the favorite habit of townspeople on warm summer nights to walk as far as the watering trough, and there after a short rest, refresh themselves with a glass of the clear, cold water. Along all country roads were watering troughs placed there by farmers who owned the land. An old act of assembly read that people who erected watering troughs had an abatement from road tax. The act maintained that the troughs had to be kept in good repair, be not less than six feet in length, twelve inches in width and ten inches in depth, and they must be made of wood, stone or iron of sufficient height for watering horses or cattle, and that they have running water at all times. The troughs likewise had to be approved by the supervisors and road commissioners of the various townships in which they were located.
Many a farmer who formerly had his watering trough within the barn yard, piped the water to troughs which were then erected along the road; in that manner securing abatement from road tax.
There was a watering trough in Somerset on the public square which was kept within the proper law requirements by the borough street commission. All persons who had approved watering troughs received a sum of money, not exceeding $5 annually for maintaining them. It cost approximately $20 to erect a trough that met with proper approval.
In the early history of Somerset, a watering trough stood on the public square, where the Lois Ann Shop is now located. For many years it continued to be the favorite gathering place of farmers who took their horses there for watering after the noon meal of oats, fed from a bag which was slipped over the horses' heads.
(Source: “A Somerset County Historical Notebook”; Compiled from the Newspaper Columns of Mary Hause)"
Quote

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by sherrijean981

You are kidding right? If not here is an interesting article I was looking at.

http://www.pa-roots.org/data/read.php?728,532953

No, at least until the 1990's, many types of Pennsylvania municipalities, boroughs, 1st and 2nd Class Townships, had the statutory authority to erect watering troughs. It was removed from the 2nd Class Township Code sometime between 1994 and 2005. It was still in the 1st Class Township Code in 2004. I have not looked at the Borough Code since the late 1980's, but it was there as well, then.

Whispers

03-01-2008, 10:41 PM

According to JKA, she was first told about the law book by Mark Smith.

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Whispers
According to JKA, she was first told about the law book by Mark Smith. [/*]

But did he tell her it was a "law book," and she assumed it was a copy of Purdon?

gstickley

03-01-2008, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Whispers
According to JKA, she was first told about the law book by Mark Smith. [/*]

You are correct, Whisper.

(From Magnificent Manuscript of Karen Arnold)

"I have a very limited recall of specific events during the first several weeks of the investigation and the order in which they occurred, as there was a great deal going on with both my cases and the approaching primary election in mid-May, 2005. All staff as far as I can recall were present except Ray's paramour, who was off for perhaps two weeks, and ADA Sloane, who continued to be off on medical leave. I recall high anxiety levels among staff on the day of the river search, which ultimately yielded nothing. I recall suggesting to Mr. Smith that he involve other County DAs in an assessment of the situation. I can recall all of the office staff being asked to search their individual offices/work areas for Ray's laptop, because it could not be found at his house.

***** I recall Mr. Smith raising to me the matter of the statute book on his desk which is discussed in detail below. *****

I recall DA Madeira coming to the office during the first or second week and going from office to office introducing himself to and talking with individual staff members. I can recall much investigatory time being spent in Ray's office reviewing the content of his office computer. And I can recall perhaps the second week that interviews began with members of the office staff. "

J. J. in Phila

03-01-2008, 11:10 PM

Please not that JKA in her "Pitiful Pages" says Sloane talked to her about the "statute book", which she identifies as "a volume of Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes."

Apparently, it wasn't Purdon, but the soft covered County Code. That is a "statute book" as well. The question is, would that hold the page for 3-4 days?

gstickley

03-01-2008, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Please not that JKA in her "Pitiful Pages" says Sloane talked to her about the "statute book", which she identifies as "a volume of Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes."

Apparently, it wasn't Purdon, but the soft covered County Code. That is a "statute book" as well. The question is, would that hold the page for 3-4 days? [/*]

Would you please show the link to where KA said "Sloane" talked to her.

J. J. in Phila

03-02-2008, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by gstickley

Would you please show the link to where KA said "Sloane" talked to her. [/*]

Sorry, wrong ADA, it was Smith.

tonyGricar

03-02-2008, 06:18 AM

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

I recall high anxiety levels among staff on the day of the river search, which ultimately yielded nothing.
[/*]So.... she lit up everyone and anyone at some point in her manifesto, yet acknowledges that she was too personally wrapped up in the primary to even pay too much attention to the investigation? Okaaaaay...

And yet those high anxieties led to what KA described as a "seance", for which she was overly critical. Interesting. KA, you read the board. You've always had my number. I'd still love to talk to you for, what? Likely the FIRST TIME ever, even though you were, at one point, acting DA.

Let's heap praise upon her for speaking out... 2+ years later.

gstickley

03-02-2008, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by tonyGricar
So.... she lit up everyone and anyone at some point in her manifesto, yet acknowledges that she was too personally wrapped up in the primary to even pay too much attention to the investigation? Okaaaaay...

And yet those high anxieties led to what KA described as a "seance", for which she was overly critical. Interesting. KA, you read the board. You've always had my number. I'd still love to talk to you for, what? Likely the FIRST TIME ever, even though you were, at one point, acting DA.

Let's heap praise upon her for speaking out... 2+ years later. [/*]

Well, TG, at least KA did speak out. I've seen maybe 3 comments by Sloane, fellow DA & best friend, and a couple by Smith, none by the rest of the ADA's or other office staff. In fact, Sloane was never interviewed by LE, according to Sloane himself, & apparently he made no attempt to go to them. As Sloane was his best friend & met with him both on & off the job, isn't it possible he would know RG better than most? Smith also worked with RG for a long period of time, yet there was not much information coming from him either. KA at least publicly gave her version of the events surrounding RG's disappearance, which was much more than anyone else did. I'm not sure 'heaping praise upon her for speaking out' is the correct phrase, but I am glad she did speak out, even if it was 2 yrs. later. It's now 3 years later, & that's about all we have. Oh, yeah, forgot. Sloane did come out with the 'Wiley thing' recently, but still nothing from the others.

I suppose one of my reasons for being happy about KA's manuscript is that I learned more about the investigation through it than anything seen previously. I'd had the opinion for a long time that the investigation lacked something; she merely enforced my opinion, as you did when you called for it to be turned over to another agency approx. a year after RG's disappearance. I'd always wondered about the 'overturned rocks' & pats on the back and still do, BTW.

I must have missed something along the way, but I still don't see the antagonism felt for KA, when there is apparently none for the people who said nothing.

JMO

Whispers

03-02-2008, 12:33 PM

Today there is an editorial in the CDT about the Gricar case. The final sentence apparently reflects the pessimistic opinion of someone. I cannot resurrect it at the website to provide a link.

J. J. in Phila

03-02-2008, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by logicworks

I agree, GS.
No one else has offered us a full view inside the inner workings of the DA office and the 'boss' other than KA......a former ADA's version offering a 'view inside' for those of us who never met RG or had any dealings with the DA's office.

She has actually said very little of the workings of the office, and some of the information that she included were "mistakements."

She actually spent more time discussing the dynamics of this board (and being in accurate) than she did the case or the type of person, or "boss" RFG was.

Cinderella

03-03-2008, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Whispers
Today there is an editorial in the CDT about the Gricar case. The final sentence apparently reflects the pessimistic opinion of someone. I cannot resurrect it at the website to provide a link. [/*]

I tried to go back and find it and I can't. Can you tell us in your own words what was stated?

Whispers

03-03-2008, 10:25 AM

If you go to the CDT website today you will see the editorial I referenced. It is under "Opinion" (at the top). Apparently they don't include editorials until the following day??

J. J. in Phila

03-03-2008, 11:56 AM

Thank you Whispers.

I disagree, however. I firmly believe that the odds of walkaway can be either greatly raised or greatly lowered. I think we could come to a point where it might be 65% plus likely that he walked away or 65% plus likely that RFG was murdered.

Cinderella

03-04-2008, 04:04 PM

This solves one mystery, but starts another mystery. Who was in Ray's office on April 14, 2005, Thursday afternoon. JKA heard the door close so who went into Ray's office? JKA stated that when Ray was out of the office, his door was generally alway open.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/qa_forum.html?forumId=1882&mode=display&action=&type=list&pageNo=26

Q his question may have been asked before, but why did Ray Gricar play hookey on the Thursday afternoon before he disappeared, but is on camera entering the courthouse after hours on that same date? Doesn't this seem like he was planning "something"?
Anonymous 6/04/06

A don't know what it indicates. But you are right, Ray took Thursday, April 14, 2005 off during the afternoon. But security cameras found Ray entering the courthouse later that evening wearing his blue jacket, blue jeans and tennis shoes. Those are the same things he was reported to be wearing the Friday he disappeared too. As to why he took that Thursday afternoon off, that was never explained to me in detail. I'm not sure he even told Patty, other to say he was "playing hooky." I'll see what else I can find out.

Pete Bosak 6/05/06

J. J. in Phila

03-04-2008, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

After 13 hours, it popped right back to the same page, Section 1130. I'm going to retry for about 3 days.

Same book, Section 1301 this time. [/*]

After a bit over three days, the book did NOT go back to the same page.

I do not believe RFG was the one who placed the book on the desk.

Cinderella

03-04-2008, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

After a bit over three days, the book did NOT go back to the same page.

I do not believe RFG was the one who placed the book on the desk. [/*]

It would also depend on how forceful you opened the book up to that page. Did the person try to manipulate the book so that it would open there? Sometimes when you open a book far, the book binding will give some.

J. J. in Phila

03-05-2008, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Cinderella

It would also depend on how forceful you opened the book up to that page. Did the person try to manipulate the book so that it would open there? Sometimes when you open a book far, the book binding will give some. [/*]

Sure, and you could put something heavy on top of it for three hours as well, but it's a lot easier to use a bookmark. My guess is that the book was opened by someone on staff less than 3 days before Smith found it. Probably more like a day less.

Cloudbuster

03-05-2008, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

After a bit over three days, the book did NOT go back to the same page.

I do not believe RFG was the one who placed the book on the desk. [/*]

I agree with your post JJ. Why would staff place the book on his desk? Seems like someone knew well he wasn't coming back. That circle of people aren't many. Okay you got ADA's and judges. Clerical. janitor. Who else?

J. J. in Phila

03-05-2008, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

I agree with your post JJ. Why would staff place the book on his desk? Seems like someone knew well he wasn't coming back. That circle of people aren't many. Okay you got ADA's and judges. Clerical. janitor. Who else? [/*]

Anyone could have looked and forgotten. Anyone could have looked, and not wanting to seem ghoulish, not mentioned it.

Cloudbuster

03-05-2008, 03:37 AM

Seems to me that someone was overly organized and placed the book there. They seem like they knew what had to be done so they did it swiftly which kinda points to someone that didn't want any loop holes. They just wanted things to get back to normal IMHO. A organized working person within the CH? Someone who knew.
JMO

Cinderella

03-05-2008, 04:36 AM

I posted a site earlier about Mark Smith. I think he jumped the gun. He seemed like he knew that Ray wasn't coming back. I think that I posted it on odds and ends. :shrug:

Serendipitous1

03-05-2008, 11:21 AM

MOO - Yes, how goulish it was for someone to (apparently) have wanted to know (or point to) procedure in the event RG did not show up for work on Monday morning...how irresponsible. The entire county justice system should have just ground to a halt, and gone immediately into grief counseling. Good thing KA was there on Saturday though...to stress the importance of an autopsy in the event RG turned up dead. No "séance" nonsense for that girl...just by-the-book, contingency protocol planning.

Cinderella

03-05-2008, 12:16 PM

J. J. in Phila

03-05-2008, 01:06 PM

gstickley

03-05-2008, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
MOO - Yes, how goulish it was for someone to (apparently) have wanted to know (or point to) procedure in the event RG did not show up for work on Monday morning...how irresponsible. The entire county justice system should have just ground to a halt, and gone immediately into grief counseling. Good thing KA was there on Saturday though...to stress the importance of an autopsy in the event RG turned up dead. No "séance" nonsense for that girl...just by-the-book, contingency protocol planning. [/*]

RG wasn't even reported missing until 11:30 PM, Fri., 04/15.
Who would have been in DA's office, or Smith's, on Sat. or Sun., 04/16-17?

When did Smith return to "find the book"? According to reports, it was the day he returned to the office. Was that on Sun. or on Mon.?

Either way, it's pretty strange that "someone (apparently) wanted to know (or point to) procedure in the event RG did not show up for work on Monday morning" when, RG had been "officially missing" for just over 48 hrs. & wasn't due for court until Mon. AM. If Smith was in the office on Sun. or very early Mon. AM, & Smith did not leave the book himself, then somebody appeared to have known RG would not be returning & would need to be replaced. Exactly when did Smith discover 'the book"? Who had access to the office?????

Grief counseling mentioned on Mon., 04/18? Of course, maybe the "suicide" headlines would cause the grief, but it still seems mighty early to me for the "wake" and that's what it sounded like to me.

What is wrong with "by-the-book, contingency protocol planning? It's been my experience that "by-the-book, contingency protocol" had very well better be followed. Wonder why it wasn't, according to the Magnificent Manuscript? That might lead some to think RG wouldn't be returning because, in most cases, if the protocol is in place & not followed, heads will roll!

jmo

gstickley

03-05-2008, 02:19 PM

Politigal

03-05-2008, 06:34 PM

Serendipitous1

03-05-2008, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by gstickley
S1, do you have a link to exactly which book was found on Smith's desk? Not exactly. PB was going to get back to a querist about that, but never did. The recent WJAC video depicted The County Code, which is the softcover book we have recently discussed. MOO

gstickley

03-05-2008, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Not exactly. PB was going to get back to a querist about that, but never did. The recent WJAC video depicted The County Code, which is the softcover book we have recently discussed. MOO [/*]

Just checkin'. Cause in all the 3-yr. long investigation into the disappearance of Ray Gricar, this may be one of the most important things to check out, in the minds of certain posters, that is. According to KA, who was there at the time, it was Purdon's. Now, I'm not sure what Purdon's looks like, but certain posters seem to know, so I can't say for sure. But I do tend to believe KA's description; probably the only person who would know for sure would be Smith. Has he ever said? Who would he have told? If that's the case, you'd have Arnold's word against Smith's. Who would you believe & why??? But . . . if PB hasn't been able to find out, then it must not be known. (This is called moanin', not prattlin'.)

Serendipitous1

03-05-2008, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Politigal
If if was something that simple - why didn't they just admit that? All JMOO.

Why, indeed. There were 2 considerations that weekend. One was, of course, concern for a friend/colleague who had inexplicably not been heard from recently. The other was preparing for business Monday (and the days following)...legitimate contingency planning in case RG did not return. The work of the DA's office had to go on. The procedure for seating an acting DA (relative to this particular situation) had to be determined...that weekend.

Since we have not been made aware of anyone admitting to that purpose in regard to the book, the next question is, When was the book put there? PB initially reported it was found "the day after Gricar vanished", which would have been Saturday. But then a few days later, in the Q&A, he said it was found the "following work day"...and again later, "on Monday".

In her googlepages, KA related that DA staff met with a county official on Monday. I can well imagine the official was a commissioner, perhaps Exarchos the chairman. So, was the book discovered before or after that meeting? Was the book discovered on Monday, or Sunday...or Saturday?

KA also went through a long discussion about 'the book'...from initially considering the possibility it had been put there by RG, to dismissing it. But was it a volume of Purdons or a copy of The County Code? It makes a difference. In any event, without an alternative explanation, and in light of recent revelations and suggestions, dismissing it altogether seems illogical...that its purpose, and by whom offered, is still a mystery within the main mystery.

gstickley - in rereading KA's discussion about the book, it seems she made several assumptions. And, while I am not a lawyer, I do not see how the particular section she referenced applied to this situation. But it does make a difference whether the book was Purdons or the softcover County Code, because the latter is much more user-friendly.

J. J. in Phila

03-05-2008, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by gstickley

Just checkin'. Cause in all the 3-yr. long investigation into the disappearance of Ray Gricar, this may be one of the most important things to check out, in the minds of certain posters, that is. According to KA, who was there at the time, it was Purdon's. Now, I'm not sure what Purdon's looks like, but certain posters seem to know, so I can't say for sure. But I do tend to believe KA's description; probably the only person who would know for sure would be Smith. Has he ever said? Who would he have told? If that's the case, you'd have Arnold's word against Smith's. Who would you believe & why??? But . . . if PB hasn't been able to find out, then it must not be known. (This is called moanin', not prattlin'.) [/*]

JKA, according to Google pages, didn't see it. She says Smith asked her about it.

I frankly do not see it being connected. Smith himself could have checked and forgotten. My hard covers don't behave like that either, and Purdon is a hard cover.

Serendipitous1

03-05-2008, 10:09 PM

Laws of Pennsylvania; Purdon's Pennsylvania Legislative Service; Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (Official); Purdon's Statutes (full title: Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated). "Purdon's Statutes is an unofficial, annotated compilation of the Pennsylvania constitution, statutes, and state court rules compiled by a private commercial publisher, West Group. The current edition is the 14th edition, begun in 1930, kept up to date by revised volumes, annual pocket parts, and recompiled volumes."
http://www.pennsylvanialegalresearch.com/docs/palaws.html

MOO - In my experience, Purdon's is like a set of hardcover encyclopedias...covering all state laws, etc. (see above), and virtually obsolete the moment an edition is published, hence the annual supplements (pocket parts). But unlike encyclopedias, it is not particularly user-friendly to non-lawyer types. As I understand it, the softcover County Code is a user-friendly compilation (in a single volume) of laws applicable to county government...widely distributed to county officials (which would include DAs). What that means in this case (if it was, in fact, the book found) is for anyone to consider.

Cinderella

03-05-2008, 10:24 PM

You just got me thinking about Barebrick's post where he said that someone checked out a book from I forget where and it was never returned.

I will have to get Cloudbuster to tell me what is printed out on barebrick and repost it.

gstickley

03-05-2008, 10:33 PM

IMO, the only reason "the book" is so important on the board at this particular time is that it is only being used to try & "trash" KA. According to her manuscript, she must have been told or led to believe it was Purdons; I can't imagine why she or anyone else would have picked that particular book out of thin air. What book did Smith actually report that he found to LE? Did WJAC have the wrong book? Do you really think there was an actual book?

Cloudbuster

03-05-2008, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Cinderella
You just got me thinking about Barebrick's post where he said that someone checked out a book from I forget where and it was never returned.

I will have to get Cloudbuster to tell me what is printed out on barebrick and repost it. [/*]

Cind I just looked for an hour and no avail yet. I have two huge piles to go thru. I found 3 things i think Rickard don't have of interest. Can't put on the board is toooo much. I think we are not allowed anyway. One article in CDT Dated April 18,2005 titled Co-worker hopeful district attorney will return to office. By Erin Nissley
First district attorney is still holding out hope that his boss will show up for work THIS MORNING.

SO that means MS returned for work April 18th 2005 Thats a MONDAY.

Barebrick I recall him talking about a Frank Geyer a dective from Phila. A book missing out of a Library in Washington?

Serendipitous1

03-05-2008, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by gstickley IMO, the only reason "the book" is so important on the board at this particular time is that it is only being used to try & "trash" KA. According to her manuscript, she must have been told or led to believe it was Purdons; I can't imagine why she or anyone else would have picked that particular book out of thin air. What book did Smith actually report that he found to LE? Did WJAC have the wrong book? Do you really think there was an actual book? MOO - I have no answers to your questions. To me the book is important only because no one has come forward to explain its presence. At several points in her googlepages, KA admitted to having considered the possibility of an intentional disappearance...then in each instance gave her reasons for rejecting that theory. If she had just stopped there, that would have been great...her somewhat 'informed' opinion (albeit based on certain assumptions).

But she did not stop there. She really 'trashed' her effort with the message-board stuff. Her insinuation(s), regarding me in particular, were 100% false...pure fantasy. And there is no question in my mind about her own message-board presence. It is really difficult for me to ignore all of that, to be able to glean anything reliable/useful from her diatribe. And I am apparently not alone...as no one from LE, the family or the media has done anything more than note its existence.

Politigal

03-05-2008, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

Cind I just looked for an hour and no avail yet. I have two huge piles to go thru. I found 3 things i think Rickard don't have of interest. Can't put on the board is toooo much. I think we are not allowed anyway. One article in CDT Dated April 18,2005 titled Co-worker hopeful district attorney will return to office. By Erin Nissley
First district attorney is still holding out hope that his boss will show up for work THIS MORNING.

SO that means MS returned for work April 18th 2005 Thats a MONDAY.

Barebrick I recall him talking about a Frank Geyer a dective from Phila. A book missing out of a Library in Washington? [/*]

here's your older post

Cloudbuster
Member

Registered: Feb 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 981
To TOTG
I started finding barebricks posts and sorry so late but here is some. More to come as i find the rest.

Poll:

MOONLIGHTING IN PHILADELPHIA: Frank P. Geyer

.Ever hear of Frank Geyer, Philadelphia, PA?
.Do you know what state he is orginally from?
.Could he have traveled to Whitechapel, UK?
.Could he have traveled to Chicago, IL?

barebrick
Thread: Philly Detective Frank P. Geyer

posted: Frank's book is missing, too. Not from PA but from DC. It is supposed to be shelved at the Library Of Congress, but it is not. I tried to check it out by mail through interlibrary loan but was told that his book was stolen & no longer available. Hmm. Does this explain anything. 6-24-2006

Barebrick Bread Crumblet

Posted: Refer to hexagram 53, line 3, of the I Ching, preferrably the Legge version, for another bread crumblet.

Although I do not know too many DAS, two possible reasons why he met with foul play is either he was not a strong enough prosecutor & and was killed in the line of duty, or that the client with the likes of which Tyler Christopher & Ingo Rademacher resemble killed this particular individual. In my particular book the card of Gricar fell either on the defense, or the offense, side because the killer felt the DA was not being totally honest with him at the meeting.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

09-15-2007 05:23 AM

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 12:26 AM

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

Barebrick I recall him talking about a Frank Geyer a dective from Phila. A book missing out of a Library in Washington? [/*]

If you are interested, you can get a PDF of the book from here:

http://hhholmesthefilm.com/order.html

gstickley

03-06-2008, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
MOO - I have no answers to your questions. To me the book is important only because no one has come forward to explain its presence. At several points in her googlepages, KA admitted to having considered the possibility of an intentional disappearance...then in each instance gave her reasons for rejecting that theory. If she had just stopped there, that would have been great...her somewhat 'informed' opinion (albeit based on certain assumptions).

But she did not stop there. She really 'trashed' her effort with the message-board stuff. Her insinuation(s), regarding me in particular, were 100% false...pure fantasy. And there is no question in my mind about her own message-board presence. It is really difficult for me to ignore all of that, to be able to glean anything reliable/useful from her diatribe. And I am apparently not alone...as no one from LE, the family or the media has done anything more than note its existence. [/*]

Well, S1, I gained quite a bit of information from KA. I'd already formed my own opinions prior to her manuscript; suprisingly, she enforced them. Her respect for RG was obvious to me; I could identify with her respect from my own experiences. Her insights into the investigation, like the break from the established protocol, and her opinions helped me see what occurred just before & after RG's disappearance. I had/have no reason to disbelieve anything she said. I don't know very much at all about the PE/Lustor controversy, because it was mostly gone when I arrived; I was mainly reading the posts, not keeping track of posters anyway. I've tried to read all the threads, from the beginning until the present, as well as every media account I can find, but none of them have given me as much information as KA did.

I don't know why she mentioned the posters. But, even that section had much information in it.

I just don't understand the reason why KA must be "trashed" by certain posters, unless they are willing to come forth with information gained from "being there" at the time of the disappearance. I also don't understand why portions of her manuscript are distorted time & time again; her writing is there in black & white, so why the distortion? Why was she spoken of in a derogatory manner prior to her manuscript? Is someone afraid she may know something & she must be destroyed? Frankly, it sounds like several might be a bit afraid of her. KA is only one person; where is your anger/vehemence against LE, the people who ought to be responsible for finding out what happened to Ray Gricar? Why nothing from Smith, Sloane, or anyone else who might have information? Why was KA the only one with guts enough to even speak out?

As far as you having no doubt in your mind about KA's message board presence, I believe you were involved in the insinuations that I might be KA. As I've said many times before, if you're so wrong about that, what else may you also be wrong about???

Serendipitous1

03-06-2008, 12:57 AM

I concede that I am not 'amazing'...in any respect of the word...if that helps any.

sherrijean981

03-06-2008, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by gstickley

Just checkin'. Cause in all the 3-yr. long investigation into the disappearance of Ray Gricar, this may be one of the most important things to check out, in the minds of certain posters, that is. According to KA, who was there at the time, it was Purdon's. Now, I'm not sure what Purdon's looks like, but certain posters seem to know, so I can't say for sure. But I do tend to believe KA's description; probably the only person who would know for sure would be Smith. Has he ever said? Who would he have told? If that's the case, you'd have Arnold's word against Smith's. Who would you believe & why??? But . . . if PB hasn't been able to find out, then it must not be known. (This is called moanin', not prattlin'.) [/*]

GS, here is a link with video footage, that WJACTV News had on about the book "20/20 Vsion" and they have a copy of a book on county codes. The man doing the Bellefonte story was at the CCCH so he must have received a copy of the book there. Also DA Madeira is on the video. Very interesting.

http://www.wjactv.com/news/15415783/detail.html

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by gstickley

Well, S1, I gained quite a bit of information from KA.

In all seriousness, the only thing I gained from her Google pages was the reference to Mel Wiley. It sparked several questions, some of which have been answered.

I just don't understand the reason why KA must be "trashed" by certain posters, unless they are willing to come forth with information gained from "being there" at the time of the disappearance.

I actually feel that there been very little "trashing," though there has been some legitimate criticism, especially over her references to the online discussion. Do I feel that J. J. should have appeared more than RFG? Unless she thinks were are one and the same, no.

I also don't understand why portions of her manuscript are distorted time & time again; her writing is there in black & white, so why the distortion?

I've seen virtually none "distorted" here. Quoted yes, but not distorted.

Why was she spoken of in a derogatory manner prior to her manuscript?

I think I've heard one poster make even a slightly derogatory remark, BillyWahoo. I believe I've actually said that I doubt that she could be involved in a murder of RFG. I have seen some commentary of her "mudslinging" during the election, but not on this site. They were on the State College board.

As far as you having no doubt in your mind about KA's message board presence, I believe you were involved in the insinuations that I might be KA. As I've said many times before, if you're so wrong about that, what else may you also be wrong about??? [/*]

You might be JKA.

I have noticed a writing style similarity between Lustor and PE while Lustor was a member; I noted writing style similarity betwen the author of JKA's piece and Lustor before I confirmed it was JKA, and posted it here. I also noticed a subject similarity between Lustor's interest in Wiley and JKA's interest in Wiley (IIRC, she mentions it in the introduction).

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I concede that I am not 'amazing'...in any respect of the word...if that helps any. [/*]

S1, you are amazing. :)

gstickley

03-06-2008, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

In all seriousness, the only thing I gained from her Google pages was the reference to Mel Wiley. It sparked several questions, some of which have been answered.

I actually feel that there been very little "trashing," though there has been some legitimate criticism, especially over her references to the online discussion. Do I feel that J. J. should have appeared more than RFG? Unless she thinks were are one and the same, no.

I've seen virtually none "distorted" here. Quoted yes, but not distorted.

I think I've heard one poster make even a slightly derogatory remark, BillyWahoo. I believe I've actually said that I doubt that she could be involved in a murder of RFG. I have seen some commentary of her "mudslinging" during the election, but not on this site. They were on the State College board.

You might be JKA.

I have noticed a writing style similarity between Lustor and PE while Lustor was a member; I noted writing style similarity betwen the author of JKA's piece and Lustor before I confirmed it was JKA, and posted it here. I also noticed a subject similarity between Lustor's interest in Wiley and JKA's interest in Wiley (IIRC, she mentions it in the introduction). [/*]

You're so full of it!!!

Yeah, I might be JKA. I also might be Queen Elizabeth. I might be Nancy Reagan. I might be the Good Witch of the East, or whichever direction. The sky is the limit as to whom I might be. So you just keep on with your little insinuations/accusations. If anyone believes you, they're as foolish as you are. Your apparent "expertise" in "noting writing style similarity" is quite hilarious. (Please, Mr. Expert, compare my "writing style" to see if it is similar to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Jane Austin, Nora Roberts, Danielle Steele . . .)

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by gstickley

You're so full of it!!!

Yeah, I might be JKA. I also might be Queen Elizabeth. I might be Nancy Reagan. I might be the Good Witch of the East, or whichever direction. The sky is the limit as to whom I might be. So you just keep on with your little insinuations/accusations. If anyone believes you, they're as foolish as you are. Your apparent "expertise" in "noting writing style similarity" is quite hilarious. (Please, Mr. Expert, compare my "writing style" to see if it is similar to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Jane Austin, Nora Roberts, Danielle Steele . . .) [/*]

Perhaps Shakespeare, as in, "Methinks thou dost protest too much." :)

Actually, most of that I posted at the time, 7/12/07, IIRC. And notice I didn't say "writing styles" alone; I also said "subject similarity," which has been shown.

Want to try again, or do plan to twist and turn some more?

sherrijean981

03-06-2008, 02:10 AM

I received a copy of "20/20 Vision" by Pamela West on Monday and have been reading it off and on. I found other things of interests in the book.

1. Man who fakes his death, has Ray-Ban Sunglasses(RG's missing)

2. Has a vintage BMW with the name "Lady", (RG had Mini Cooper)

3. A geriatric African Grey parrot (RG had Honey)

4. A collection of old photographs (RG collected camera's and like to take photo's)

4. Had a collection of toys (GI Joes, Incredible Hulks and Cooties) saved by his mother, that was still boxed. (RG was supposed to collect toy cars? am I correct on that one?)

5. On 4/14 the man wanted to get his house in order, did his IRS statement, checked the balance in his account by phone.

6. 4/14/ he took purple irises and lilacs to the cemetery of the girl killed (in story it was in 1995, not 1969) (Yellow daffodils found at old railroad bridge in Lewisburg).

7. 4/14 he came back to office near quitting time, took the Chain-Of-Custody record from the file (he had the Kennedy half-dollar from the case) but did not return it at that time, wanted to keep it longer

In RG's case a book was put on a desk and book opened to page that had to do with "Chain of Command", who would be in charge in case the DA was not there, absent or missing.

Many questions, many things of interest in the book, many things that have to do with the original case but seeing things that have happened in this case too. What were RG's thoughts on this book?

I still have a lot to read. :read:

Cloudbuster

03-06-2008, 02:11 AM

JJ. gstickley is not JKA.

ParlorElephant 06-05-2006 posted:
Think PF did say she called him many times after she got home after 5PM on 4/15 and found he had not returned. But she did NOT say that she called him from the office. She did not say that she called his cell at any time before 5 PM on 4/15/05.
And no one else is coming forward to say they called his cell that day AT ALL.

PE thinks one asks himself, then why would Gricar be in the courthouse parking lot at 3PM on 4/15/05 (per Fenton)? No indication he came inside the office. No indication there was a court proceeding scheduled for him that day. No indication he was acting surrepitiously. No indication that anyone was with him. So why is he there?

Does someone-PF, someone else-ask him to stop by the courthouse parking lot at 3 PM to do a quick pickup or dropoff. Meet you outside in 10 minutes? Maybe keys to the house if things were reaching a 'need my own space' point. There are many possibilities, but they-like an increasing number of 'fine points' of the investagation- seem rather tied to the cellphone questions-which in turn makes the continued stonewalling on answers stinkier by the day. MOO

Cloudbuster

03-06-2008, 02:41 AM

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?postid=8110152&%20highlight=home+office+and+parlorelephant

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
JJ. gstickley is not JKA.

She might be.

ParlorElephant 06-05-2006 posted:
Think PF did say she called him many times after she got home after 5PM on 4/15 and found he had not returned. But she did NOT say that she called him from the office. She did not say that she called his cell at any time before 5 PM on 4/15/05.
And no one else is coming forward to say they called his cell that day AT ALL

Nobody calls him on his day off; PEF gets the phone call and doesn't expect to see him until he gets home from work.

PE thinks one asks himself, then why would Gricar be in the courthouse parking lot at 3PM on 4/15/05 (per Fenton)? No indication he was acting surreptitiously [spelling corrected]. So why is he there?

There is an indication that he was there surreptitiously . if it was him. He didn't go into the office and he avoided the cameras.

Does someone-PF, someone else-ask him to stop by the courthouse parking lot at 3 PM to do a quick pickup or dropoff. Meet you outside in 10 minutes? Maybe keys to the house if things were reaching a 'need my own space' point.

The Mini, PEF's car, was in Lewisburg. Why drop off the keys in Bellefonte to a car more than 50 miles away. If there is a problem at home, and he's leaving, why aren't his things packed?

There are many possibilities, but they-like an increasing number of 'fine points' of the investagation- seem rather tied to the cellphone questions-which in turn makes the continued stonewalling on answers stinkier by the day. MOO [/*]

If walk away:

1. To return home, to get something but make sure PEF wasn't home.

2. To say a final goodbye to PEF, but was spotted by Fenton.

The very first question should be, why is RFG in another car.

Cloudbuster

03-06-2008, 03:35 AM

JJ posted
If walk away:

1. To return home, to get something but make sure PEF wasn't home.

2. To say a final goodbye to PEF, but was spotted by Fenton.

The very first question should be, why is RFG in another car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) PEF said nothing was missing from the home?

2.) Why worry about Fenton if the intent was to really say good bye to PF?

Why hide from Fenton if your not going to also hide from PF? JJ is not a walk away.
JMHO

Cinderella

03-06-2008, 04:19 AM

I thought that we were all adults. What does it matter who is who? We are here to find out what happened to RG nothing else.
Yes there was a discrimination against JKA. It began early when TG came on. PF's displayed her dislike for JKA. Everybody follows PF and what she thinks.

Why do we keep discussing the writings of JKA anyway. Unless there is information contained in it that would help us to solve this case.

Why has it became a battle within this board. I am on one side and you are on another side. It is getting sickening. I have not been on the board much because of all the accusations and conflicts over JKA and her writings and Mel Wiley. I am sick and tired of hearing about both. This is not getting us anywhere.

People should keep their mouths shut even if they think that they know who is posting. We are not allowed to go there. No one should have to defend themselves as to who they are. We are not here for that.

This whole board has been sidetracked. Either it is accusing Pete Bosak, I love the fact that he has kept a site on CDT for Ray. He doesn't have to do it. You may not like him, but he is doing the best that he can do. I would say that Rickard is also doing that. I find fault with Shawn Weaver. Lets get off the petty BS and fighting. Lets put our energy into finding out and demanding what happened to Ray. I know that the family and PF don't like me. I have thought about throwing the towel in, but I am staying for Ray and no one else. hammer

Cinderella

03-06-2008, 04:22 AM

Pgal,

Thanks for posting some of the barebrick material. There is more than that though.

I do find it interesting that he refers to someone that didn't like how a question was answered. I reminds me of the Prison Board Meeting. Steve Dershem was upset after the meeting. Then later he acts like he expected Ray to say that because it wasn't in Ray's area.

I hope that CB finds it so the rest can be printed. I don't know if it will help or not but anything is worth a try.

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
JJ posted

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) PEF said nothing was missing from the home?

2.) Why worry about Fenton if the intent was to really say good bye to PF?

Why hide from Fenton if your not going to also hide from PF? JJ is not a walk away.
JMHO [/*]

Nothing PEF knew about was missing. If this was a walkaway, RFG might have had cash. Because of the amount, he might not have wanted to take it all with him to Lewisburg.

Fenton would establish he was there. Some other contact with PEF would not.

puzzled

03-06-2008, 10:15 PM

I wonder if Ray was in the different car and cruising through the courthouse parking lot to make sure Patty's car was there? Maybe once he did that he could then go into the house and pick up the laptop and know that she was at work at the time. I have often felt that Barebricks posts were so creepy/telling. He said that someone felt that Ray was not telling the truth at the meeting or something to that effect. Could he have meant at the prison board meeting? Is there anyone that has barebricks posts and can bring them to the board so we can review them once again? Tony do you have them? Do you put any stock in the things that Barebrick hinted at? :shrug:

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by puzzled
I wonder if Ray was in the different car and cruising through the courthouse parking lot to make sure Patty's car was there?

It's a possibility. Now, where is the evidence that he got another car?

puzzled

03-06-2008, 11:26 PM

JJ there may not be any evidence that he " got " another car. Perhaps he borrowed one who knows? I have always felt that when they found that stolen vehicle in Lewisburg they should have looked very deeply forensically speaking. Could be a coincidence or it could have been connected. Perhaps we should start a website asking people to contribute towards a reward for information? I am tired of just talk....we need action jackson!:punch:

J. J. in Phila

03-06-2008, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by puzzled
JJ there may not be any evidence that he " got " another car. Perhaps he borrowed one who knows? I have always felt that when they found that stolen vehicle in Lewisburg they should have looked very deeply forensically speaking. Could be a coincidence or it could have been connected. Perhaps we should start a website asking people to contribute towards a reward for information? I am tired of just talk....we need action jackson!:punch: [/*]

No car was stolen within the time frame. If he borrowed it, from who, and how did it get to Lewisburg?

Serendipitous1

03-07-2008, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
No car was stolen within the time frame. If he borrowed it, from who, and how did it get to Lewisburg? From a post here...apparently taken from a CDT article on 4/20/05: "Bellefonte police, the lead investigators, said they also were checking into circumstances surrounding the theft of a vehicle Sunday from Bison Motors Inc., eight to 10 blocks from the mall on U.S. Route 15, though Thal called any connection 'a little far-fetched'. Joe Murphy, Bison Motors general manager, said the 1995 Jeep Wrangler that was stolen was the only theft he was aware of in his four years there. Police interviewed him Tuesday."

ladyheartfixer

03-07-2008, 02:36 AM

did you find out if this vehicle was ever recovered? and if so....where?

J. J. in Phila

03-07-2008, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by ladyheartfixer
did you find out if this vehicle was ever recovered? and if so....where? [/*]

It was recovered near a diver-in, IIRC, along Route 11.

Not it was stolen the day after the Mini was found, on 4/16.

Politigal

03-10-2008, 07:29 PM

PB's update....

http://www.realcities.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/qa_forum.html?forumId=1882&mode=display&action=&type=list&pageNo=1

I agree- PF should be Re- polygraphed, along with others being poly'd for the first time.

Hope Rickard will do this.

Edited to add...

and I still contend that some female investigators should be doing some questioning...

J. J. in Phila

03-10-2008, 10:05 PM

I think PB is absolutely correct on this point:
"...if you eliminate one theory, you narrow your focus on whatever is left. "

day2day

03-10-2008, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Politigal
PB's update....

http://www.realcities.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/qa_forum.html?forumId=1882&mode=display&action=&type=list&pageNo=1

I agree- PF should be Re- polygraphed, along with others being poly'd for the first time.

Hope Rickard will do this.

Edited to add...

and I still contend that some female investigators should be doing some questioning... [/*]

Yea yea yea SHE passed a poly..i would LOVE to know what questions she was asked during the first poly....

Three years is a long time for a daughter to wait for the TRUTH about what happened to her DAD!...I for one am sick of this..I want LG to have the answers she deserves..

And yes ..i believe PF should be re-poly'd...several times if need be-seeing THIS whole story revolves around her.

jmo and all

J. J. in Phila

03-10-2008, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by day2day

Yea yea yea SHE passed a poly..i would LOVE to know what questions she was asked during the first poly....

TG posted a long time ago that it included the phone call.

sherrijean981

03-10-2008, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by day2day

seeing THIS whole story revolves around her.
jmo and all [/*]

Only here!

J. J. in Phila

03-11-2008, 12:30 AM

sherrijean981
Senior Member

Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Milroy, PA
Posts: 2475

quote:Originally posted by day2day

seeing THIS whole story revolves around her.
jmo and all [/*]

Only here!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Old Post 03-10-2008 10:51 PM

Agreed.

It's interesting. I took a look at the early posts and he had some posters saying basically **PEF should be polygraphed.** One of those posters was Day2Day.

Serendipitous1

03-11-2008, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Politigal <Snip>
I agree- PF should be Re- polygraphed, along with others being poly'd for the first time. Hope Rickard will do this.

Edited to add...and I still contend that some female investigators should be doing some questioning... I suppose water boarding is out of the question. . . . :rolleyes:

day2day

03-11-2008, 12:46 AM

Darn right -JJ. I have said that almost from day1. Has nothin to do with if i like pf or not -it is just common sense. Her house-her car- her call-even she thinks she is the mw.. and THAT bothers me alot. Seeing as Mr. Gricar donated MUCH time and LOTS of money to abused women- it only seems "logical" that would have been her first response? NOT ...it was ME ..or oh NO he has ran off with another woman...!!

And you are wrong- it is NOT just here that people are sceptical of PF.."we" are everwhere!! :seeya:

day2day

03-11-2008, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I suppose water boarding is out of the question. . . . :rolleyes: [/*]

Hmm...now that you mention it!!! :chicken: J/K
:tongue:

J. J. in Phila

03-11-2008, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by day2day

Darn right -JJ. I have said that almost from day1. Has nothin to do with if i like pf or not -it is just common sense. Her house-her car- her call-even she thinks she is the mw.. and THAT bothers me alot. Seeing as Mr. Gricar donated MUCH time and LOTS of money to abused women- it only seems "logical" that would have been her first response? NOT ...it was ME ..or oh NO he has ran off with another woman...!!

And you are wrong- it is NOT just here that people are sceptical of PF.."we" are everwhere!! :seeya: [/*]

Day, I've said several times that I thought your questions were very appropriate in April and May of 2005; it is now March 2007. They have been answered; move on.

day2day

03-11-2008, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

Day, I've said several times that I thought your questions were very appropriate in April and May of 2005; it is now March 2007. They have been answered; move on. [/*]

No they haven't been answered. And no I will not move on until the TRUTH has been told. Afterall this is a forum where EVERYTHING can and will be discussed. Sorry if it bothers ya.

And IMO others very close to Mr.Gricar should be poly'd also. LE should NOT stop until they find the truth-it is out there..i know it is!

J. J. in Phila

03-11-2008, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by day2day

No they haven't been answered. And no I will not move on until the TRUTH has been told. Afterall this is a forum where EVERYTHING can and will be discussed. Sorry if it bothers ya.

Which question don't you think has be answered?

What bothers me is your obsession with PEF. What you initially said you wanted done, has been done.

And IMO others very close to Mr.Gricar should be poly'd also. LE should NOT stop until they find the truth-it is out there..i know it is! [/*]

I'm 100% in favor of looking at that "Inner Circle," but the very first step should be to see if RFG (possibly under an alias) purchased a car. Eliminate that first, and the move on.

gstickley

03-11-2008, 07:25 AM

You'd think the matter of RG purchasing a car could/should have been answered in the 3 years since he disappeared. I feel certain that the FBI, the PSP, the PA DMV, would have the resources to obtain this information. Of course, you have to request they look.

Apparently, they just aren't listening to you, JJ. And, since 'no stone has been left unturned', 'everything has been done that could be done', 'you did a good job, Brownie', it must not be important that the question be answered. Of course, it may be like the mystery woman & mystery car: they may be holding it close to the vest, partly due to the sensitivity of the information & because of the feelings of the 'family'.

J. J. in Phila

03-11-2008, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by gstickley
You'd think the matter of RG purchasing a car could/should have been answered in the 3 years since he disappeared. I feel certain that the FBI, the PSP, the PA DMV, would have the resources to obtain this information. Of course, you have to request they look.

Absolutely, and the did check to see if another vehicle was registered in RFG names, at the time of the disappearance. As far as I can tell, they didn't check 2 months after that, when a new registration was processed.

Likewise, they didn't, so far as I can tell, consider a purchase under an alias, or a straw purchase.

I am somewhat hopeful they will check.