No Identifiable Prints Found In The Mini

[Politigal]

QPete. I am tired of not knowing how many finger prints or sets of finger prints where found in the Mini. I would like to know how many there were in the Mini and if any were found on the outside of the car. Where they all Ray's? Where there any of PF's. I know that they found Ray's DNA on the water bottle but where any of his finger prints found on the water bottle. This has been very mixed up from the beginning. Wanting to know the truth. Don't just tell me what you think, I want the truth. Where there someone else's prints on or in the car also?
Cinderella 2/11/08


AHi Cind, Thanks for your question and your patience as I waited for the answer from Bellefonte police. I talked with Detective Matt Rickard today and I learned what had been said by the prior investigator on the case was not entirely accurate. And I must admit, I'm a bit surprised by these results. There were three prints lifted from Ray's Mini Cooper, not five as the last investigator had said. What he may have meant was there were five total prints sent for analysis, but two of those prints were duplicates. So there were only three prints lifted from the car, and only one of them definitively belonged to Ray Gricar, Rickard said. That print was found on the exterior window of the driver's side door, and it was identified as being left by Gricar's left middle finger. Two other prints were lifted, one from the exterior door handle on the driver's side and the second from a water bottle found inside the Mini. But they did not have enough ridge characteristics be be identified, the lab report indicated. So there were no identifiable prints found inside the Mini Cooper. What prints were there were not good enough in quality to be matched to anyone.
Pete Bosak 2/11/08 [/*]

Thought I would start a thread on this since it's been a hot topic on the board for months & months.

Finally - we know.

We also know that both Ray Gricar and Patty Fornicola drove that car before the disappearance.

[Politigal]

Where or where is Undertheradar when you need her....:)

[Politigal]

No prints on the inside door handle, the gear shifter, the steering wheel, the seat belt buckle, the inside passenger door handle, etc......"all the usual places" - NONE

[tonyGricar]

We're still in the digestion stage on this one, so I'll be refraining from comment.

To save you all some time, these are the 3 on-the-record comments that I could find re: the print "identification". Consume as you will...

----

Dixon also revealed three of five sets of fingerprints found on Gricar's car belong to the missing prosecutor, while the other two sets haven't been identified.

----

CALLER: My question is for the chief. What I would like to know is: Once they found his vehicle, were there any fingerprints or anything of that nature? And also, to his nephew: Has he ever had any type of symptoms of the bipolar?

LARRY KING: Chief?

CHIEF DIXON: The vehicle was processed by the Pennsylvania state police on scene and at their station. They did find five fingerprints. The only couple that was able to be identified, certainly belonged to Ray himself.

----

"All of the legible prints in the car were identified," Zaccagni said. "And they were Ray's."

There were no indications anyone tried to "wipe the car clean" of any other fingerprints, Zaccagni said.

[Politigal]

So Tony - this fingerprint news -- was news to you too?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
So Tony - this fingerprint news -- was news to you too? [/*]

News to me.

OK, why did both Dixon and Zaccagni both claim that there were five prints belonging to RFG?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


News to me.

OK, why did both Dixon and Zaccagni both claim that there were five prints belonging to RFG? [/*]

Probably because there were only 5 prints sent to the lab - 2 were duplicates - only 1 was actually belonging to RG and 2 were not identifiable.

They were just simply wrong.

Here's another quote from Dixon

Five fingerprints found in or on the Mini Cooper have been sent to the state police crime lab in Harrisburg and will be compared with Fornicola's and Gricar's prints, Dixon said

And here's what writer Bill Keisling wrote:

Chief Dixon said no stranger's finger prints had turned up on the car. Gricar's vehicle was stunningly sterile of clues...

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Politigal
So Tony - this fingerprint news -- was news to you too? [/*]It was "news" in that I didn't learn about it until recently. I am somewhat surprised to see it show up in the Q&A. I think Pete threw a bone to his internet critics... ;)

I've mentioned it before I'm sure, but I would be a bit cautious on fingerprints showing up "in the usual places". The changes in interior textures has been pretty substantial, which is why I was never surprised to know that "only" between 3 and 5 prints were found. That was my own thought and not one offered by LE. Now, if the 3 legible prints weren't his, and only one on the outside was, clearly that gives me... uh..."pause".

I'll let you get back to "feverishly" hitting the refresh button... :D

[Politigal]

Well....uh....it really *should* give you ....pause. ;)

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
It was "news" in that I didn't learn about it until recently. I am somewhat surprised to see it show up in the Q&A. I think Pete threw a bone to his internet critics... ;)

I've mentioned it before I'm sure, but I would be a bit cautious on fingerprints showing up "in the usual places". The changes in interior textures has been pretty substantial, which is why I was never surprised to know that "only" between 3 and 5 prints were found. That was my own thought and not one offered by LE. Now, if the 3 legible prints weren't his, and only one on the outside was, clearly that gives me... uh..."pause".

I'll let you get back to "feverishly" hitting the refresh button... :D [/*]

So, if you learned about the prints recently -- why didn't you share that on the board, and continue to let JJ make a fool of himself?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


So, if you learned about the prints recently -- why didn't you share that on the board, and continue to let JJ make a fool of himself? [/*]

I don't think you have any idea how recently "recently" was.

However, for me the real question is why did Dixon and Zaccagni say there was.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I don't think you have any idea how recently "recently" was.

However, for me the real question is why did Dixon and Zaccagni say there was. [/*]

As Bosak stated per Rickard -- the previous investigator was "inaccurate."

And JJ, I think a lot of it depends on which newspaper one might be reading. The quote I posted above was from the CDT and Dixon said 5 prints were sent to the lab (not 5 sets.) He just failed to mention that 2 of them were duplicates.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
It was "news" in that I didn't learn about it until recently. I am somewhat surprised to see it show up in the Q&A. I think Pete threw a bone to his internet critics... ;)

snipped[/*]

At least Bosak is trying. Too bad Ray Gricar's family & friends can't offer up more....

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Politigal


At least Bosak is trying. Too bad Ray Gricar's family & friends can't offer up more.... [/*]Whoa...

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Whoa... [/*]

Well shucks Tony - it's true.

It's like pulling teeth to get answers to questions around here. And when I tried to organize your answers on the board for reference, you complained & didn't want to stand by them, and the thread got deleted.

[gstickley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Politigal


(snip)
AHi Cind, Thanks for your question and your patience as I waited for the answer from Bellefonte police. I talked with Detective Matt Rickard today and I learned what had been said by the prior investigator on the case was not entirely accurate. And I must admit, I'm a bit surprised by these results. There were three prints lifted from Ray's Mini Cooper, not five as the last investigator had said. What he may have meant was there were five total prints sent for analysis, but two of those prints were duplicates. So there were only three prints lifted from the car, and only one of them definitively belonged to Ray Gricar, Rickard said. That print was found on the exterior window of the driver's side door, and it was identified as being left by Gricar's left middle finger. Two other prints were lifted, one from the exterior door handle on the driver's side and the second from a water bottle found inside the Mini. But they did not have enough ridge characteristics be be identified, the lab report indicated. So there were no identifiable prints found inside the Mini Cooper. What prints were there were not good enough in quality to be matched to anyone.
Pete Bosak 2/11/08 [/*]

(snip)


Did I see correctly ***five (5) prints*** lifted from the car??
NOT five (5) sets of prints???
Just ***five (5) prints***???


:biggrin:

[Politigal]

Originally posted by gstickley

Did I see correctly ***five (5) prints*** lifted from the car??
NOT five (5) sets of prints???
Just ***five (5) prints***???


:biggrin: [/*]


Yep, high anxiety round these parts today... :tongue:

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Politigal
And when I tried to organize your answers on the board for reference, you complained & didn't want to stand by them, and the thread got deleted. [/*] Interesting revisionist history on that one... I've never wanted to begin a post with "Eff" as much as I do right now. Only a few people come to mind on threads getting deleted here, and they were all "self-inflicted" as you well should know.

To clarify, since apparently I need to spell it out, I wasn't calling out Bosak. I was simply saying that, even though most everyone here has bashed him, he still threw "you all" a major piece instead of stuffing it into an article.

Btw, when I've said imagine being in our place before you shoot off at the mouth with absurdities, try to imagine the emotions one goes through on something like this fingerprint issue. Reconciling ourselves to a scenario, for peace of mind, is made impossible based on something like this. Christ...

(gstick, the 3-5 prints was never in "sets" in our eyes, but was individual prints. I thought that was widely known here.)

[Politigal]

I didn't get your thread deleted where I organized your answers.

Don't you recall the email you sent complaining about it??

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


As Bosak stated per Rickard -- the previous investigator was "inaccurate."

And JJ, I think a lot of it depends on which newspaper one might be reading. The quote I posted above was from the CDT and Dixon said 5 prints were sent to the lab (not 5 sets.) He just failed to mention that 2 of them were duplicates. [/*]

We have them saying five sets, as UTR quoted (accurately).

Why did DZ and Dixon say five sets of prints and five prints which belonged to RFG? I have a very hard time saying that both men would make the same "mistake" on the record, and apparently privately.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Interesting revisionist history on that one... I've never wanted to begin a post with "Eff" as much as I do right now. Only a few people come to mind on threads getting deleted here, and they were all "self-inflicted" as you well should know.

To clarify, since apparently I need to spell it out, I wasn't calling out Bosak. I was simply saying that, even though most everyone here has bashed him, he still threw "you all" a major piece instead of stuffing it into an article.

Btw, when I've said imagine being in our place before you shoot off at the mouth with absurdities, try to imagine the emotions one goes through on something like this fingerprint issue. Reconciling ourselves to a scenario, for peace of mind, is made impossible based on something like this. Christ...

(gstick, the 3-5 prints was never in "sets" in our eyes, but was individual prints. I thought that was widely known here.) [/*]

Hey, TG. The only poster I recall seeming hellbent on "sets of prints" instead of "prints" was JJ. Seems I remember post after post after post after post about same. Don't remember it ever coming up from you.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Well shucks Tony - it's true.

It's like pulling teeth to get answers to questions around here. And when I tried to organize your answers on the board for reference, you complained & didn't want to stand by them, and the thread got deleted. [/*]

Don't confuse not knowing the answer with a reluctance to answer. You've ask the question of PB, I've asked the question of PB, and we've both gotten the same answer. Second question that has come off the board (Wiley was the first).

I would suspect that the information is hot off the presses, as it were. It would not surprise me if TG (or even PB) didn't know the answer as of Friday.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Politigal
Don't you recall the email you sent complaining about it?? [/*]I've gone to CW regarding 2 individuals. That wasn't one of 'em, so add that to the many "facts" you've posted that you later had to retract. If I recall correctly, CW asked you to cite your quotes, which I don't think you did. Now, did it bother me that you decided to go through my old posts to build up a list (context be damned), absolutely. I thought it was a bit above and beyond, but that's just me. You, yourself, have had vast amounts of data deleted (not all your own content, as we who supplied it know) based upon tantrums, so the fact that you weren't actually directly responsible for the suicide of one of your threads (or all of your posts) is of little value to anyone.

I'm not going to continue this pissing contest of a thread hijack, and sucker punch, you threw. Value-add it is not.

[Cinderella]

See I used to complain about Pete, but then when I started saying sweet things about him, he was really nice.

I truly believe that Pete has his heart in this case. Everyone thinks that that is all he has to do. He probably wishes it was. Unfortunately he has many other things to take care of. I have to say that I believe that he has done an outstanding job in keeping Ray's name in the paper and trying to give people answers. Thanks for the bone, Pete. :)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Hey, TG. The only poster I recall seeming hellbent on "sets of prints" instead of "prints" was JJ. Seems I remember post after post after post after post about same. Don't remember it ever coming up from you. [/*]

I seem to remember several posters noting the "five sets of prints," line. The one I quoted was from UTR (and she was quoting the article accurately).

It still comes down to the question of why Dixon and DZ said that they were identified. Repeatedly.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
See I used to complain about Pete, but then when I started saying sweet things about him, he was really nice.

I truly believe that Pete has his heart in this case. Everyone thinks that that is all he has to do. He probably wishes it was. Unfortunately he has many other things to take care of. I have to say that I believe that he has done an outstanding job in keeping Ray's name in the paper and trying to give people answers. Thanks for the bone, Pete. :) [/*]

If it's a bone, I'm glad he threw it. :)

I want to know why two BPD officers claimed that, at least three prints were identified from the "usual places," apparently privately and publically and it turns out not to be accurate?:shrug:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


It is accurate from Dixon and has always been.

From CNN interview---
DIXON: The vehicle was processed by the Pennsylvania state police on scene and at their station. They did find five fingerprints. The only **couple** that was **able to be identified**, certainly belonged to Ray himself. [/*]

Except it wasn't:

"Dixon also revealed three of five sets of fingerprints found on Gricar's car belong to the missing prosecutor, while the other two sets haven't been identified."

(non-working link): http://www.sungazette.com/wire/pawi...tdate

Now, why is Dixon, and DZ giving this out this information, if it's inaccurate? I could understand if they had a print that they couldn't identify and wanted to hide that, but why add two other non-existent prints from RFG?

[Cinderella]

Maybe Dixon left because he knew what was going on.

Also any car that someone drives has fingerprints. I am sure that Ray did not wear gloves to drive that day. Someone else driving would have left finger prints also. Someone must have been wearing gloves and wiped the car.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


If it's a bone, I'm glad he threw it. :)

I want to know why two BPD officers claimed that, at least three prints were identified from the "usual places," apparently privately and publically and it turns out not to be accurate?:shrug: [/*]

I am sure you aren't the only one that would LOVE to know the answer to that question. More misleading...no that would be an out and out lie!! JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



What's with the push to make Dixon out to be a liar? Someone fear him for some reason? If there was anyone I ever believed about this case, it was him. Too bad he had to 'go'........but not surprising at all considering..........
JMO [/*]

I didn't use the word "liar," just to be clear.

Dixon, unless that report is wrong, obviously gave inaccurate information when interviewed. I don't know why he did, or even if he knew he did, but he still did. Now, either he didn't review it and repeated what he'd been told, had better information, or he said something inaccurate intentionally.

Unless it's the middle reason, I would go with a grand jury (and we can't call one). I wouldn't necessarily go with a "review" or a hand off, because the PSP-CIA didn't catch this little detail. It really seems that now we have to ask LE what they were doing.

[gstickley]

Fri, Apr. 22, 2005

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/cent...ws/11457629.htm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five fingerprints found in or on the Mini Cooper have been sent to the state police crime lab in Harrisburg and will be compared with Fornicola's and Gricar's prints, Dixon said. Cigarette butts found in the parking lot also will be analyzed, although Dixon said it's unlikely they are connected to the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note the date on this CDT release. Also note the number of fingerprints, not "sets of prints", as per Dixon.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Fri, Apr. 22, 2005

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/cent...ws/11457629.htm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five fingerprints found in or on the Mini Cooper have been sent to the state police crime lab in Harrisburg and will be compared with Fornicola's and Gricar's prints, Dixon said. Cigarette butts found in the parking lot also will be analyzed, although Dixon said it's unlikely they are connected to the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note the date on this CDT release. Also note the number of fingerprints, not "sets of prints", as per Dixon. [/*]

And note what Dixon said in the Sun Times 4/26/05:

Dixon also revealed three of five sets of fingerprints found on Gricar's car belong to the missing prosecutor, while the other two sets haven't been identified.

The "three of five sets of fingerprints" did not belong to RFG, according to the report, and Dixon said they did. Now, I'd really like to see Rickard clear this up.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



The evidence as it stands is that of total and complete conflict of interest. Unless there is evidence introduced that is NOT complete conflict of interest, we simply have another PSP-CIA, held in secret 'investigation'. I want a grand jury also, but first I want to see a real investigation by those who actually GATHER evidence.

And I did find the 'loophole' that makes me VERY nervous about a premature, as in prior to a real investigation, grand jury.........
If a prosecutor believes that a subpoenaed witness is likely to make a legitimate claim that his testimony will tend to incriminate himself, the prosecutor may apply to the supervising judge of the grand jury for an order of immunity. ***Such an order gives the witness protection from having his testimony before the grand jury used against himself in a later court proceeding.***
JMO [/*]

I frankly no longer have confidence in LE to conduct this investigation, if this report is accurate. The CIA review should have caught this.

The grand jury can gather this evidence. They can subpoena the reports, they can ask DZ why he said what he did; they can call everybody in this thing, PEF, SS, JKA, Dixon, everybody.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I frankly no longer have confidence in LE to conduct this investigation, if this report is accurate. The CIA review should have caught this.

The grand jury can gather this evidence. They can subpoena the reports, they can ask DZ why he said what he did; they can call everybody in this thing, PEF, SS, JKA, Dixon, everybody. [/*]

Finally. We have been trying to tell you for how many years now JJ? And you didn't believe us!! Mr. Gricar deserves so much better ...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day


Finally. We have been trying to tell you for how many years now JJ? And you didn't believe us!! Mr. Gricar deserves so much better ... [/*]

Before today, there was no evidence of it, though I have been calling for a grand jury for a while.

This is not a question of resources, the BPD being to close to the case, or the DA's Office investigating itself. This is a law enforcement agency, apparently without reason, deliberately misstating factual evidence in a case.

Could you imagine any police department doing this to a defendant!

[Cinderella]

Plus BPD fought to get this case kept here. Wonder why?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Plus BPD fought to get this case kept here. Wonder why? [/*]

What gets me is if LE announces no readable fingerprints, it doesn't make a huge difference.

By the time that they were announcing the two to five prints, they had:

1. More than five witnesses that put RFG in Lewisburg.

2. His scent in the parking lot.

They simply announce that the prints are not readable, there are a number of explanations, that still put RFG behind the wheel. He could have smeared them himself, accidentally or on purpose. The car could have been sitting in the sun too long and there was enough moisture to ruin them. So just announce that they couldn't get prints.

LE has suppressed three things, that we know of. RFG's demeanor in the weeks before he disappeared. The Fenton sighting. The lack of prints in the Mini.

What do those things have in common?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Before today, there was no evidence of it, though I have been calling for a grand jury for a while.

This is not a question of resources, the BPD being to close to the case, or the DA's Office investigating itself. This is a law enforcement agency, apparently without reason, deliberately misstating factual evidence in a case.

Could you imagine any police department doing this to a defendant! [/*]

Actually yes!
Here is a link of a man charged with murder and some info had been found on a mystery man "Sweet" that he had been telling them about and it was was withheld from his trial. Rogers is now going to have a bail hearing to see about getting out of prison until they have a retrial. State College Police and DA Madeira are named in the article.
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/391464.html a link of

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


(snip)
LE has suppressed three things, that we know of. RFG's demeanor in the weeks before he disappeared. The Fenton sighting. The lack of prints in the Mini.

What do those things have in common? [/*]

Ya missed a couple things suppressed for a yr. after the disappearance:

#4. The brown/tan mystery car.

#5. The Tyrone Mystery Woman.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Ya missed a couple things suppressed for a yr. after the disappearance:

#4. The brown/tan mystery car.

#5. The Tyrone Mystery Woman. [/*]

Both of those things were known, within the year. I think the "tan car" came up in a month or so.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Cinderella
See I used to complain about Pete, but then when I started saying sweet things about him, he was really nice.

I truly believe that Pete has his heart in this case. Everyone thinks that that is all he has to do. He probably wishes it was. Unfortunately he has many other things to take care of. I have to say that I believe that he has done an outstanding job in keeping Ray's name in the paper and trying to give people answers. Thanks for the bone, Pete. :) [/*]On the record, I agree with the above, and have said it many times.

[Cinderella]

Now I have to behave myself with you and make up to you. I know that you are doing the best that you can do and I know that Ray would be very proud of you.

We sit from a different standpoint. First of all we care about Ray, but we don't really have the emotions and feelings that you do. So Tony, I am going to try to behave myself. It was usually frustration that got to me. But you are not the person to take it out on.

Sorry.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Before today, there was no evidence of it, though I have been calling for a grand jury for a while.

This is not a question of resources, the BPD being to close to the case, or the DA's Office investigating itself. This is a law enforcement agency, apparently without reason, deliberately misstating factual evidence in a case.

Could you imagine any police department doing this to a defendant! [/*]

JJ
I want to know who they are protecting and why? :shrug:

IMO CB was used to swayyyyyyy this case way off track so that people like "us" wouldn't notice the REAL facts. But many of us have been asking since day1 about these stinkin prints....you have NO clue how angry I am about this..

:flamemad:


jmo....

[gstickley]

Originally posted by day2day


JJ
I want to know who they are protecting and why? :shrug:

IMO CB was used to swayyyyyyy this case way off track so that people like "us" wouldn't notice the REAL facts. But many of us have been asking since day1 about these stinkin prints....you have NO clue how angry I am about this..

:flamemad:


jmo.... [/*]

Yeah, Day, it's kinda like the brown/tan car & the mystery women coming to light 1 yr. 1 mo. after RG's disappearance. Games being played, maybe???

Rickard's been around since the beginning, in charge for some time, so why is he now talking to PB; wasn't PB trying to get information from BPD for quite a long time . . . or was he??? Why now, PB??? Why now, Rickard? PB's recent blog was the first since his famous put-down of KA almost a year ago??? Why is PB now thinking of RG-related news articles; haven't been any since a couple around the time of the 2nd anniversary. What was the benefit of BPD not releasing the information on the fingerprints (not sets of prints!) previously? What is the benefit of BPD in not releasing other information? Supposedly LE reads this message board; if so, do they consider this all a game??? :flamemad:

[Politigal]

I think it's curious too, that even Tony wasn't aware of the lack of prints until "recently." So apparently, Bellefonte Police weren't even sharing info with the family. I'd be interested in knowing how, when or why they did finally reveal this fact to him.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
I think it's curious too, that even Tony wasn't aware of the lack of prints until "recently." So apparently, Bellefonte Police weren't even sharing info with the family. I'd be interested in knowing how, when or why they did finally reveal this fact to him. [/*]

P'gal, I think recently probably means "yesterday." As demonstrated, PB talked to the BPD yesterday. Now the question is why, for months, DZ and Dixon said something that wasn't accurate for literally months, both publicly and privately.

I also would note that PB had been trying for months, literally, to get the information.

As for the window print, it might be the only clear one and could have been one left when he opened the door (and possibly days or weeks before).

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley


Yeah, Day, it's kinda like the brown/tan car & the mystery women coming to light 1 yr. 1 mo. after RG's disappearance. Games being played, maybe???

Rickard's been around since the beginning, in charge for some time, so why is he now talking to PB; wasn't PB trying to get information from BPD for quite a long time . . . or was he??? Why now, PB??? Why now, Rickard? PB's recent blog was the first since his famous put-down of KA almost a year ago??? Why is PB now thinking of RG-related news articles; haven't been any since a couple around the time of the 2nd anniversary. What was the benefit of BPD not releasing the information on the fingerprints (not sets of prints!) previously? What is the benefit of BPD in not releasing other information? Supposedly LE reads this message board; if so, do they consider this all a game??? :flamemad: [/*]

None of it makes sense to me JJ. Unless of course they feel the need to "protect" someone. And that "someone" must be MIGHTY darn important. IF they lied about something like the prints..what ELSE are they hiding?


jmo...

and yes i think we are all pretty
:flamemad:

I believe that Dixon, Detz and many more should answer to this...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day


None of it makes sense to me JJ. Unless of course they feel the need to "protect" someone. And that "someone" must be MIGHTY darn important. IF they lied about something like the prints..what ELSE are they hiding?


jmo...

and yes i think we are all pretty
:flamemad:

I believe that Dixon, Detz and many more should answer to this... [/*]

That "MIGHTY darn important" wouldn't be PEF, BJL, or any of the usual suspects. Even then, it doesn't make sense. There is fairly good information that RFG was in Lewisburg after noon on 4/15, that is independent of the fingerprints and LE directly.

The only thing that it really changes is if someone other than RFG could have driven the Mini after 6:00 PM or so on 4/15 and up to 6:00 PM on 4/16.

That is not an area where has been much of a focus (at least by me).

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


That "MIGHTY darn important" wouldn't be PEF, BJL, or any of the usual suspects. Even then, it doesn't make sense. There is fairly good information that RFG was in Lewisburg after noon on 4/15, that is independent of the fingerprints and LE directly.

The only thing that it really changes is if someone other than RFG could have driven the Mini after 6:00 PM or so on 4/15 and up to 6:00 PM on 4/16.

That is not an area where has been much of a focus (at least by me). [/*]


ARE YOU KIDDING???

For months on end, at least half the posters have been absolutely focused on someone other than RG driving the Mini after 6:00 PM or so on 04/15 & up to 6:00 PM on 04/16!!!!!

For months on end, at least half the posters have been focused on someone other than RG driving the Mini to Lewisburg---period!!!!!

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley



ARE YOU KIDDING???

For months on end, at least half the posters have been absolutely focused on someone other than RG driving the Mini after 6:00 PM or so on 04/15 & up to 6:00 PM on 04/16!!!!!

For months on end, at least half the posters have been focused on someone other than RG driving the Mini to Lewisburg---period!!!!! [/*]

from day1 i have never believed that mr. gricar drove that mini on 4/15/05-i never bought it then and i really really don't buy it now.

all i can do is sit here and wonder "why the lies"?

and oopsie i meant to say GS in my last post but typed jj...sorry !!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley



ARE YOU KIDDING???

For months on end, at least half the posters have been absolutely focused on someone other than RG driving the Mini after 6:00 PM or so on 04/15 & up to 6:00 PM on 04/16!!!!!

For months on end, at least half the posters have been focused on someone other than RG driving the Mini to Lewisburg---period!!!!! [/*]

Who? The only thing I've heard is the night of 4/14-4/15/05. Very little has been posted about after 6:00 PM on 4/15/05.

That information is still there, the scent and the witnesses. Neither of those things involves the fingerprints, and were known prior to DZ's/Dixon's pronouncements.

If this was deliberately given out, it doesn't reflect on RFG going to Lewisburg. It points to DZ/Dixon not wanting the public to know that someone else could have driven the car after he went to Lewisburg.

As of about 4/20/05 this was the situation:

1. Whole bick of people said, **I saw RFG in Lewisburg aftertoon of 4/15."

2. The dog handler had indications that RFG was in the parking lot.

When the make the wrong statement about the prints, it isn't going to spin the story that RFG wasn't in Lewisburg on 4/15/05. It's going to be that nobody else drove the Mini after it got to Lewisburg.

The story, on 4/20/05 was, RFG drove the car to Lewisburg, where he was seen by at least five people and left his scent in the parking lot.

The story after DZ/Dixon comments was RFG drove the car to Lewisburg, where he was seen by at least five people and left his scent in the parking lot and RFG was the last person to drive the Mini.

[Cinderella]

I remember that post. All I can think is that their prints must have been smudged. She stated that her daughter, IIRC press her nose to the window.

She didn't say that she opened the door or that the ashes were dropped.

BTW, nice to have you here. We need all the help that we can get. :)

[Cinderella]

They didn't open the door or drop ashes though. From what I understand, her daughter was small.

[J. J. in Phila]

I also remember the story. Nothing about them being smokers (and I was under impression that daughter was a child).

[Politigal]

I tend to doubt the story because that's not where Tony said RG's car was parked.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Politigal
I tend to doubt the story because that's not where Tony said RG's car was parked. [/*]I considered that also. She did seem to be local to Lewisburg. But there was too much confusion...about other Minis in the area, the actual space where RG's Mini was found (some of that injected by national tv shows), and the logistics regarding the shopping bag...to be able to assess the veracity of her story. That is one of the more frustrating things to me. Because when and where RG's Mini was parked seems just as important as who parked it. MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I considered that also. She did seem to be local to Lewisburg. But there was too much confusion...about other Minis in the area, the actual space where RG's Mini was found (some of that injected by national tv shows), and the logistics regarding the shopping bag...to be able to assess the veracity of her story. That is one of the more frustrating things to me. Because when and where RG's Mini was parked seems just as important as who parked it. MOO [/*]

And if he wasn't the last person to drive the Mini?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella

She stated that her daughter, IIRC press her nose to the window.

She didn't say that she opened the door or that the ashes were dropped.
:) [/*]


These were what I remember too and someone telling her she should call PSP in Milton.

I was under the impression the car was locked up tight, so maybe the car they touched was not RG's car.

I find it very odd/strange that someone would actually open someone's car door to look inside it and then to be smoking a cigarette at the same time. A little girl looking in the window of a cute little car is one thing but an older daughter that smokes was out of line on her part, and the mother's to let her open the car.
JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

I didn't get anything about the girl opening the Mini or smoking.

[Cloudbuster]

LW Im getting a laugh invisioning RG using a middle finger for LE lol. If he did that he could have had his reasons lol. My dealing with Rickard at one point was a positive one. I found him well mannered and extremly nice but what I found odd is that CPL Holiday did not leave any notes on what was going on and no notes left to Rickard about him leaving a message on my cell phone? Why does that department keep certain things so secret in their own department? That leaves me putting up a red flag IMOO. It's not Rickards fault but it makes me wonder what else was witheld even from Rickard? If that's the way it really is then I could see RG giving a middle finger lol. I also think RG might have some other surprise he left behind just waiting to be found. That one will have to wait till I study it more.
JMO:lol:

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
I didn't get anything about the girl opening the Mini or smoking. [/*]

I know. I only heard about looking in the window. Mother concerned she had left a nose print on the car and I thought it was a little girl.

I too wonder about the middle finger on the window and it being the only one that could be made out. A sign to someone? or to the county?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks

Therefore when it is offered that LE found x number of 'sets of prints', and then later say only one print was found, it may sound like a lie, but hand movement alone may leave only one print readable, while the rest are smeared. What has been left out in the RG case is there was no full fingerprint of his found INSIDE the car, all were smudged, it appears.
That is my impression from what I have read thus far, for what it's worth.
JMO [/*]

LW, all the prints could have been RFG's, or it could have been someone else. He don't have any evidence that someone else drove the car, nor, from the fingerprints that RFG drove the car.

RFG could have, even before 4/15, opened the door and while doing so, touched the window and left the clear print.

I can uderstand the water bottle; it is possible that condensation formed on the bottle ruining any print.

[Politigal]

IMO, it seems obvious that whoever drove the Mini to Lewisburg cleaned the interior. There were no prints found on the interior of the car, except for the partial print on the water bottle.

Why would Gricar do that? IMO he would *not* have.

Only someone wanting to hide their identity would do that.

I think it puts the premise of Foul Play front & center.

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal
IMO, it seems obvious that whoever drove the Mini to Lewisburg cleaned the interior. There were no prints found on the interior of the car, except for the partial print on the water bottle.

Why would Gricar do that? IMO he would *not* have.

Only someone wanting to hide their identity would do that.

I think it puts the premise of Foul Play front & center. [/*]

I agree pgal. I think its TIME that someone starts revealing the truth!! IMO we have been lied to and mislead for way too long.

[Cinderella]

I wrote and asked Pete for the truth. That is what he gave me. Now I am not going to second guess this as I believe it to be the truth.

OBRETT are you trying to put doubt where the truth lies?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by OOBrett


J.J.'s was the easiest place to find a quote conveying this thought, so that's why I chose this one. Just about everybody else has probably had the same thought, I think.

I'll throw this out and see how long, if at all, it sticks.

Maybe Dixon and Zaccagni were accurate. Maybe, for whatever reason, Rickard wasn't accurate during his recent discussion with Bosak. Or maybe Bosak didn't report what Rickard said accurately.

I don't know Dixon, Zaccagni, Rickard, or Bosak, so I can't do anything other than read what somebody else has written and then take note of it. Who really knows what's accurate or inaccurate? All we can do is read and analyze and come to our own conclusions.

I'll butt out again now and see you again in a few months. [/*]

OOBrett, my initial reaction was that this was possibly a preliminary report and that maybe a further report established that there were, in fact, RFG's prints. I've contacted some people close to this. The answer that I got was no.

I think your question is a good one, and one I've asked, but the answer was in the negative.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by OOBrett


Not at all.

Just noting that we really have no way to tell what's accurate and not accurate.

Based on my lack of direct contact with any of the principles, to me it's just as likely that Dixon and Zaccagni and Bosak's initial reporting were all accurate as that Rickard and Bosak's current reporting are all accurate.

Who knows? [/*]

It does make you wonder though - which of those in law enforcement actually didn't know the facts.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by OOBrett
I'll throw this out and see how long, if at all, it sticks.

Maybe Dixon and Zaccagni were accurate. Maybe, for whatever reason, Rickard wasn't accurate during his recent discussion with Bosak. Or maybe Bosak didn't report what Rickard said accurately. [/*]Brett, it's not an unreasonable question at all, given some of the turns this case has taken. I've had it confirmed to me that this latest revelation is being reported accurately.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
And if he wasn't the last person to drive the Mini? Some time ago I mused about the possibility of RG driving to that lot; getting out, but not moving far from the car; getting back in and following/leading someone, in another car, to another place; something happens; and someone returns the Mini to the lot, wearing gloves...no trepidation on RG's part - therefore, no scuffle, and no one else giving it any attention. MOO

[Cinderella]

S1,

Ray couldn't been the one that parked the Mini at the SOS. Someone drove that car after he did.

[Politigal]

Not only was the info kept from the public, apparently it was also kept from RG's family.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



What is different about this report than the others, other than in now furnishing the public with the exact details rather than the former vague details?
The 'revelation' seems to be the pointing out of exact locations instead of being left with simply the 'usual' locations, which left much room for assumptions.


I think the difference is that a non-police source has read the report, and possibly has a copy of it.


We are now being told the exact number of full prints, one only, on the exterior. Again I don't see any difference there in anything other than in exact details, which I am happy have been revealed.

Obviously I am missing something here in interpretation, because I don't see any 'big discrepancy'. I see details being released, thankfully.


The 'big discrepancy' is that these prints were supposedly readable and identified as being those prints of RFG's. The prints were not readable.

[day2day]

So much I want to say about the "revelation" ..but I won't. I do think it sucks that they lied to LG and TG about this. IF i was LG i wouldn't believe a stinkin word they said. Period.

jmooooooooooo

[puzzled]

D2D...I love the way you say things! You have a way with words!:D

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by logicworks
What is different about this report than the others, other than in now furnishing the public with the exact details rather than the former vague details?
The big question I have about the revelation of exact locations is why was the fact there were no identifiable full prints of RG's found in the interior kept from the public? What am I missing here?
JMO [/*]I've shortened your words to what I think are your essential points.

The big revelation is one you answered for yourself. I see no revelation at all in "prints" versus "sets" as I've always known we were dealing with individual prints vs sets. I thought that was common knowledge and, in my eyes, only was confused by alternate usage of the two terms by LE. To me, the real and only revelation is that none of the prints IN the car were Ray's. To me, that is huge for varied reasons. We were fed information that was less indicative of foulplay. That's really all I'm going to comment on at this time.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by tonyGricar To me, the real and only revelation is that none of the prints IN the car were Ray's. To me, that is huge for varied reasons. We were fed information that was less indicative of foulplay. That's really all I'm going to comment on at this time. [/*]

I agree obviously, but this raises the very serious question of why the BPD would suppress this information.

RFG's prints in the car, in the "usual places," points to RFG being the last person to drive the car. Why would the BPD want to point away from that possibilty?

They suppressed two other details:

1. RFG's seeming change in attitude a month before.

2. The sighting in Bellefonte by Fenton/Grine.

And now:

3. That RFG's prints were NOT in the car.

What do these three things point to?

The only thing I can see is that the BPD was willing to hide evidence that pointed to Bellefonte as a location (#2 and #3). (Unless both the dogs and all the witnesses were wrong, RFG was in Lewisburg for part of the afternoon of 4/15/05.)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks




Logically, there should be readable prints inside the car.
If you were led to believe there were prints in the car that were readable, and there aren't any, that is a indeed a revelation.


Not necessarily. It's possible but unlikely that just the actions of driving a car could smear the prints. It's possible that someone wearing gloves could have the Mini, and smeared the prints. A wipe down is a bit unlikely, because there was some evidence that there were prints, though it is possible for a quick, sloppy wipe down.

In other words we can say that RFG drove the car, but we can't say that someone else drove it either.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
They suppressed two other details:

1. RFG's seeming change in attitude a month before.
[/*]This is one I've always struggled a bit with due to the subjectivity of such observations and that I've heard differing views.

[sherrijean981]

Was RG's car facing the SOS or pointing to the back of the lot? Maybe he wore gloves while driving and the smeared prints are his.

Maybe the fingerprints on the window were put there by him, as he pushed the door shut and touched the car as in a "good-bye" before he walked to the other car. I know, too romantic for RG.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar

We were fed information that was less indicative of foulplay. snipped. [/*]

I can't help but wonder if Zaccagni was the one holding the spoon.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Not necessarily. It's possible but unlikely that just the actions of driving a car could smear the prints. It's possible that someone wearing gloves could have the Mini, and smeared the prints. A wipe down is a bit unlikely, because there was some evidence that there were prints, though it is possible for a quick, sloppy wipe down.

In other words we can say that RFG drove the car, but we can't say that someone else drove it either. [/*]

It was said he was a brilliant man and perfect exit!

Did anyone check the Auto Detail Shop across the river bridge to see is anyone had the car in there for a wipedown?

[sherrijean981]

There were a lot of comments made by Det Z that put questions in the minds about RG. Like maybe having a wild weekend. Having to answer to PF. So many missed questions and interviews and the interviews he did make on tv programs made me think he had no respect for RG. JMO but I was angry about the way he talked about RG and the lack of responsibilty to the investigation.

Did he go to work at the Bellefonte School District after he left the police department or is that part of his new job?

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Did he go to work at the Bellefonte School District after he left the police department or is that part of his new job? [/*]I'll answer this part. The rest is a bit too loaded right now...

From what I know, "Officer" Z never left BPD for the school district. When I was there last (late in the football season), we passed each other while he was in his BPD uniform and patrol car. He retired a couple of weeks ago, from the BPD, even had a retirement party, and is now in the employ of the Sheriff's dept.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
I'll answer this part. The rest is a bit too loaded right now...

From what I know, "Officer" Z never left BPD for the school district. When I was there last (late in the football season), we passed each other while he was in his BPD uniform and patrol car. He retired a couple of weeks ago, from the BPD, even had a retirement party, and is now in the employ of the Sheriff's dept. [/*]

Thanks

[J. J. in Phila]

I did it again, left out a "not." I should have said:

In other words we can not say that RFG drove the car, but we can't say that someone else drove it either.

On the "attitude change," it seems to be widely the case, at least with certain people. I is subjective, but let's look at the objective stuff.

1. The sighting in Bellefonte by Fenton/Grine.

Even if it wasn't an actual siting, its existence was suppressed by the BPD.

2. That RFG's prints were NOT in the car.

Complete suppression and what seems to be deliberate.

In the first case, I have not seen how it would conflict with the time line. RFG easily could have been in Lewisburg after noon, left at about 1:30 PM and been behind the Courthouse at 3:00 PM, and been back in Lewisburg at 5:00 PM.

In the second case, it doesn't "prove" someone else drove the Mini, only eliminate the proof that RFG was the last person to drive the Mini. Why would the BPD want to falsely eliminate the possibility that someone else could have driven the Mini?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
S1,

Ray couldn't been the one that parked the Mini at the SOS. Someone drove that car after he did. [/*]

Cind, RFG could have driven the Mini and have removed his own prints, by accident or design. We just not cannot say, RFG definitely was the the last person to drive the the Mini.

The question is, why would the BPD want to hide that possibility?

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by tonyGricar I'll answer this part. The rest is a bit too loaded right now...

From what I know, "Officer" Z never left BPD for the school district. When I was there last (late in the football season), we passed each other while he was in his BPD uniform and patrol car. He retired a couple of weeks ago, from the BPD, even had a retirement party, and is now in the employ of the Sheriff's dept. I feel certain Z has found a friend there. IIRC, there were allegations made against Nau's administration during the campaign for sheriff last year - the usual stuff...poor morale, inefficiency, arrogance and lack of accountability. The unusual thing was, these allegations were coming from two former deputies, who had resigned about this time last year, hoping to run against Nau. MOO

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I feel certain Z has found a friend there. IIRC, there were allegations made against Nau's administration during the campaign for sheriff last year - the usual stuff...poor morale, inefficiency, arrogance and lack of accountability. The unusual thing was, these allegations were coming from two former deputies, who had resigned about this time last year, hoping to run against Nau. MOO [/*]I've never met or spoken to Nau. I once saw him leading the ceremonies for a fallen officer's memorial on the courthouse plaza, but that's it.

[Politigal]

I'm really curious...and this may be a stupid question...

but since there were no identifiable prints found in the Mini, doesn't that also mean that Gricar's prints were not found on his cellphone, which was inside the Mini? After all, the water bottle (which isn't part of the car and also found inside) was named as having a partial print.

And if not, that means someone else could very well have placed the call from his phone that Friday, and they cleaned the evidence from the phone.

[Politigal]

I'm looking for cases where fingerprints were found on a cellphone

Here's one

http://tinyurl.com/26znaw
In addition to the 17-year-old witness, authorities wereable to identify the man they say shot San Jacinto police Officer Everett Babcock through witnesses who saw the suspect in a stolen car and through fingerprints on the car and cell phone left in the vehicle, court records show

And then I stumbled across this case....what an eery coincidence

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/02/glasgow_case_new_details.aspx

Glasgow's Volvo has been forensically examined, and found to contain what Welch categorized as "no fingerprints," indicating that it may have been wiped down before being parked on Petit Jean.

Trained search dogs found no trace of Glasgow's scent leading away from his parked car, or anywhere else on the mountain.

In addition to Glasgow's cell phone and laptop computer, his bank card was found in the car. His wallet and car keys have not been found.



more on the case
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article.aspx?aid=103049.54928.115178

[Politigal]

IMO, I think it's possible that the Glasgow case is a copycat of RG's....

[Chump#7]

I see nothing odd what-so-ever about only one identifiable print (RG's) being found on the outside (window, no doubt) of the Mini. The middle finger, the longest, therefore the last to leave the surface and probably the one where enough force was applied to actually leave a readable print. Science!

The 'usual places' inside the car, I would imagine, probably just don't have a surface/texture that would lend themselves to readable prints (save smooth surfaced buttons), unlike glass. You could probably go all pokey pokey all day long and still not leave a readable print. I think I said the same before, but then incurred a massive headache from rolling my eyes so hard at the responses.

All this tells us is that RG probably shut the door at one time. Shocker!

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Chump#7
I see nothing odd what-so-ever about only one identifiable print (RG's) being found on the outside (window, no doubt) of the Mini. The middle finger, the longest, therefore the last to leave the surface and probably the one where enough force was applied to actually leave a readable print. Science!

The 'usual places' inside the car, I would imagine, probably just don't have a surface/texture that would lend themselves to readable prints (save smooth surfaced buttons), unlike glass. You could probably go all pokey pokey all day long and still not leave a readable print. I think I said the same before, but then incurred a massive headache from rolling my eyes so hard at the responses.

All this tells us is that RG probably shut the door at one time. Shocker! [/*]I've said the same thing many times, although I've backed off some now that we're down from 5'ish prints to none from inside the car (the bigger issue is still that we were fed that the prints were his, when in fact they apparently were not).

Textures, especially in new cars, are varied, and on most every surface now. I've harped on this many times. My assumption is that the PSP would have recognized this and worked diligently to identify areas that were smoother than others.

(I was in a new Pontiac G6 the other day and, short of the glass, I don't know where you'd find a print. Lots of textured/ridged plastics, vinyl, etc.)

[Cinderella]

If Ray drove the Mini to Huntingdon on Thursday and then to Lewisburg on Friday, surely you would think that there would have been more prints.

I could see if he just drove the Mini to the courhouse on Thursday, but he also attended the Prison Board Meeting and later they stated that he went to Huntingdon. Something seems fishy to me.

[tonyGricar]

Here you all go:

Note: not all Mini interiors are the same (read: highly customizable), ie the faux composite material of photo 1. Ray's did not have that. I believe his had a matte finish dash, similar to 2 and 3.

Interior 1 (http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Mini-Cooper-Works-Interior-1920x1440.jpg)

Interior 2 (http://www.aerorentacar.com/CarsForSale/MiniCooperInterior.jpg)

Interior 3 (http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Mini-Cooper-Convertible-Interior-1600x1200.jpg)

Interior 4 (http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/2006-Hamann-Mini-Cooper-S-Interior-1920x1440.jpg)

Have fun and let the debating begin...

[Chump#7]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
(the bigger issue is still that we were fed that the prints were his, when in fact they apparently were not). [/*]

So that I'm clear here:

Was it that you were fed: 'prints found IN the car (usual places) were Ray's', and now they are definitively not (as in, someone else's)? Or just unreadable ?

Another thing:

We know that these prints were the ones that were lifted . Were there plenty more just deemed unsuitable for lifting? And was there any evidence (whatever that would be) of an attempted wipe down?

Go get'em, Pete!

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Chump#7
So that I'm clear here:

Was it that you were fed: 'prints found IN the car (usual places) were Ray's', and now they are definitively not (as in, someone else's)? Or just unreadable ?

Another thing:

We know that these prints were the ones that were lifted . Were there plenty more just deemed unsuitable for lifting? And was there any evidence (whatever that would be) of an attempted wipe down?[/*]We, and the public, have "certainly" been repeatedly told that the interior prints recovered were matched to Ray, as illustrated below. Now we are told that none of the interior prints were his.

Here's just one rather high-profile example.

----------------
Larry King Live - August 2, 2005:

CALLER: My question is for the chief. What I would like to know is: Once they found his vehicle, were there any fingerprints or anything of that nature? And also, to his nephew: Has he ever had any type of symptoms of the bipolar?

KING: Chief?

DIXON: The vehicle was processed by the Pennsylvania state police on scene and at their station. They did find five fingerprints. The only couple that was able to be identified, certainly belonged to Ray himself.
----------------

Re: unsuitable prints, there were a few from what I recall.

[day2day]

Originally posted by Cinderella
If Ray drove the Mini to Huntingdon on Thursday and then to Lewisburg on Friday, surely you would think that there would have been more prints.

I could see if he just drove the Mini to the courhouse on Thursday, but he also attended the Prison Board Meeting and later they stated that he went to Huntingdon. Something seems fishy to me. [/*]

Unless someone wiped it down.

[Cinderella]

Day,

I have to believe that it was wiped down. You don't ride in a car that long and not leave more prints.

[Chump#7]

Ask and you shall receive. Kinda. Somebody asked, anyway.

From the CDT Gricar Q & A today:

QThank you Pete! It's good to see new information coming from the Bellefonte Police Department in this case. I hope this dialogue with Detective Rickard continues and look forward to your next story in the newspaper. The prints found inside the Mini Cooper were unusable. Did this seem unusual to the detective? If the last person to drive the car wore gloves, could that have made the prints unusable?
AHi, and thanks for the question. Bellefonte police have been great to me now that the transition is over with from the retired lead investigator to the new lead man, Detective Rickard. He's working hard on this, going over everything that's been done and looking for what can be done. As for there being no usable prints in the Mini Cooper, no, no one is all that shocked. It happens. I've talked to a number of investigators about prints and I keep hearing about that darn CSI making it look much easier than it is. For example, one local detective told me about an armed robbery at a convenience store where he, with the naked eye, could see a print left by the robber on a cash register. He could easily see it. But it wasn't good enough when detectives lifted it. There were not enough ridge characteristics to make any comparison. If a car is meticulously kept, it's not all that surprising that no usable prints turned up inside. There were probably prints, but not of good enough quality to lift and match. As for your last question, if someone wore gloves, yes, that definitely would damage, destroy, smear, etc. whatever prints were there. But there also likely would have been some indication of gloves though. Police have said there was no evidence anyone tried to "wipe down" the Mini.
Pete Bosak 2/14/08

[Politigal]

I still would think that they would have at least found many partial prints *inside* the vehicle - even if unidentifiable.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
I still would think that they would have at least found many partial prints *inside* the vehicle - even if unidentifiable. [/*]

So far as I can be determine, there were no "stranger prints," just no readable prints, except on the outside.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


So far as I can be determine, there were no "stranger prints," just no readable prints, except on the outside. [/*]

That's not what they said (this week.)

[Serendipitous1]

There must have been some reason to select the prints they did for lifting. Is there nothing in the finger print analysis vernacular like 'consistent with' or 'inconsistent with'?

Do they take close-up photos before lifting a print? Once it has been lifted, has it not been totally removed from the surface. If it has, then what is meant by 'duplicates'?

Also...although my use of vehicles has always been utilitarian (no fussing over a little dust/dirt), I do not push on my window to close the door. No biggy...just trying to visualize a reason why a meticulous person might paw his window.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
just trying to visualize a reason why a meticulous person might paw his window. [/*]Closing a car door, as many people do, via holding the door with your opened left hand on a drivers side door. Your fingers would stretch past the metal and to the surface of the window. Then again, I'm nowhere near as meticulous as the elder Gricars. That gene musta skipped me...

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


That's not what they said (this week.) [/*]

Would you care to site your source?

It can't be this:

Two other prints were lifted, one from the exterior door handle on the driver's side and the second from a water bottle found inside the Mini. But they did not have enough ridge characteristics be be identified, the lab report indicated. So there were no identifiable prints found inside the Mini Cooper. What prints were there were not good enough in quality to be matched to anyone.
Pete Bosak 2/11/08

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Closing a car door, as many people do, via holding the door with your opened left hand on a drivers side door. Your fingers would stretch past the metal and to the surface of the window. Then again, I'm nowhere near as meticulous as the elder Gricars. That gene musta skipped me... [/*]You know where on the window it was found then, and the orientation?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Closing a car door, as many people do, via holding the door with your opened left hand on a drivers side door. Your fingers would stretch past the metal and to the surface of the window. Then again, I'm nowhere near as meticulous as the elder Gricars. That gene musta skipped me... [/*]

It might have something to do with a person's height.

I drive a small vehicle right now, and I'm fairly tall, so I frequently close the door by holding the window. It just fits better.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Would you care to site your source?

It can't be this:

Two other prints were lifted, one from the exterior door handle on the driver's side and the second from a water bottle found inside the Mini. But they did not have enough ridge characteristics be be identified, the lab report indicated. So there were no identifiable prints found inside the Mini Cooper. What prints were there were not good enough in quality to be matched to anyone.
Pete Bosak 2/11/08 [/*]

JJ - I *know* what was reported. That's not what you wrote though...:o

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
You know where on the window it was found then, and the orientation? [/*]No, I was giving an easy example of how a fingerprint can end up on a window without "pawing" it.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by logicworks


Isn't that a bit risky for slamming your fingers in a door, if your fingers are on the outside while you're closing it?
[/*]Not at all. Picture a person getting out of the car. Left arm reaches across the body as your moving from the car and you flip it shut with an open hand. Maybe picturing a bit of a slapping motion?

I've officially typed it all...

[Serendipitous1]

Logicworks: I was thinking more, dust here, dust there...find a print that has some detail and lift it. So the tech compares it to known prints and reports, not enough points for identification. But is there no "it could be" or "it appears not to be", when however many points there are, match (or do not match) any of the known prints?

And, not that I expect anyone here to know. But if a print is lifted, is there anything left to lift a second time...for a 'duplicate'?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Logicworks: I was thinking more, dust here, dust there...find a print that has some detail and lift it. So the tech compares it to known prints and reports, not enough points for identification. But is there no "it could be" or "it appears not to be", when however many points there are, match (or do not match) any of the known prints?

And, not that I expect anyone here to know. But if a print is lifted, is there anything left to lift a second time...for a 'duplicate'? [/*]

Duplicate fingerprint cards are made whenever someone is arrested- so that law enforcement can send one set to the FBI.

Perhaps law enforcement do the same somehow with fingerprints they retrieve from crime scenes?

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1

And, not that I expect anyone here to know. But if a print is lifted, is there anything left to lift a second time...for a 'duplicate'? [/*]No idea on your question.

Re: the duplicate, in general, I don't have clarification yet on how there's a duplicate. It could be that the same print was actually found twice in the car.

[Politigal]

don't they usually photograph prints?

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/handbook/intro9.htm

edited to add:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2001/lpu.pdf

[Serendipitous1]

[i]Originally posted by tonyGricar [i]
Not at all. Picture a person getting out of the car. Left arm reaches across the body as your moving from the car and you flip it shut with an open hand. Maybe picturing a bit of a slapping motion?

I've officially typed it all... I hope you are not done typing yet. I can picture what you posted. No biggy.

Was it RG's habit to forcefully close his car door only when he was preoccupied? . . . :)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


JJ - I *know* what was reported. That's not what you wrote though...:o [/*]

Well, apparently you don't comprehend it.

This is what I said:

So far as I can be determine, there were no "stranger prints," just no readable prints, except on the outside.

Inside the Mini, here is no print that comes from an unknown source, a "stranger," or known source, such as PEF. There are no prints from RFG either.

There are however a number of prints that cannot be read. I know it's had for you to understand, but those all could be RFG prints. Likewise, they could belong to someone else.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Was it RG's habit to forcefully close his car door only when he was preoccupied? . . . :) [/*]I have 10 jokes off the top of my head for that, yet none of them appropriate. Stop by the tailgate for a lager sometime...

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by logicworks
LOL.....I thought you were inside the car closing the door, not exiting. [/*]If we've saved just one person's fingers today, we've done our civic duty.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
I have 10 jokes off the top of my head for that, yet none of them appropriate. Stop by the tailgate for a lager sometime...

If we've saved just one person's fingers today, we've done our civic duty. . . . . . . . . . . . .:patriot:

[J. J. in Phila]

Very simply, a driver could leave a print like that if he were studying himself as he gets into or out of the car, line next to a another car in a parking lot.

I don't think it's indicative of anything, except RFG was around the car, since the last time it was washed or it rained. We all kinda knew that.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
I've said the same thing many times, although I've backed off some now that we're down from 5'ish prints to none from inside the car (the bigger issue is still that we were fed that the prints were his, when in fact they apparently were not).

Textures, especially in new cars, are varied, and on most every surface now. I've harped on this many times. My assumption is that the PSP would have recognized this and worked diligently to identify areas that were smoother than others.

(I was in a new Pontiac G6 the other day and, short of the glass, I don't know where you'd find a print. Lots of textured/ridged plastics, vinyl, etc.) [/*]

I don't know if this was ever questioned before, but if RG was as meticulous as everyone says, did he use driving gloves when in the Mini?

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I don't know if this was ever questioned before, but if RG was as meticulous as everyone says, did he use driving gloves when in the Mini? [/*]I don't believe he did. My Dad often did, depending on if he was in one of his sports cars. Okay, he occassionally probably did it in the minivan, too... ;)

But, for that time of year, wearing gloves of some sort would be quite possible.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks


Isn't that a bit risky for slamming your fingers in a door, if your fingers are on the outside while you're closing it?
Judging from this photo, it would appear the driver would be in a rather awkward position doing so, but if that's exactly where the print was and not in the center of the window, then likely happened just the way you described.

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/factsheet_photos?make=MN&modelid=395&acode=USB40MNC021A0&image=20MNGEA7 [/*]

I am short so my fingerprints would be on the window.

Wish the "Car Fairy" would deliver one of those to replace my now deceased Chrysler New Yorker.:)

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
Not at all. Picture a person getting out of the car. Left arm reaches across the body as your moving from the car and you flip it shut with an open hand. Maybe picturing a bit of a slapping motion?

I've officially typed it all... [/*]

It doesn't look like there is a frame around the window either to hold onto. Almost certainly would be fingerprinted at my height.

[ladyheartfixer]

Originally posted by logicworks


I would guess when it comes to dusting, it's gone once it is lifted, possibly not completely but not enough remaining to make a duplicate. The latest technology and not all that 'latest' is to use Super Glue, and in a case like this, I can't believe they didn't. If I understand the process correctly, it is how duplicates are made with camera and UV light, plus it shows up the prints in all those places where there is something other than a flat surface.

"Fumes from cyanoacrylate ester adhesives (Super Glue® and similar products) will develop latent prints. Glue fuming techniques develop latent prints on many surfaces previously considered unsuitable for latent fingerprints." [/*]


other than placing the car in an airtight container and using massive amounts of glue I don't think anything short of dismantling the car and fuming certain areas would have been possible. The technique you suggest is used on smaller areas (ie inside out rubber gloves, for example)

a certain lab in VA is working on dna from formerly dusted and processed surfaces....just a fyi

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by ladyheartfixer




a certain lab in VA is working on dna from formerly dusted and processed surfaces....just a fyi [/*]

I'm wondering about the effective this in this.

We kinda know that RFG drove the car in the past, and presumably got his DNA on the drive surfaces. Someone later, wearing gloves, still could have driven the Mini, smearing RFG's prints, but still leaving the DNA.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by ladyheartfixer <Snip>
a certain lab in VA is working on dna from formerly dusted and processed surfaces....just a fyi I was hoping you would chime in, lady. I suppose this is cutting-edge stuff. Does it include trying to extract DNA from lifted prints?

[Tree_of_Life]

Tony, do you have any ideas on what Ray's driving habits were like concerning music and car stereo listening?

I know for myself, the car stereo is something that should almost definitely have fingerprints - due to the way in which you use it and most have a glossy smooth surface that would hold a fingerprint well. Of course maybe the mini has radio controls built into the steering wheel as many new cars do. Was he the type of person that, if he was just out for a leisurely drive on 192 that day, would have been listening to music?

For that matter, was there a CD or tape found in the mini's stereo?

Also on another note, some time ago I asked about the trip odometer. Were you ever able to find out about that or was it something LE or forensics overlooked?

Just some more ideas...

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by Tree_of_Life
Tony, do you have any ideas on what Ray's driving habits were like concerning music and car stereo listening?

Also on another note, some time ago I asked about the trip odometer. Were you ever able to find out about that or was it something LE or forensics overlooked?[/*]I have no idea on the trip OD or the music aspect. The car has XM or Sirius built into it, fwiw.

[Chump#7]

Given the recent development of this fingerprint information being somewhat different from previous statements released to the public, I have a few questions for tonyGricar:

I'm curious as to why you wouldn't have been privy to this information before. Does the definition of the type of investigation have any bearing on what information family members would be privy to? Would the case being defined as a 'Missing Person' investigation allow for LE to share more info with the family than say 'Murder' investigation? Is all sharing of information at LE's discretion regardless?

What happens when you ask a question of LE like, "Can I see the cell phone log from 4/10 onward?" or "Can I see the PSP's detailed results after processing the Mini?" You must have been told "No" in one form or another, I'm just curious as to why. It just seems to me that if this were, as I assume it still is given no hard evidence of foul play, a 'Missing Person' investigation, more information gathered wouldn't be bounced off the family.

With this latest info on the prints, I'd be like, "Dude? What the hell? Can we just cut to the chase and see the total processing results already?"

With so little defined information being released it's no wonder to me why we are left to ponder (fight about) the ambiguous image of the blessed Virgin Mary in Honey's stool sample, and what it means.

[Politigal]

ambiguous image.....lol

good one Chump :D

[Serendipitous1]

Personally, I am intrigued by the possibility that DNA could be extracted from finger prints. Even though there were apparently only 2 (or up to 4, depending upon what a "duplicate" means) lifted prints from inside the Mini Cooper, and even though at least one of them was from a bottle which apparently contained RG's DNA) perhaps they can be typed to match or exclude RG. And we have yet to hear of any other forensic evidence (other than the cigarette ash) which may have been found in the Mini Cooper.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Personally, I am intrigued by the possibility that DNA could be extracted from finger prints. Even though there were apparently only 2 (or up to 4, depending upon what a "duplicate" means) lifted prints from inside the Mini Cooper, and even though at least one of them was from a bottle which apparently contained RG's DNA) perhaps they can be typed to match or exclude RG. And we have yet to hear of any other forensic evidence (other than the cigarette ash) which may have been found in the Mini Cooper. [/*]

My concern is that RFG's DNA might have been on the wheel prior to the last driver.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
My concern is that RFG's DNA might have been on the wheel prior to the last driver. I think that is a given. The question I have is whether or not it can be determined that RG was the last driver.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I think that is a given. The question I have is whether or not it can be determined that RG was the last driver. Sorry...too many "nots" (or knots) in my original reply.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
I think that is a given. The question I have is whether or not it can be determined that RG was the last driver. [/*]

That is basically my question.

My main question is if LE can determine if the last driver wore gloves.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
That is basically my question. My main question is if LE can determine if the last driver wore gloves. Well, there you go. Instead of extrapolating upon incomplete information, call for a definitive answer. I concur.

[Politigal]

I thought it was very interesting today....on the case of missing CDI exec John Glasgow in AR - whose case is soooo similar to RG's.....

John's car was found abandoned in a state park parking lot and reportedly arrived there the day after he vanished - with no fingerprints or evidence inside.

Well guess what?? -- a tourist popped up with a digital photo of John's car parked in the lot on the day he was reported missing...a day earlier than what was first reported.

Gricar's car could have been in Lewisburg earlier too....you just never know.

[Cinderella]

Originally posted by Politigal
I thought it was very interesting today....on the case of missing CDI exec John Glasgow in AR - whose case is soooo similar to RG's.....

John's car was found abandoned in a state park parking lot and reportedly arrived there the day after he vanished - with no fingerprints or evidence inside.

Well guess what?? -- a tourist popped up with a digital photo of John's car parked in the lot on the day he was reported missing...a day earlier than what was first reported.

Gricar's car could have been in Lewisburg earlier too....you just never know. [/*]

Interesting!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal
I thought it was very interesting today....on the case of missing CDI exec John Glasgow in AR - whose case is soooo similar to RG's.....

John's car was found abandoned in a state park parking lot and reportedly arrived there the day after he vanished - with no fingerprints or evidence inside.

Well guess what?? -- a tourist popped up with a digital photo of John's car parked in the lot on the day he was reported missing...a day earlier than what was first reported.

Gricar's car could have been in Lewisburg earlier too....you just never know. [/*]

Not if the man Cindi talked to saw it around 7:30 on the 4/15/05 at the intersection of Rt 144 and Rt 192.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
I thought it was very interesting today....on the case of missing CDI exec John Glasgow in AR - whose case is soooo similar to RG's.....

John's car was found abandoned in a state park parking lot and reportedly arrived there the day after he vanished - with no fingerprints or evidence inside.

Well guess what?? -- a tourist popped up with a digital photo of John's car parked in the lot on the day he was reported missing...a day earlier than what was first reported.

Gricar's car could have been in Lewisburg earlier too....you just never know. [/*]

Two problems:

1. Nobody saw it there.

2. Several sources put him in Bellefonte on 4/14/05. So, if the car was there, how did RFG get back to Bellefonte.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Not if the man Cindi talked to saw it around 7:30 on the 4/15/05 at the intersection of Rt 144 and Rt 192. [/*]

Or the numerous witnesses in Lewisburg.

[Serendipitous1]

Could depend upon which car is being considered. Just a mid-Friday-eve thought.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Could depend upon which car is being considered. Just a mid-Friday-eve thought. [/*]

It's a red car, and it would have been in the lot all night.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
It's a red car, and it would have been in the lot all night. Or...it's a metallic-colored car, and it would have been in the lot all night.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Or...it's a metallic-colored car, and it would have been in the lot all night. [/*]

That would be a distinct possibility, but it wouldn't explain how the Mini got there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Do we have a source that states the Mini was in Bellefonte on Thursday evening or Friday morning? [/*]

Do we have any witnesses that saw the Mini, a red car probably in an empty lot, parked in the parking lot in Lewisburg on Thursday evening or Friday morning?

[Cinderella]

Supposedly he did attend the Prison Board Meeting.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Last time we know the car was sighted prior to Lewisburg parking lot was in the Raystown Lake/Huntingdon area. How do we know it was in Bellefonte at all after Thursday morning?
Sighters who knew and recognized RG in Bellefonte are worth ten thousand of yours in a bush.
JMO [/*]

There is a record of him at the PBM. And, if we go by that standard, "sighters who knew and recognized RG in Bellefonte," the RFG was in Bellefonte around 3:00 PM on 4/15/05.

[Cinderella]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


There is a record of him at the PBM. And, if we go by that standard, "sighters who knew and recognized RG in Bellefonte," the RFG was in Bellefonte around 3:00 PM on 4/15/05. [/*]

He was in the park with PF. I don't know if anyone saw the Mini then or not.

PF doesn't believe that Ray was at the courthouse in a different car. So J. J. you are disagreeing with PF. I do believe Carolyn Fenton though.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella


He was in the park with PF. I don't know if anyone saw the Mini then or not.

PF doesn't believe that Ray was at the courthouse in a different car. So J. J. you are disagreeing with PF. I do believe Carolyn Fenton though. [/*]

I was applying the standard that Logic raised.

I think the Fenton/Grine sighting is quite plausible, but I'm looking for much stronger evidence of a walk away.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks
I thought we were told the only usuable print was on the exterior of the window on the driver's side, of RG's middle finger.


From today's news:

Fingerprints taken from the missing prosecutor’s Mini Cooper are a case on point, Tony Gricar said. A now-retired Bellefonte police chief had said five sets of prints, or five fingerprints in other media accounts, were lifted from the Mini Cooper, and said all identifiable prints belonged to Gricar.

The detective saw in case files that was not exactly accurate. There were not five prints. There were three prints, two of them lifted twice, Rickard said. No prints found inside the car were of the quality needed to make a match.
***The only usable print, from a water bottle, ***did not have enough ridge characteristics to be linked to Gricar or anyone else, a lab report indicates.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/426195.html [/*]

I think that means that the only usable print, that was found on the water bottle, didn't have enough ridges. There were also prints found in the car, but they were not clear to be used.

[Politigal]

So.....this thread title is correct.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
So.....this thread title is correct. [/*]

Not quite. There were prints in the car, but they were unreadable. We don't know who left them, except we do seem to know that the car wasn't wiped down before they were left. RFG might have, but we can't say.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Not quite. There were prints in the car, but they were unreadable. We don't know who left them, except we do seem to know that the car wasn't wiped down before they were left. RFG might have, but we can't say. [/*]

Darn you are so stubborn...and wrong again.

The thread title is "No identifiable prints found in the Mini" --

and that is *exactly* correct.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Darn you are so stubborn...and wrong again.

The thread title is "No identifiable prints found in the Mini" --

and that is *exactly* correct. [/*]

Like I said, not quite.

All the prints might be identifiable, if we could just read them. "No identifiable prints" can mean that there was a recovered print, but it belongs to an unknown person.

[Cinderella]

And I could picture Ray Gricar doing a Mel Wiley and making sure that his prints were not in the car. NOT

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by logicworks
I thought we were told the only usuable print was on the exterior of the window on the driver's side, of RG's middle finger.


From today's news:

Fingerprints taken from the missing prosecutor’s Mini Cooper are a case on point, Tony Gricar said. A now-retired Bellefonte police chief had said five sets of prints, or five fingerprints in other media accounts, were lifted from the Mini Cooper, and said all identifiable prints belonged to Gricar.

The detective saw in case files that was not exactly accurate. There were not five prints. There were three prints, two of them lifted twice, Rickard said. No prints found inside the car were of the quality needed to make a match.
***The only usable print, from a water bottle, ***did not have enough ridge characteristics to be linked to Gricar or anyone else, a lab report indicates.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/426195.html [/*]

LW the way it looks they either left out about the exterior print or there are no prints that can link back to RG?

[Politigal]

No, but not excluding it.


"no" my a**

[J. J. in Phila]

"no" my a**

The seems to the oriface where you have pulled the conclusion.

The car wasn't wiped down.

That can mean:

1. Some one else was the last person to drive the Mini, and wore gloves.

2. Some one else was the last person to drive the Mini, and smeared their prints just as a matter of course.

3. RFG was the last person to drive the Mini, and smeared their prints, just as a matter of course.

4. RFG was the last person to drive the Mini, and wore gloves.

It doesn't point to anything except to say that we can't say who was the last person to drive the Mini.

[gstickley]

If false information was given about the prints "found" in the vehicle, it's possible false information was also given about "no wipe down" of the vehicle.

BTW, since SW has been in charge of the investigation for years, why wasn't the false information released earlier??? Same for MM (ya know, MM, who 'has done all he could")???

[J. J. in Phila]

If false information was given about the prints "found" in the vehicle, it's possible false information was also given about "no wipe down" of the vehicle.


Rickard checked the source, the PSP report, not what DZ said. PB alluded to in the blog.


BTW, since SW has been in charge of the investigation for years, why wasn't the false information released earlier??? Same for MM (ya know, MM, who 'has done all he could")???

When the information was released, neither was in their current positions; my guess is that they didn't reveiw the reports and just looked at DZ's told them.

[gstickley]

"Everything's done that could be done."
"No stone's been left unturned."

Total BS.

[J. J. in Phila]

"Everything's done that could be done."
"No stone's been left unturned."

Total BS.

Take it up with MM.

BTW, as PB noted recently, Harrisburg Woman was not checked out by LE, so there is an unturned stone. MM also said that a grand jury is useful when people won't talk. A grand jury might be useful.

[Politigal]

We're still in the digestion stage on this one, so I'll be refraining from comment.

To save you all some time, these are the 3 on-the-record comments that I could find re: the print "identification". Consume as you will...

----

Dixon also revealed three of five sets of fingerprints found on Gricar's car belong to the missing prosecutor, while the other two sets haven't been identified.

----

CALLER: My question is for the chief. What I would like to know is: Once they found his vehicle, were there any fingerprints or anything of that nature? And also, to his nephew: Has he ever had any type of symptoms of the bipolar?

LARRY KING: Chief?

CHIEF DIXON: The vehicle was processed by the Pennsylvania state police on scene and at their station. They did find five fingerprints. The only couple that was able to be identified, certainly belonged to Ray himself.

----

"All of the legible prints in the car were identified," Zaccagni said. "And they were Ray's."

There were no indications anyone tried to "wipe the car clean" of any other fingerprints, Zaccagni said.

time for a change of pace...

revisiting the fingerprints (or lack thereof)

I am still so puzzled why both Dixon and Zaccagni claimed that Gricar's prints were found in the car, when in fact no identifiable prints were found.

And, if they weren't being truthful about that, does that mean we also can't trust the statement that "there were no indications anyone tried to wipe the car clean of any other fingerprints" ??

It would seem to me that *if* the car was wiped clean of prints, that it would definitely point more toward foul play.

IMO

[J. J. in Phila]

time for a change of pace...

revisiting the fingerprints (or lack thereof)

I am still so puzzled why both Dixon and Zaccagni claimed that Gricar's prints were found in the car, when in fact no identifiable prints were found.


There were several attempts at lifting prints, but they were unreadable. The might of been when the mistakement occurred, but Dixon should have checked the report.


And, if they weren't being truthful about that, does that mean we also can't trust the statement that "there were no indications anyone tried to wipe the car clean of any other fingerprints" ??

It would seem to me that *if* the car was wiped clean of prints, that it would definitely point more toward foul play.

IMO

No, that was in the PSP report, IIRC. There was dust, so on one attempted to wipe down the car.

Note: This in no way precludes:

A. Someone who didn't care about leaving prints, smearing them in the course of driving.

B. Someone wearing gloves.

[Politigal]

Does anyone have a link to the PSP report regarding the fingerprints where "dust" in the Mini Cooper is mentioned?

I find none.

(and Bosak's opinion about the possibility of dust won't cut it)

[J. J. in Phila]

Does anyone have a link to the PSP report regarding the fingerprints where "dust" in the Mini Cooper is mentioned?

I find none.

(and Bosak's opinion about the possibility of dust won't cut it)

It was mentioned when the no identifiable prints came out in the Q and A:

Primarily it appears there was no "wipe down" of prints because whoever was trying to destroy fingerprints would have hit the obvious areas, like the driver's side door handle. That didn't happen, as we know police lifted a print from that door handle, even though it was not of such quality it could be identified. State police did the investigation of the interior and made no mention of any indications someone had "wiped down" the interior.

We know Gricar's fingerprint was found on the exterior driver's side window, perhaps aided by the fine layer of dust covering the Mini Cooper from that parking lot in which it was found.

http://209.73.26.184/showthread.php?t=324603&pp=40&page=8

I've heard it was principally the dust.

Now, that does not eliminate the possibility of someone wearing gloves.

[Politigal]

To my knowledge, there is no report of dust being found *inside* Ray Gricar's Mini Cooper at Lewisburg.

None.

[J. J. in Phila]

To my knowledge, there is no report of dust being found *inside* Ray Gricar's Mini Cooper at Lewisburg.

None.

It was sited in the same entry from PB. Since that came out, I've heard that it was undisturbed dust.

P'gal, I post links so people reading this can look at the comments made.

[gstickley]

There were no identifiable prints found inside the car. It was reported that 1 print was on the exterior of the car.

Notice on Pete's comments about the "dust" ....he said "I would assume..." so there is *no* definitive report about dust being found inside the vehicle either...So, IMO it's definitely possible that prints were cleaned from the interior.

And . . . if the "fingerprints" were misrepresented by DZ (& never corrected by SW) for so long, there's no way of knowing whether the car was "wiped down" or not.

[Politigal]

And . . . if the "fingerprints" were misrepresented by DZ (& never corrected by SW) for so long, there's no way of knowing whether the car was "wiped down" or not.

It still puzzles me why the fingerprints issue was so contorted...

[J. J. in Phila]

And . . . if the "fingerprints" were misrepresented by DZ (& never corrected by SW) for so long, there's no way of knowing whether the car was "wiped down" or not.

Actually, since there was some dust, yes. Also, while the prints were unreadable, they were still there. They should not be, if the car was wiped down.

Now, that does exclude someone wearing gloves.

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, since there was some dust, yes. Also, while the prints were unreadable, they were still there. They should not be, if the car was wiped down.

Now, that does exclude someone wearing gloves.

Sorry, that should read "Now, that does not exclude someone wearing gloves."

[Serendipitous1]

As I recall, this is where TG basically disengaged. If he realized LE was holding back critical information, who could blame him? And I say this not knowing what the big secret is, in deference to LE's "little" lies.

[Politigal]

As I recall, this is where TG basically disengaged. If he realized LE was holding back critical information, who could blame him? And I say this not knowing what the big secret is, in deference to LE's "little" lies.

IIRC, originally, Dixon stated that no *strangers* prints were found in the car. Then it morphed into only Gricar's prints were found in the car....

and of course now, it's *no* identifiable prints were found in the car.

Was Dixon just really really disengaged from the investigation or what?

[Politigal]

There was no official report of any claim that the car was wiped, an that would have been in the report. There were prints there, but unreadable.

I have found out that why the police could say stat the car wasn't wiped was dust.

Now, as I've indicated, someone could have driven the Mini wearing gloves, which would preclude a need to wipe down the car.

Post a link to a report or a source for your claim of dust found in the *interior* of the Mini.

[J. J. in Phila]

Post a link to a report or a source for your claim of dust found in the *interior* of the Mini.

I've indicated that previously. PB said that the reason was dust; that might have been in his old Q & A, but he also has indicated that in e-mails.

That does NOT eliminate the possibility of someone wearing gloves.

[Politigal]

I've indicated that previously. PB said that the reason was dust; that might have been in his old Q & A, but he also has indicated that in e-mails.

That does NOT eliminate the possibility of someone wearing gloves.

Pete wrote in his blog that he *ASSumed* there was dust on the *exterior* of the Mini.

[J. J. in Phila]

Pete wrote in his blog that he *ASSumed* there was dust on the *exterior* of the Mini.

I heard from him after the Q & A posting.

[gstickley]

"Twisted Brothers" maybe?????

[J. J. in Phila]

"Twisted Brothers" maybe?????

More like Accurate Compatriots.

[Serendipitous1]

More like Accurate Compatriots.You are probably 33.333% correct there, oh amazing one!

[J. J. in Phila]

You are probably 33.333% correct there, oh amazing one!

Do I detect some grapes, sour ones?

[Serendipitous1]

Do I detect some grapes, sour ones?Not at all...just "Robert's Rules of Order".

[J. J. in Phila]

Not at all...just "Robert's Rules of Order".

I like rules, obviously. Even made a few presentations to bodies.

[Serendipitous1]

I like rules, obviously. Even made a few presentations to bodies.Were they awake?

[ladyheartfixer]

Were they awake?


or alive? I so love the dead...they are so much easier to get along with sometimes

[Serendipitous1]

or alive? I so love the dead...they are so much easier to get along with sometimesYou are a twisted sister! :wub:

[ladyheartfixer]

You are a twisted sister! :wub:

no...I think that title has been given to two others on this forum...I just know what I like...:rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Were they awake?

Usually, I try to stay away from the math stuff, if you get my drift. I, however, am usually horizontal. Bad design, I guess. ;)

[Politigal]

Were they awake?

They were *before* he started the presentation....lol

[J. J. in Phila]

They were *before* he started the presentation....lol

Believe me, they stay awake for mine, but perhaps not for S1's. ;)