Lewisburg witnesses

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm trying to establish a list of when the witnesses in or around Lewisburg saw RFG.

So far, I have:

4/15/05

12:15-12-45 PM, reported in the Post Gazettte

McKnight's witness 5:00 PM, Route 15

Business man 6:00 PM (either 4/14 or 4/15)

4/16/05

Craig Bennett, business owner, around noon

Two workers, female, afternoon (don't know the time)

The unsure businessman from above 6:00 PM

I know that there was a person from a Museum and I think a few others. I'm trying to come up with a time line of just the witness sightings (and leaving out the Fenton/Grine sighting), and only the witnesses after the call was made.

[sherrijean981]

JJ, there was supposed to have been a siting of RG on I-80.
When we discussed it on the forum we questioned in which direction he was going, east or west.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


I didn't know RG was said to have been down in Lewisburg on 4/14. Where was this reported? [/*]

Sorry, that should have been 4/15 or 4/16.

Okay, include the I-80 (that could jib with McKnight's witness).

[J. J. in Phila]

LW, TG also post that he thought RFG was in Lewisburg because of the evidence.

I don't give a lot of credibility to any one of the Lewisburg witnesses, but do give it to the Lewisburg witnesses, collectively.

The more people seeing the same thing, increases the likelihood that that thing took place.

The premise his that RFG was in Lewisburg after the time of noon on 4/15/05. We have eight witnesses now, that I can identify that say yes, Bennett, McKnight's witness, the other business man, the two employees, the museum woman, the person who saw him enter or in parking lot, the person who saw him in the early afternoon and possibly a few others. What I'm looking for is the times.

[J. J. in Phila]

Bump, I'm still working on a witness time line.

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is the current list that I can develop for after 4/15/05:

4/15/05 en route

PEF, phone call, c. 11:14 AM. Polygraph, call record, location of phone.

4/15/05 in or near Lewisburg

1. Woman at Museum Noon, reported Centre Daily Times (CDT)

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

3. Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (multiple), CDT

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

4/15/05 in Bellefonte

1. Fenton, Courthouse, metallic colored car, 3:00 PM,
CDT.

2. Grine, 3:00 PM or 4/14/05, CDT


4/16/05 in Lewisburg

1. Bennett, lunchtime, CDT

2. Workers, 2, saw RFG at the SoS, just after lunch, CDT

4/18/05 in Wilkes-Barre

1. Police officer from eastern Pennsylvania, off Highland Avenue, evening, Pittsburgh Post Gazette(PPG). Called BPD 4/22/05.

2. Bartender, identified RFG after police checked the bar, PPG.

[J. J. in Phila]

LW, you have all the information that has been published.

The parking lot is Lewisburg, yes. Wilkes-Barre, not that I'm aware of, but that wasn't reported until 4/22 and wasn't confirmed until after that. The sketch artist after that would be a bit redundant.

The family spokesman has not denied any credible witnesses. In fact, he described the business owner (probably #4) as credible. Some might not be credible and a report of a woman that she saw RFG on 4/16 in Lewisburg at 1:30 PM has been discounted by LE and does not appear on my list. A report from MD was also discounted and doesn't appear.

I certainly would call the Wilkes-Barre witnesses credible, because two people saw the same thing at the same time. Of course, one was an off duty police officer.

[J. J. in Phila]

I put #4 down at the bottom of the list. His story changed from one day to the next. He first said no one saw anyone, then changed the story on Saturday. I don't buy that one, but that's just me.


No it hasn't. It was the same as initially reported. No change.


I also do not buy into the Wilkes-Barre sighting, officer or not. IMO, IF RG took off to disappear long term, I seriously doubt the journey would was to W-B at a bar.
JMO

I do buy the corroborated witness report of the officer. There were two separate identification of RFG at the same place and at the same time. And, the officer had a five minute conversation with the man he identified as RFG.

Highland Avenue, near where the bar is located, is just under 72 miles from Lewisburg, easily reachable by I-80 and I-81. From that point, he would be within 15 miles of an international airport, and a connection to the Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike. There are nine motels in a 2 mile radius and 31 within a 10 mile radius. And, get this, it is in a third media market. It would make a great deal of sense for RFG to be there, if he wanted to watch the developments and see if the car was found.

As witness reports go, it's about as solid as they get. It was initially reported, but Chief Dixon refused to release the details.

In short, I trust the reports now, of 8+ Lewisburg witnesses and 2+ Wilkes-Barre witnesses, than I trust what LW "buys." It looks like she's trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge, and that I am not buying.

[Chump#7]

...Even if the Wilkes-Barre sighting were credible, it still does nothing to prove RG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 or 4/16.

I'll laugh like hell if it ever turns out RG did walk away AND was never in Lewisburg.

Question on the W-B sighting: At what point did these witnesses realize it was RG? By 4/18 it was all over local news (including W-B*) as well as national news (I knew about it). If they thought it was RG then, why didn't they (especially the 'cop'), you know, follow him? It really took until 4/22 to report it? Really?

* By the time I left State College in 2001, W-B Scranton had a local channel/news on our cable programming and Central PA news was part of their daily broadcast.

[J. J. in Phila]

...Even if the Wilkes-Barre sighting were credible, it still does nothing to prove RG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 or 4/16.

I'll laugh like hell if it ever turns out RG did walk away AND was never in Lewisburg.

Question on the W-B sighting: At what point did these witnesses realize it was RG? By 4/18 it was all over local news (including W-B*) as well as national news (I knew about it). If they thought it was RG then, why didn't they (especially the 'cop'), you know, follow him? It really took until 4/22 to report it? Really?

* By the time I left State College in 2001, W-B Scranton had a local channel/news on our cable programming and Central PA news was part of their daily broadcast.


He reported it on 4/22/05. He is not local to the area (either Wilkes-Barre, Lewisburg or Centre County). There was no report at that time.

I checked the cable station a while back. Generally, they don't have penetration from J/A/SC to Lewisburg (Susquehanna Valley), much less Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.

It does pretty much destroy the theory that RFG was murdered prior noon on 4/15.

The quest remains, how did RFG get of of Lewisburg?

[UndertheRadar]

...Even if the Wilkes-Barre sighting were credible, it still does nothing to prove RG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 or 4/16.



Yeah, Chump, same thing I was mulling over last night. Who's to say (assuming a walkaway) that RG didn't hop into the metallic car seen in the courthouse parking lot, then hightail it off to Wilkes-Barre while an accomplice left the Mini in Lewisburg? RG could even have made the call from 192 as a bread crumb trail before taking off.

And JJ, let's talk about witness credibility versus sighting credibility. The cop in WB may be a credible witness, but does that make his sighting credible? There's no direct correlation. And if you believe the cop in WB, are you also going to believe the retired sketch artist in Michigan? Is he not as "credible"?

Consider that cop in the Culberson case. He was one of the 15 witnesses testifying for the defense, a credible witness certainly. But under cross-examination by the prosecution, the credibility of his sighting fell apart.

Ever notice how the UFO abduction crowd tends to parade their "abductees" who are doctors, lawyers, teachers, bankers, etc. more prominently than the 8th grade drop outs who can't cobble a sentence together? You can surely bet there's the hope that public reaction will be credible witness=credible story.

It ain't necessarily so, not with UFO abductions, not with missing person sightings.

[Chump#7]

He reported it on 4/22/05. He is not local to the area (either Wilkes-Barre, Lewisburg or Centre County). There was no report at that time.

I checked the cable station a while back. Generally, they don't have penetration from J/A/SC to Lewisburg (Susquehanna Valley), much less Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.

It does pretty much destroy the theory that RFG was murdered prior noon on 4/15.

The quest remains, how did RFG get of of Lewisburg?

Who knows (or if he ever did)? The answer you're looking for is not going to show up on any internet message boards that's for sure. Posts from people who have claimed to know RG walked away and was living in Seattle (for example) are quickly shot down (the poster is off their meds, etc.) Why don't you hop in the car and sniff around Lewisburg then?

Full stop. All of this information/witnesses, etc has been around for years... Now all of a sudden witnesses become more credible than they ever were before... What is up with this sudden surge/blatant increased activity/campaign on the part of you, J.J. and PB to promote the theory that RG walked away specifically via Lewisburg? It's entirely possible, for sure, but there also seems to be a surge/campaign to rid the discussion of any other, as far as we're aware of, plausible possibilities.

I'm not sure what Joseph Goebbels would make of this...

[J. J. in Phila]

Who knows (or if he ever did)? The answer you're looking for is not going to show up on any internet message boards that's for sure. Posts from people who have claimed to know RG walked away and was living in Seattle (for example) are quickly shot down (the poster is off their meds, etc.) Why don't you hop in the car and sniff around Lewisburg then?

Full stop. All of this information/witnesses, etc has been around for years... Now all of a sudden witnesses become more credible than they ever were before... What is up with this sudden surge/blatant increased activity/campaign on the part of you, J.J. and PB to promote the theory that RG walked away specifically via Lewisburg? It's entirely possible, for sure, but there also seems to be a surge/campaign to rid the discussion of any other, as far as we're aware of, plausible possibilities.

The answer won't, but the right question may.

Nobody's is pushing it; the evidence is going in that direction. Before I knew who the witness was, I gave the sighting about a 40% likelihood, not knowing if the witness was trained to be observant. We now know he was. We know he observed some unusual activity, his smoking.

I'm up to 48% for walkaway; if we find out that the bartender and/or the officer identified his voice, that might move the odds up a bit.

The thing is, we've gotten new information; that new information is pointing toward walkaway.

[quote]
I'm not sure what Joseph Goebbels would make of this...

The Doktor would be as disappointed as some of the posters here; he wasn't big on the truth.

[J. J. in Phila]

Wilkes-Barre was 4/[b]19[/b/05, not 4/18. It was a Tuesday.

[Politigal]

Wilkes-Barre was 4/[b]19[/b/05, not 4/18. It was a Tuesday.


Do you honestly believe that after his daughter had been seen in a televised press conference - crying & pleading for answers in her father's disappearance, that Gricar would be in some bar mucking it up about the Cleveland Indians?

[J. J. in Phila]

Do you honestly believe that after his daughter had been seen in a televised press conference - crying & pleading for answers in her father's disappearance, that Gricar would be in some bar mucking it up about the Cleveland Indians?

If he were planning to walk away, yes.

One point that you have not considered, on 4/15/05, LE moved exceptionally quickly in the search, much more that they would have done with me. The last time RFG whereabouts were unknown, briefly, was the Cleveland game. He may have assumed that he could have called her sometime before there was media reporting of the case. He couldn't call and tell her after 4/16/05, because she was surrounded by media and the family. He might have though he'd get 48 hours to make the contact; he didn't have that much time.

There are several possibilities about what happened at that point, that will largely be dependent on the method RFG to leave Lewisburg, if he did. That, even with the new information, remains the key.

[Politigal]

If he were planning to walk away, yes.

One point that you have not considered, on 4/15/05, LE moved exceptionally quickly in the search, much more that they would have done with me. The last time RFG whereabouts were unknown, briefly, was the Cleveland game. He may have assumed that he could have called her sometime before there was media reporting of the case. He couldn't call and tell her after 4/16/05, because she was surrounded by media and the family. He might have though he'd get 48 hours to make the contact; he didn't have that much time.

There are several possibilities about what happened at that point, that will largely be dependent on the method RFG to leave Lewisburg, if he did. That, even with the new information, remains the key.

the new info you are referring to is the off-duty officer who was in a bar?

lol....okay

[UndertheRadar]

the new info you are referring to is the off-duty officer who was in a bar?

lol....okay

JJ's been a busy little Thanksgiving beaver, pushing his "credible police officer sighting" theory (along with his "evidence of how RG got out of Lewisburg" theory).

The problem with the "credible police officer sighting" theory (as usual) is that JJ's just going with the anecdotal mythology and not doing the research to see what the empirical evidence is.

There's a host of literature out there showing that training and experience might affect how a witness understands what he/she sees, but doesn't affect the accuracy of the observation or recall.

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry, UTR, but both witnesses observed something. The both reported it independently.

The police officer is not only a trained observer, but he is an experienced observer. It isn't mythology, but the kind of evidence that carries weight in court. This just happens to be not only good, but corroborated.

But thank you, UTR for expressing your views that we shouldn't trust police officers as witnesses.

[Politigal]

Sorry, UTR, but both witnesses observed something. The both reported it independently.

The police officer is not only a trained observer, but he is an experienced observer. It isn't mythology, but the kind of evidence that carries weight in court. This just happens to be not only good, but corroborated.

But thank you, UTR for expressing your views that we shouldn't trust police officers as witnesses.

a bartender & a bar patron...a bar where alcoholic beverages are sold...and you have no clue if the off-duty officer had been drinking or not.

[UndertheRadar]

See, JJ, that's a major difference between you and me. It's not my views about police officers as witnesses.

I actually do the research to see what science has to say about such things.

[J. J. in Phila]

What scientific evidence, in relation to trained observers specifically? Not witnesses in general. And then when it's confirmed independently.

I said this a few months ago. If I believed just in eyewitness testimony, RFG walked away, 100%. I said before this latest revelation. What odd do I give, after that? 48%. That is not based on witness reports alone. It is part of the puzzle, but not the complete puzzle.

Why do you think I've been saying repeatedly, the key is if there is evidence that RFG had the means to walk away, to get out of Lewisburg on his own? It's because, if that exists, it becomes very likely that RFG left on his own (possibly to walk into a murder a few days later). That isn't witness evidence, but documentary evidence. I've thought it existed from the start, if this was walkaway. It is to the point that LE should look, if they have not already.

[J. J. in Phila]

The number of witnesses that saw RFG moving the car in the parking lot on 4/15/05 is now listed at "three or four good wintesses." I'll list it as three, possibly more. That brings it up to four witnesses that saw RFG in the Mini on 4/15/05 in or around Lewisburg.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/30/the-rivers-edge-homicide-suicide-hoax-a-prosecutor-vanishes-and-the-clues-point-everywhere-and-nowhere-at-oncethe-rivers-edge

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay, there appears to be a gap between roughly noon and 5:00 PM on 4/15.

[Cloudbuster]

Perhaps RG was really at the courthouse at 3pm on the 15th as per Fenton sighting.

Perhaps the meeting of the MW in Lewisburg is really about giving her the money to purchase a metallic car in her name and return the new car back to RG in Lewisburg.

The laptop might have contained the dealership and what he wanted and also the directions to that dealership. RG might have even gave her the laptop to show the dealer what kind of car he had in mind.She puts the car in her name.

So she comes back with the car and now RG must drive her to get her car. The mini is left in the Lewisburg parking lot. RG then arrives behind the courthouse and perhaps was going to leave PF a letter of explanation but instead he gets startled cause C Fenton saw him so he leaves.

[Cloudbuster]

Opps I forgot perhaps the car she purchases is not ready till 4-16-05 and he then had to stay overnight in a hotel ect. The metallic car could of been a rental or a dealer borrowed car till his was ready the next day? Or it could of even been her's while he leaves her at the Lewisburg Hotel while he plans to leave PF a letter but is startled from CFenton seeing him so he leaves to go back to Lewisburg to stay overnight till the next day so he could then get his car to leave in.

[J. J. in Phila]

A straw purchase is possible, and I don't see how the Fenton sighting conflicts with the time line.

[Cloudbuster]

I personally have purchased a used car and paid for it but they wouldn't give it to me till the next day because they wanted to clean and shine it and take a look at it to make sure it was in order being that a warranty was involved.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ you are right. It doesn't interfer with CFentons sighting. It sorta makes sense.

[Cloudbuster]

A good suggestion is if LE would check out the MW's purchases of vechicles in that time frame?

[J. J. in Phila]

I personally have purchased a used car and paid for it but they wouldn't give it to me till the next day because they wanted to clean and shine it and take a look at it to make sure it was in order being that a warranty was involved.

The car might have been "disposable" in this case.

The supposed MW is on my "Inner Circle" list.

[Cloudbuster]

Ray had to know at least that he would be gone for one night because he took his contact lenses case? Was it natural for him to take it on a daily basis with him?

[J. J. in Phila]

One good question asked by UTR was if he any left in his last order.

[gstickley]

The number of witnesses that saw RFG moving the car in the parking lot on 4/15/05 is now listed at "three or four good wintesses." I'll list it as three, possibly more. That brings it up to four witnesses that saw RFG in the Mini on 4/15/05 in or around Lewisburg.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/30/the-rivers-edge-homicide-suicide-hoax-a-prosecutor-vanishes-and-the-clues-point-everywhere-and-nowhere-at-oncethe-rivers-edge

I wonder what has made Mr. Renner & his "River's Edge" writings more believable now than they were in 2005/06. It seems to me that he was pretty well "dissed" at the time as stating things that weren't actually correct. I hope someone has a record of 'the early days' to confirm this as, if I'm not mistaken, even TG didn't put much stock in Renner & his writings. Now it seems the famous ex-reporter for the CDT & you are taking Renner's book/stories as gospel. Why is he now more believable than he was before????????????

[J. J. in Phila]

I wonder what has made Mr. Renner & his "River's Edge" writings more believable now than they were in 2005/06. It seems to me that he was pretty well "dissed" at the time as stating things that weren't actually correct. I hope someone has a record of 'the early days' to confirm this as, if I'm not mistaken, even TG didn't put much stock in Renner & his writings. Now it seems the famous ex-reporter for the CDT & you are taking Renner's book/stories as gospel. Why is he now more believable than he was before????????????

Well, for one thing, it was confirmed in part by Buehner. :rolleyes:

Some witnesses reported seeing Gricar at the antiques mall with a woman who police have not been able to identify. Witnesses also said Gricar, for some reason, moved his car from one spot to another in the fairly small Street of Shops parking lot, according to Buehner.

Wednesday, Jul. 02, 2008
GRICAR DISAPPEARANCE: Montour County district attorney calls investigation "shameful"
Madeira blasted over probe
By Pete Bosak-
http://z10.invisionfree.com/usedtobedoe/ar/t2226.htm

You know, GStickley, this is the same article I referred to early this morning and provided the link. It has been referred to before. Why don't you read it?

It corresponds to Renner's quote of DZ, precisely, except that DZ actually gives the number.

Now, I don't know what Renner believes, but Buehner believes it's murder, and also did not question these witnesses. :rolleyes:

Had you read the article you might have understood. Maybe not.

[gstickley]

Well, for one thing, it was confirmed in part by Buehner. :rolleyes:

Some witnesses reported seeing Gricar at the antiques mall with a woman who police have not been able to identify. Witnesses also said Gricar, for some reason, moved his car from one spot to another in the fairly small Street of Shops parking lot, according to Buehner.

Wednesday, Jul. 02, 2008
GRICAR DISAPPEARANCE: Montour County district attorney calls investigation "shameful"
Madeira blasted over probe
By Pete Bosak-
http://z10.invisionfree.com/usedtobedoe/ar/t2226.htm

You know, GStickley, this is the same article I referred to early this morning and provided the link. It has been referred to before. Why don't you read it?

It corresponds to Renner's quote of DZ, precisely, except that DZ actually gives the number.

Now, I don't know what Renner believes, but Buehner believes it's murder, and also did not question these witnesses. :rolleyes:

Had you read the article you might have understood. Maybe not.

Yep, read it & understood it. What I don't understand is why not much stock was placed on Renner's article in 2005/06 and why it took from July 2008 until Nov. 2008 to bring it up along with Buehner's statements.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yep, read it & understood it. What I don't understand is why not much stock was placed on Renner's article in 2005/06 and why it took from July 2008 until Nov. 2008 to bring it up along with Buehner's statements.


Because nobody went back and saw just how right Renner got it. He did.

We all kind of pushed Renner out of the picture (including me), and perhaps we should not have. On top of that, this site was down in July, if you remember, so our discussions were limited.

[Politigal]

I emailed Renner today.

He said that Patty Fornicola would never speak to him about the case. He thought it was strange.

[J. J. in Phila]

I emailed Renner today.

He said that Patty Fornicola would never speak to him about the case. He thought it was strange.

And? That really doesn't anything to do with the witnesses. I don't find it too strange since she doesn't talk about the case. Neither does LG, as a rule.

[Serendipitous1]

I wonder what has made Mr. Renner & his "River's Edge" writings more believable now than they were in 2005/06. It seems to me that he was pretty well "dissed" at the time as stating things that weren't actually correct. I hope someone has a record of 'the early days' to confirm this as, if I'm not mistaken, even TG didn't put much stock in Renner & his writings. Now it seems the famous ex-reporter for the CDT & you are taking Renner's book/stories as gospel. Why is he now more believable than he was before????????????I discounted Renner's entire "River's Edge" piece when it first came out (and still do) because it contained so many glaring errors. It was impossible to determine if there were any new "facts" embedded in it...including the supposed DZ quotes.

Renner seems the type who does not let facts get in the way of peddling a poorly researched story. His motivation appears to have been written in Times Square long ago (the man-kisser episode). And his more recent, unannounced visit (sniffing around TG's neighborhood, flashing RG's photo)...well, that seems more like something one of us might do.

I am not persuaded that there is anything factual about alleged Saturday sighting(s) in Lewisburg. And I am stuck, wondering about these "new" alleged Friday sightings. But it is intriguing that Renner mentioned the Thursday lake sighting...something PB only recently confirmed and expanded upon. So, who knows?

That now seems to have been a long-range "scoop" for Renner...which is odd in itself (although PB was not then a CDT reporter). Maybe "journalists" are not altogether unlike the general public...be nice, ask the right questions, and maybe a "bone" will come your way. And now it appears the "press hounds" may be headed toward a "scoop scrap" (them bones, them bones, them crazy bones):
http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6538

[J. J. in Phila]

They are basically two different formats, so I don't see a "scoop scrap," except to say PB and Renner may be a better reporters that we thought (well, than some of us thought). :) PB and Renner are the only two real journalists that are covering the story. PB is not "working" for the paper, and his successor isn't exactly beating the bushes to cover the RFG story. I think she covered one press conference (of the guy who suppresses evidence).

One thing that I've considered is that the "Saturday Witnesses," Bennett and the two workers, might have the day wrong and actually saw RFG at about the same time (around noon) on 4/15/05, Friday. The timing is right and Judge Grine can't remember the day, either.

Since that could not have possibly occurred on Thursday 4/14/05, the Friday witnesses won't be subject to that.

Now, even discounting that possibility, we have five witnesses that out RFG in or near Lewisburg, between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM; four put him in the Mini, the fifth near where the Mini was found. One put's him there around noon. The phone call was made at 11:12 AM. We have a gap between early afternoon and 5:00 PM; the 5:00 PM witness saw him heading into Lewisburg. What was he doing for those five hours?

If Fenton, in Bellefonte, is right, we know, but that raises the question of where he got the car.

It keeps coming back to a car question.

[Serendipitous1]

Renner and "real journalism"? Ho..ho..ho. Let's see...$14.95...divide by 12...carry the nine......that's a buck twenty-five for RG...prolly still a bit over-priced on the JR worth-o-meter!

What I read in (or into, take your pick) PB's recent blog posts were not-so-subtle "knocks"...a professional one against Renner, sandwiched between political ones against Madeira (must be the "redneck affect"). I believe I asked how far PB was prepared to go, when he "cranked" his blog after leaving the CDT. My Christmas wish is that we do finally hear "the rest of the story"...from someone (anyone) who actually knows. That would seem to exclude present company here BTW (me and "Bobby Magee", et al.).

[J. J. in Phila]

Renner and "real journalism"? Ho..ho..ho. Let's see...$14.95...divide by 12...carry the nine......that's a buck twenty-five for RG...prolly still a bit over-priced on the JR worth-o-meter!

What I read in (or into, take your pick) PB's recent blog posts were not-so-subtle "knocks"...a professional one against Renner, sandwiched between political ones against Madeira (must be the "redneck affect"). I believe I asked how far PB was prepared to go, when he "cranked" his blog after leaving the CDT. My Christmas wish is that we do finally hear "the rest of the story"...from someone (anyone) who actually knows. That would seem to exclude present company here BTW (me and "Bobby Magee", et al.).

Well, I will be getting a copy, based on the past article. PB was twisting Renner's tail a bit, perhaps, or just taking a bow for being the first guy to the story.

I've never had the answer, but I only hope someone asks the right question. That could be anyone of us.

I think you know that, until today at least, I was a bit more critical of MM than PB was. Now is the time for Madeira to be more open; he could be more willing to release some what LE checked and proved negative. He could release some reports and the redacted cell phone records.

He might even consider a grand jury, unless a clear answer appears.

[J. J. in Phila]

Since this keeps coming up; here is the new witness list for 4/15-4/16/05:

4/15/05 en route

1. PEF, phone call, c. 11:14 AM. Polygraph, call record, location of phone.

4/15/05 in or near Lewisburg

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

3. McKnight’s witness, c. 5:00 PM, RFG driving Mini, on Rout 15, heading into Lewisburg, CDT

4. Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot across from Street of Shops (SoS), RFG driving, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (at least three), CDT, Cleveland Scene

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

4/15/05 in Bellefonte

1. Fenton, Courthouse, RFG driving metallic colored car, 3:00 PM,
CDT.

2. Grine, 3:00 PM or 4/14/05


4/16/05 in Lewisburg

1. Bennett, lunchtime, CDT

2. Workers, 2, saw RFG at the SoS, just after lunch, CDT

There may be others.

[Serendipitous1]

Well, I will be getting a copy, based on the past article. PB was twisting Renner's tail a bit, perhaps, or just taking a bow for being the first guy to the story.

I've never had the answer, but I only hope someone asks the right question. That could be anyone of us.

I think you know that, until today at least, I was a bit more critical of MM than PB was. Now is the time for Madeira to be more open; he could be more willing to release some what LE checked and proved negative. He could release some reports and the redacted cell phone records.

He might even consider a grand jury, unless a clear answer appears.Selective release of information has been the number one problem for the public. Politics has been the number one problem for the investigation.