~The Dogs~

[Politigal]

Contrary to some creative writing on the board....when Gricar's disappearance was initially investigated (if you can call it that...)....

The search dogs did *not* find his scent at the Street of Shops - not in front of it, not beside it, not inside it ...and they didn't find his scent at or near the river. The only place the dogs alerted to his scent was where his car had been. His scent would naturally have been on a vehicle he drove daily.

That's all folks.

Wonder why they didn't scent the dogs for Patty....because she *also* drove the Mini per Tony Gricar in previous posts.

[J. J. in Phila]

Contrary to some creative writing on the board....when Gricar's disappearance was initially investigated (if you can call it that...)....

The search dogs did *not* find his scent at the Street of Shops - not in front of it, not beside it, not inside it ...and they didn't find his scent at or near the river. The only place the dogs alerted to his scent was where his car had been. His scent would naturally have been on a vehicle he drove daily.

Wonder why they didn't scent the dogs for Patty....because she *also* drove the Mini per Tony Gricar in previous posts.
[/quote]

The scent was found away from the car in the parking lot. We also don't know the last time PEF rode in it, but it was likely more than 60 hours prior to dog being used.


That's all folks.



No, you will attempt to warp time and space again to would out your scenario.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ's quote:

The scent was found away from the car in the parking lot. We also don't know the last time PEF rode in it, but it was likely more than 60 hours prior to dog being used.

No, you will attempt to warp time and space again to would out your scenario.


How would you possibly know that, particularly if the dog was not scented to a personal item of hers? PGal is correct. It should have been done.

There should have been scent pockets near shrubs, concrete blocks, edge of buildings, considering the car may have been parked there for over 24 hours. If the dog didn't pick up on scent pockets, I would be very surprised.

If the dog acted the same regarding PF's scent from the car, it might have aided to answer the question of 'beeline' or 'pocket' situation, considering her scent would have also been there as long as his, if from the car alone.
JMO[/QUOTE]

REF was in the area on 4/17 (possibly 4/16) prior to the dogs. They would have made a "beeline" to where she was or to her standing there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Are you saying not only was PF's scent not introduced, but that she was permitted near the car or the lot prior to the dog scenting?


I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

[Politigal]

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

Source for Patty being at the site when the dogs were there....

I think you're rewriting history...once again.

[J. J. in Phila]

Source for Patty being at the site when the dogs were there....

I think you're rewriting history...once again.

JKA. Gee P'gal, you really do like rewriting history.

She said that she was there (4/17) she was told that PEF had arrived. We've covered this before. Now, I don't know if PEF was there on 4/16 as well (because JKA wasn't there).

[Politigal]

JKA. Gee P'gal, you really do like rewriting history.

She said that she was there (4/17) she was told that PEF had arrived. We've covered this before. Now, I don't know if PEF was there on 4/16 as well (because JKA wasn't there).

JKA did *not* write that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there. She was discussing being at the *BARRACKS.*

I left to return to Bellefonte around 11:00-11:15 AM. At that point the only activity was the anticipated arrival of a helicopter and dogs. As I was leaving, Chief Dixon had just arrived at the barracks and I asked him if he needed anything prior to the time that Mr. Smith could be located, and he indicated that he did not. I was told that Ray's paramour had arrived with a friend but I did not see her before I left.

Try again...sheesh

[J. J. in Phila]

JKA did *not* write that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there. She was discussing being at the *BARRACKS.*

I left to return to Bellefonte around 11:00-11:15 AM. At that point the only activity was the anticipated arrival of a helicopter and dogs. As I was leaving, Chief Dixon had just arrived at the barracks and I asked him if he needed anything prior to the time that Mr. Smith could be located, and he indicated that he did not. I was told that Ray's paramour had arrived with a friend but I did not see her before I left.

Try again...sheesh


You'll note that she said PEF had arrived, but she hadn't seen her. PSP barracks are not big. Whey do think she was. There is also the possibility that she went up on 4/16 when the car was found.

[Politigal]

You'll note that she said PEF had arrived, but she hadn't seen her. PSP barracks are not big. Whey do think she was. There is also the possibility that she went up on 4/16 when the car was found.

When will you ever acknowledge that you are wrong or that you made a mistake?

You have *assumed* that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there... And you have provided nothing to corroborate that she was.

Face it.

[J. J. in Phila]

When will you ever acknowledge that you are wrong or that you made a mistake?

You have *assumed* that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there... And you have provided nothing to corroborate that she was.

Face it.

No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. You'll note she arrived before the searches. She may have been there on 4/16.

TG can answer that one, as per 4/16.

[Politigal]

No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. snipped


NO

Here's what you stated:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there.

Now you're changing your statement and saying Patty was there prior to the dogs being there.

JJ - get your stories straight.

Once again, you're twisting better than Chubby.

[Chump#7]

So much for accuracy.:shrug:

Sucks, because I have an legitimate important question to ask, but I know I won't get an accurate answer.

[J. J. in Phila]

NO

Here's what you stated:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there.

Now you're changing your statement and saying Patty was there prior to the dogs being there.

JJ - get your stories straight.

Once again, you're twisting better than Chubby.

P'Gal, I'll try to explain this two you slowly.

The dogs arrives sometime after 11:15 AM on 4/17/05.

PEF was there before 11:15 AM on 4/17/05. She may have been there on 4/16/05, but that I don't know. :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

So much for accuracy.:shrug:

Sucks, because I have an legitimate important question to ask, but I know I won't get an accurate answer.

Ask away Chump. I'd like to see *both* of JJ's answers... lol

[J. J. in Phila]

NO

Here's what you stated:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there.

Now you're changing your statement and saying Patty was there prior to the dogs being there.

JJ - get your stories straight.

Once again, you're twisting better than Chubby.

No P'gal, I'll quote it again:

"No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. You'll note she arrived before the searches. She may have been there on 4/16."

:rolleyes:

[Politigal]

No P'gal, I'll quote it again:

"No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. You'll note she arrived before the searches. She may have been there on 4/16."

:rolleyes:

JJ - are you drinking or short on memory.....

Here's what you initially posted

"I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there."

Now you're saying she was there *prior* to the dogs being there.

Make up your freaking mind.

[Politigal]

JJ - you were initially implying that Patty was at the parking lot when the dogs were there...because you wrote this:

If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

P'gal, "was" is past tense. "Was standing" means where she had been standing but wasn't at the point the dogs came running to the spot; if she was there at the time, they would have come running to her. :rolleyes:

You must be disparate.

[UndertheRadar]

LOL, JJ. Your explanation of tenses is as accurate as your explanation of scent theory. "Was standing" and "had been standing" have two entirely different meanings. But carry on.

[Chump#7]

LOL, JJ. Your explanation of tenses is as accurate as your explanation of scent theory. "Was standing" and "had been standing" have two entirely different meanings. But carry on.

Not to mention that "was standing" is not even part of J.J.'s quote that he refuses to acknowledge. Even Houdini is rolling his eyes at this.

For the 6th time on this page:

J.J.: "I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there."


I fail to see the ambiguity in that statement. I means Patty was there, in the lot, on 4/17/05, at the same time the dogs were there. I don't see the relevance, yet, but this would be news to those following the case closer than myself. So a simple 'Yes, she was', or 'No, sorry, that's not what I meant.' would have saved some bandwidth.

If it was a misstatement, J.J., there is no shame in admitting it.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, here is the quote:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

Now, except for an occasional conspiracy theory that involves PEF flying on a magic carpet, she either would have been there when the dogs were there, standing, or she had been their, standing. If the dogs are going to run to her, then she is standing there. If she was there prior to the dogs being there, and left, the dogs would then run to where she was standing.

I'm sorry and poster can't comprehend that PEF hovering over the parking lot is not an option. :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

I think what we were all trying to convey.....is that Patty Fornicola was *not* at the parking lot when the search dogs were being used there.

She may have been in Lewisburg or Milton at the police barracks....but she was not in the Street of Shops parking lot when the dogs were being used.

IMO

[Politigal]

Patty reportedly *did* provide the article to police that was used to scent the dogs though....

And that still bugs me, because we really don't know if the item truly belonged to Gricar and/or we don't know if it was a t-shirt of his that perhaps she wore on occasion.

[UndertheRadar]

I think what we were all trying to convey.....is that Patty Fornicola was *not* at the parking lot when the search dogs were being used there.

She may have been in Lewisburg or Milton at the police barracks....but she was not in the Street of Shops parking lot when the dogs were being used.

IMO

It's clear from KA's manuscript that she arrived at the barracks at the same time LE were awaiting the arrival of the dogs at the SOS. My understanding is that she underwent questioning by the profiler at the barracks that Sunday, IIRC.

[Serendipitous1]

Patty reportedly *did* provide the article to police that was used to scent the dogs though....

And that still bugs me, because we really don't know if the item truly belonged to Gricar and/or we don't know if it was a t-shirt of his that perhaps she wore on occasion.Or someone else's underwear...perhaps someone who resembles RG, mucking up the 'witness evidence'. Look, I think I understand every nuance in the hypothetical theory that casts PF as villain rather than victim. From a stand-offish perspective, that theory lacks the same 'smoking gun' as do all other scenarios. But it has received zero support from anyone who was even tangentially related to RG....or PF.

[gstickley]

Centre Daily Times ^ | 4/20/05 | Mike Joseph

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:08:46 PM by TheBigB

LEWISBURG -- Detectives investigating the disappearance of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar concentrated their search Tuesday around an antiques mall near the Susquehanna River where they believe he was seen about noon Saturday.

Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time.

The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

According to LE, the dogs did not track away from the car, to the river, or to the SOS.
Witness Bennett reportedly saw someone fitting Gricar's description INSIDE the SOS.
Bennett is the witness most have relied upon as to Gricar being in Lewisburg.

IMO, "witnesses" of Gricar being in Lewisburg were looking for a moment of fame.
IMO, there is NO proof Gricar was in Lewisburg.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, their "moment of fame" is such that they are not even releasing their names to the press. There is no publicity in basically remaining anonymous to everyone except some out of town police and the family of a guy they've never met. I believe that of the 8-10 we know about, at best only four of them have been publicly identified.

For the witnesses, in general, there would have to be someone who resembled RFG. It isn't PEF or her brother (who had a very thick mustache on 4/18/05). Sloan, not even close. JKA, same problem as PEF. Any of the Gricars? No, from the pictures on-line they couldn't pass for RFG.

Then multiple witnesses put him in the Mini, at least 3. The likelihood that someone who resemble RFG, be dressed as RFG, and be driving a Red Mini is exceptionally low.

That's without the scent. As soon as you add that, it becomes even more problematic.

[Politigal]

It was reported numerous times that police could not corroborate any of the witness sightings with any other evidence...period. No 2 people saw him in the same place at the same time, there was no forensic evidence he was there, there was no evidence on any surveillance video, there were no receipts in his name at any establishment, and the dogs didn't go anywhere but that danged parking lot where the car had been.

Pretty slim chance Gricar was anywhere near there that weekend IMO.

[gstickley]

[QUOTE=gstickley;12295118]Centre Daily Times ^ | 4/20/05 | Mike Joseph

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:08:46 PM by TheBigB

(snip)
Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time.

The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

Bennett described the man "wearing a blue vest or fleece jacket"
IMO, RG was NOT the only man "wearing a blue vest or fleece jacket" in Lewisburg on that day; in fact, has it not been said that such outerwear is quite common in the area?
Has it also not been said that there were other red/white Mini Coopers in Lewisburg on that day?

And . . . if the "man" was seen INSIDE the mall, it apparently WAS NOT RG, as the dogs failed to track the scent away from the car.

And . . . if the scent given to the dogs was not that of RG, there is no proof RG was the last person in the car.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

It was reported numerous times that police could not corroborate any of the witness sightings with any other evidence...period. No 2 people saw him in the same place at the same time, there was no forensic evidence he was there, there was no evidence on any surveillance video, there were no receipts in his name at any establishment, and the dogs didn't go anywhere but that danged parking lot where the car had been.

Pretty slim chance Gricar was anywhere near there that weekend IMO.

Since there were witnesses, plural that saw RFG moving the Mini in the parking lot, and there was forensic evidence that he was in the lot, your statement is false.

The area, like much of the country, is not covered by video, and if RFG didn't buy anything using a credit card, there would be no receipts.

GS, Bennett isn't one of the people that saw RFG in the parking lot or in the Mini, or both, on 4/15/05. He's one of a series of witnesses.

[Politigal]

Since there were witnesses, plural that saw RFG moving the Mini in the parking lot, and there was forensic evidence that he was in the lot, your statement is false.

The area, like much of the country, is not covered by video, and if RFG didn't buy anything using a credit card, there would be no receipts.

GS, Bennett isn't one of the people that saw RFG in the parking lot or in the Mini, or both, on 4/15/05. He's one of a series of witnesses.

Wrong again JJ....there was no forensic evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg...period.

There was forensic evidence that his scent was detected at the area where his car had been (and his car certainly contained his scent.)

I imagine if the dogs had been scented to Patty's scent, that her scent would also have been detected there, since she also drove the car.

[gstickley]

This is JJ's list of "witnesses" who put RG in Lewisburg. Note that Bennett is listed, even though he "witnessed" RG INSIDE the mall, when the dogs did not track the scent away from the car. Also note that no other "witnesses" names are given. Also note there were other red/white Mini's in the area at the time and that blue fleece jackets were common outwear in the area. Also note that NO ONE has ever said, "I know Ray Gricar & I saw Ray Gricar".

Once again, there were NO WITNESSES who ever said he/she actually saw Ray Gricar in Lewisburg on 04/15-16. IMO, that's because Ray Gricar was not in Lewisburg on those dates!

One who saw RFG there just after noon.

One who saw him from the museum, in the early afternoon

McKnight's witness (5:00 Pm in Mini heading toward Lewisburg)

Businessman who saw him late on either 4/15 or 4/16

Two women who saw him on 4/16

Bennett, saw him around noon on 4/15

Multiple witnesses who saw RFG moving the car in the parking lot between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM on 4/15.

There may have been others reported.

[Politigal]

Agreed! GStickley....

And I know it's been asked before....but since Patty handled the item & provided the item given to police to scent the dogs....How do we truly know that the dogs weren't trailing *her* scent?

[gstickley]

We don't know, Pgal.

Just like we don't truly know quite a bit
(like why so much time was spent searching the river when the dogs didn't scent there; like why the house wasn't searched; like why the neighbors, co-workers, etc., weren't interviewed; like why the described MW & suspicious car weren't made public for a year; like why 5 fingerprints/5 sets of fingerprints/3 fingerprints turned into NO fingerprints; like why the Chief didn't oversee the chief inv. officer (or did he?); & on & on & on. Actually, we truly don't know much, only what we've been spoon-fed since day 1. But . . . some of us do have common sense & the desire to find out what actually did happen to RG.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Wrong again JJ....there was no forensic evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg...period.

There was forensic evidence that his scent was detected at the area where his car had been (and his car certainly contained his scent.)

I imagine if the dogs had been scented to Patty's scent, that her scent would also have been detected there, since she also drove the car.

The scent was detected in the parking lot and enough away from the car to give the handler the impression that RFG got into another car.

Actually, Patty had not driven the car, from what has been reported, from 4/14 onward, possibly some time before that. The dogs were brought in on 4/17 and detected the scent in the parking lot not in the car.

So we are back to eyewitness evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 and was driving car. We also have RFG's scent being detected in the parking lot where the car was found.

Scent doesn't last indefinitely and RFG's scent was in the parking lot.

Your theory seems to be, all the witnesses were wrong or lying and the scent evidence in the parking lot was faked or is wrong.

[gstickley]

(snip)
Actually, Patty had not driven the car, from what has been reported, from 4/14 onward, possibly some time before that.

Where has this been reported & when?

So we are back to eyewitness evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 and was driving car.

What credible eyewitnesses? Which LE reported this & when?

We also have RFG's scent being detected in the parking lot where the car was found.

How do we know it was actually RG's scent?

Scent doesn't last indefinitely and RFG's scent was in the parking lot.

Your theory seems to be, all the witnesses were wrong or lying and the scent evidence in the parking lot was faked or is wrong.

No one has proven RG was ever in Lewisburg.

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, PEF was at work all day Friday; she wasn't driveing the car around the office. :rolleyes:

McKnight's witness, the plural witnesses. :rolleyes:

As for the scent, how do we know it was Laci Peterson's scent; using your argument, we could never ever trust dog scent evidence. Further, we don't have anyone who matches the description of the car driver, except RFG.

[Politigal]

No one has proven RG was ever in Lewisburg.

Exactly. No one can prove he was alive or dead on Friday. That Thursday night surveillance is the only thing "in concrete."

[gstickley]

GS, PEF was at work all day Friday; she wasn't driveing the car around the office. :rolleyes:

McKnight's witness, the plural witnesses. :rolleyes:

As for the scent, how do we know it was Laci Peterson's scent; using your argument, we could never ever trust dog scent evidence. Further, we don't have anyone who matches the description of the car driver, except RFG.

No one knows what PF did Thu. night after the walk in the park until whatever time she arrived at work Fri. AM. No concrete evidence of RG after he left the courthouse Thu. night.

Plural witnesses??? I think not. Not even the only named "witness", Bennett. (I guess if I said I saw RG in Lewisburg at 12:00 Sat., 04/15/05, I'd be considered a "witness" also?????)

I do trust dog scent evidence. I just don't trust what may have been used to scent the dogs . . . because how can you trust what this LE says; how do you know it isn't like the "fingerprints" - here today, gone tomorrow; the "missed leads" as referred to by DZ himself; the apparent lack of supervision by DZ's superior.

JMO

[Chump#7]

GS, PEF was at work all day Friday; she wasn't driveing the car around the office. :rolleyes:

McKnight's witness, the plural witnesses. :rolleyes:

As for the scent, how do we know it was Laci Peterson's scent; using your argument, we could never ever trust dog scent evidence. Further, we don't have anyone who matches the description of the car driver, except RFG.

GS made no such statements/arguments - just asked questions. :rolleyes:

GS is also not presenting speculation as facts, which seems to be the resurgent trend with the 'walkaway theory' (unconfirmed details of witness accounts, the conclusion of the dogs attempts to track RG) amongst a certain blogger & poster. The theories are sound and plausible for sure, but when those who know better start presenting speculation as facts, it makes me question their motivations.

- Back to the dogs

RG's scent was in the parking lot because the car he used (I almost said 'his car' and set myself up for a hair splitting side track bickerfest. Whew) was in the parking lot, doors opened. I'd like to hear from real experts on the subject as to how a bloodhound would act in this scenario: Politgal takes gstickley's car for a ride and parks it at the local Sheetz. gstickley hasn't been to the Sheetz in quite awhile. The doors are open, etc, etc. gstickley's car is then removed from the premise. Bloodhounds are then brought to the Sheetz and scented to track gstickley. What would they do? Stick around where gstickley's car had been parked, doors open, au de gstickley wofting about? Not pick up anything at all? Wander around about 20 yards (Heh)? I'm sure this has been discussed. Feel free to retrieve links, etc. I'm curious.

At the time the dogs were brought in, LE and the handlers were working on the assumption that RG had been there. Why wouldn't they? So, of course it makes sense to conclude that not being able to track his scent very far meant he possibly could have gotten into another vehicle. I just wonder if it wasn't the residual scent of RG from the car he drove that was in the parking lot.

[gstickley]

I'm so glad you're back! :)

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, first, the witnesses, plural, did not include Bennett. I believe the the witnesses saw him on 4/15, 5:30 -6:30. Bennett saw him around lunch time on 4/16.


GS made no such statements/arguments - just asked questions. :rolleyes:

GS is also not presenting speculation as facts, which seems to be the resurgent trend with the 'walkaway theory' (unconfirmed details of witness accounts, the conclusion of the dogs attempts to track RG) amongst a certain blogger & poster. The theories are sound and plausible for sure, but when those who know better start presenting speculation as facts, it makes me question their motivations.

- Back to the dogs

RG's scent was in the parking lot because the car he used (I almost said 'his car' and set myself up for a hair splitting side track bickerfest. Whew) was in the parking lot, doors opened. I'd like to hear from real experts on the subject as to how a bloodhound would act in this scenario: Politgal takes gstickley's car for a ride and parks it at the local Sheetz. gstickley hasn't been to the Sheetz in quite awhile. The doors are open, etc, etc. gstickley's car is then removed from the premise. Bloodhounds are then brought to the Sheetz and scented to track gstickley. What would they do? Stick around where gstickley's car had been parked, doors open, au de gstickley wofting about? Not pick up anything at all? Wander around about 20 yards (Heh)? I'm sure this has been discussed. Feel free to retrieve links, etc. I'm curious.

At the time the dogs were brought in, LE and the handlers were working on the assumption that RG had been there. Why wouldn't they? So, of course it makes sense to conclude that not being able to track his scent very far meant he possibly could have gotten into another vehicle. I just wonder if it wasn't the residual scent of RG from the car he drove that was in the parking lot.

My understanding is that the skin rafts basically a shed from the body, not the clothing or a car. If P'gal were to hug Chump, some of her rafts would no doubt stick to Chump, but not enough to fool a dog into trailing Chump around.

In some cases, like fox hunting, they can lay trails, but usually with a lot of urine and a heavy device to drag along the ground (yes, I looked at that possibility that the scent could have somehow been planted). Possibly you could lay down RFG's worn clothing on the parking lot and walk heavily over them for a few minutes and do that. The problem is trying to do that in the middle of a fairly large town, inconspicuously, and having the forethought to do that.

[Politigal]

as we walk down memory lane

http://tinyurl.com/6kn8cg

[UndertheRadar]

Chump,

Also try this:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm

[Cloudbuster]

I think these might be the dogs used in the case. They are part search and rescue. Not sure but think they are because each photo is part of search and rescue team.

http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=176
http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=68
http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=1726

[sherrijean981]

<p>I think these might be the dogs used in the case. They are part search and rescue. Not sure but think they are because each photo is part of search and rescue team.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=176</p> <p>http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=68</p> <p>http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=1726</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>This dog has the date 4/30/2005 under the small photo, before it was enlarged. He could be one of the dogs at the river.</p>

http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=552

[sherrijean981]

This one was taken on 4/29/2005. Could it be part of the search too?

http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=542

[sherrijean981]

http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=28

[sherrijean981]

April 29, 2005, another search dog.

http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=546

[sherrijean981]

Another photo dated 4/30/2005. Wonder what part of Lewisburg they were in here?

http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=576

[sherrijean981]

4/30/2005 photo, in a heavily wooded area.

http://ccsosar.org/picturepages/main.php?g2_itemId=568

[Politigal]

I know it's been discussed before...but in reading of other cases where search dogs were used at an abandoned vehicle....about 90% of the time, police generally used a swab from the car interior to scent the dogs.

Why didn't they do that in this case???

Instead, Patty provided an article to them.

It just makes no sense IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

I know it's been discussed before...but in reading of other cases where search dogs were used at an abandoned vehicle....about 90% of the time, police generally used a swab from the car interior to scent the dogs.

Why didn't they do that in this case???

Instead, Patty provided an article to them.

It just makes no sense IMO.

I'm not sure if PEF "knowingly" provided the item. If it was, it was probably to use an item associated with RFG. They were looking for RFG, not necessarily the last person to drive the car.

[Politigal]

I'm not sure if PEF "knowingly" provided the item. If it was, it was probably to use an item associated with RFG. They were looking for RFG, not necessarily the last person to drive the car.

But they assumed...as did you...that he was the last person to drive the car.

:shrug:

[J. J. in Phila]

First of all, scent does not last forever, so the dog might not have been able to detect it from Thursday or prior to that.

Second, it does not follow that the rafts would be in the parking lot from the car, especially since the car was there since Friday.

[Politigal]

If the dog was scented to RG's item first, and introduced to the driver's seat, the dog would automatically sort down through the layers of skin rafts on the driver's seat until it came to RG's, which would be guaranteed to be there. That in no way insures RG was the last one to drive the car. It just means he sat in the seat at some time. Nothing new there. Same in the parking lot where the car sat for some time. RG's scent was guaranteed to be there, because the car had been there.

Considering RG was a missing DA, and they certainly had to know he wasn't in the car or up a tree in the lot, I would think the scent used would have first been the top layer of scent on the driver's seat, on a sterile gauze pad, sealed and protected before the car was processed, and by placing RG's uncontaminated item somewhere for the dog to go to prior to taking the dog to the lot. If the dog alerted to RG's item, I would think it would prove RG at least drove the car last, something that we don't actually know if the test was scenting the dog first to RG's item. All that proves is RG's scent was present in the car, thus in the lot, no big mystery there.

JMO

Very *Logical* post....:beer:

[J. J. in Phila]

Very *Logical* post....:beer:

Actually quite illogical. LE, on 4/16/05 couldn't be sure if RFG was there. They didn't have the witnesses at that point. So, they scented the dogs from articles they selected. LE made the selection of what items to use; they requested items and PEF gave them "a number," from what a little bird has just told me. They then made the selection.

So the question is, how did RFG's scent get into the parking lot?

[J. J. in Phila]

But they assumed...as did you...that he was the last person to drive the car.

:shrug:

Actually, no. I did until we found out about the prints. LE did not have any prints at that time and did not make any assumptions.

[Politigal]

Actually quite illogical. LE, on 4/16/05 couldn't be sure if RFG was there. They didn't have the witnesses at that point. So, they scented the dogs from articles they selected. LE made the selection of what items to use; they requested items and PEF gave them "a number," from what a little bird has just told me. They then made the selection.

So the question is, how did RFG's scent get into the parking lot?

Did your little bird also tell you that police couldn't even find a record of what the scent article was (when reviewing the case)?

[J. J. in Phila]

Did your little bird also tell you that police couldn't even find a record of what the scent article was (when reviewing the case)?

No, a little bird told me that that LE had a number of items and they made the selection of what to use, not PEF.

[J. J. in Phila]

LW, the amount of rafts is minimal drifting off the car. Maybe if RFG actually lived in the car for few days in the parking lot it might pool around there. If the car had so many rafts that it "smelled" like RFG, the dogs should have trailed it Milton, where it had been towed.

[Politigal]

No, a little bird told me that that LE had a number of items and they made the selection of what to use, not PEF.

I'm curious who your bird is.

Bosak told me this:

Oh, I'm still trying to get a definitive answer to the blood hound question. Rickard cannot find anywhere in the case files where it says what was used to scent the dogs. He asked Fornicola, and she said she remembers officers coming to the house that weekend and asking for clothes, but she cannot recall for sure. Rickard's asking around to see if anyone connected to that search remembers. I'll post it as soon as I hear back from Matt.

So, either way....Patty apparently provided the articles.

[UndertheRadar]

The amount of rafts is NOT minimal drifting off a car sitting in a lot for many hours. A driver's seat in a Mini used everyday by the same person has many more rafts in a small area than an average 1,500 square foot of house.


Exactly. A closed vehicle, one we know was driven to and from Huntingdon the previous day, would have been a giant scent pad with RG's scent.

As rafts are shed, approximately two thirds settle to the surface and approximately one third are light enough to remain air borne so that they will easily move on any air currents. Additionally, the rafts that settled would have bacteria working on them, producing vaporized scent. As soon as the car doors were opened in the lot at any time, RG's scent would have wafted out on the breeze.

Both JJ and now PB argue that RG's scent in the lot means RG was in Lewisburg. That conclusion is entirely counter to what the FBI consistently warns about using scent evidence: i.e., that scent is easily transferable and therefore should not be used as primary evidence.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm curious who your bird is.

Bosak told me this:

Oh, I'm still trying to get a definitive answer to the blood hound question. Rickard cannot find anywhere in the case files where it says what was used to scent the dogs. He asked Fornicola, and she said she remembers officers coming to the house that weekend and asking for clothes, but she cannot recall for sure. Rickard's asking around to see if anyone connected to that search remembers. I'll post it as soon as I hear back from Matt.

So, either way....Patty apparently provided the articles.

P'gal, first, LE asked for and received a number of items. One of those items was used to scent the dogs, though it is not in the police report which item. Patty didn't select the specific item. I heard that from PB (and am mentioning it with his specific permission).

UTR, the scent has some problems in the transfer. First, the breeze isn't there. If you open a car there isn't a breeze; it tends to shelter the interior. Wind speed the evening of 4/16 was less 5 MPH. The direction doesn't look right either; even something caught on the breeze would tend to blow out of the parking lot.

Second, scent doesn't last forever. The scent from Thursday was more than sixty hours old. Sunlight can damage this, and the Mini was in the sun most of Friday. Now we have supposedly old scent, supposedly transferred to someone else. Come on. :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

P'gal, first, LE asked for and received a number of items. snipped:

And yes, Patty provided the scent article/s to police.

[J. J. in Phila]

LW, I'm saying LE went to the house, and collected the scenting items. They made the choice what to use, not PEF.

[J. J. in Phila]

Collecting them and receiving them are two different things. You said 'first, LE asked for and received a number of items.' Received connotes someone else giving them to them, thus not LE collecting them. Which is it?
JMO

They picked the things up, though I'd expect PEF to to point it out, like which toothbrush was his (not that they got his toothbrush). I'm not sure that they actually told her why they wanted the stuff either. She might have thought they were looking for a DNA sample as well.

[Politigal]

Bosak said police came to the house "asking for clothes." He didn't say police told Patty they needed to look thru the house for clothes.

IMO police came to the house - asking for clothes - and Patty provided those articles or handed those articles to police.

[J. J. in Phila]

Bosak said police came to the house "asking for clothes." He didn't say police told Patty they needed to look thru the house for clothes.

IMO police came to the house - asking for clothes - and Patty provided those articles or handed those articles to police.

Not according to PB. LE made the selection, the record doesn't indicate which items they selected.

[Politigal]

No P'gal, you asked him what specific item was used to scent the dogs, not how the items were collected. PEF remembered LE asking for clothes but never said PEF got them. He also checked with Detective Rickard after posting your answer. That LE selected the clothing was what the record showed. :rolleyes:

Bosak said Rickard couldn't find a record of what was used to scent the dogs...

"couldn't find a record"

So how exactly do you know it was even clothing?

[J. J. in Phila]

Bosak said Rickard couldn't find a record of what was used to scent the dogs...

"couldn't find a record"

So how exactly do you know it was even clothing?

There wasn't a record of what LE put under the dog's nose, or from what article the scent was lifted from. The was a record of what LE collected. You didn't ask about that. You asked what SPECIFICALLY was used to scent the dogs. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, going back a number of posts, I disagree with the "problems" you've listed.

The rafts which stay suspended are by definition lighter than air to begin with and take only the slightest movement of air to be disturbed. And much of scent is contained in the vapor given off by bacterial action on the rafts, which likewise needs little to move it around. Even the action of opening the car door would produce enough air disturbance to move rafts and vapor.

You may be correct that scent does not last "forever," but you are way off the mark in assuming an LE trained Bloodhound couldn't detect scent 48 hours or even 60 hours later coming from a closed container. All recent studies on scent demonstrate that human scent is far more durable than anecdotal evidence has traditionally suggested, some case experiments showing dogs able to trail effectively after six months. The FBI even specifies that any dog fit for investigative case work should be able to demonstrate the consistent ability to follow trails seven days old.

As far as the Gricar case goes, what little scent the dogs detected in the parking lot is essentially worthless as proof RG was in Lewisburg without corroborating evidence. I think many of us would feel differently if we knew the dog handlers' report showed that the dogs had picked up RG's scent where Bennett said he saw the man who "closely resembled" RG waiting on Saturday or where the witnesses said they saw someone who might have been RG with the LMW in the SOS. Or if we had a receipt with his handwriting on a credit card slip or if his photo had been on a video loop . . . but we have at the moment nothing concrete to back up the dogs failure to trail away from the vicinity of where the car had been.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you've made numerous references to the Laci Peterson case.

You argument would basically be this argument:

Scott, who lived in the same house with Laci, picked up her skin rafts on his body, which he no doubt did. He then went to the marina (I think that was his story). Therefore, what the dog detected were the skin rafts that had been transferred from Laci to Scott. So the scent evidence should be thrown out and Scott should be freed. That's your theory.

You don't believe that, and I don't believe that, but that is the conclusion we'd have to reach, if the scent transference was that strong. This generally isn't a factor, because we all will pick up skin rafts from other people.

Do you have any cases where a dog trailed the wrong person because they picked up transferred skin rafts.

[J. J. in Phila]

If the dog was offered RG's scent in the parking lot, his car having been there for possibly 24+ hours therefore his scent and skin rafts were there. The car door had to have been opened by someone in order for the driver to get out. If the driver walked around the other side of the car and opened the passenger door, there would be skin rafts there also. As UTR said, the car was a big scent pad. It would be impossible for the dog NOT to pick up his scent there. NO way does that prove he was ever there.
JMO

The car might have had a large concentration of skin rafts, but that is not the trouble with the theory. It is the transference to the second party; while a dog possibly could have detected them on the driver or his clothing, they might not have detected them falling off the driver in the parking lot. Basically, the driver does not shed them, certainly not at the same rate as RFG would. You basically have two transfers, first from the car to the driver, then from the driver to the parking lot. That aspect is unlikely.

[UndertheRadar]

Oh, c'mon, JJ. You and I weren't discussing transfer to a third party. We were talking about scent transfer from RG-->the air in the car--->the air outside the car, remember?

Whether RG drove the vehicle or someone else, or whether a helicopter dropped it into the lot without it being driven in by any person, RG's scent would wind up in the lot.

And THAT is why the FBI always cautions that identifying someone's scent at a scene ONLY establishes that you've got either a direct OR an indirect relationship. In this case, it does not establish that RG was in Lewisburg, only that he might possibly have been there.

And that's the problem. You've been arguing since September 2006 that RG's scent in the lot is evidence of his having been there, then reasoning from that premise. Since the FBI's best advice tells us it's only a tentative premise until corroborated (and we don't have that corroboration), conclusions you draw thereafter fall apart. For instance, there's your fixation on finding or eliminating a means for RG to get out of Lewisburg. But if he was never in Lewisburg to begin with, failure to find a means of leaving Lewisburg amounts to nothing.

You and PB have both chastised posters on this board for a failure to remain open-minded. I would suggest that a little of that open-mindedness wouldn't hurt you at all.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, LW mentioned a "driver," and I quoted his post in full.

The problem is the scent in the are. The air in the car is sealed and, unless RFG was there, in the car, on 4/16, the rafts will have settled. You will have them in the car, but not floating in the air, at least enough to establish this trail.

Using your logic, Scott Peterson should be freed immediately.

[Chump#7]

It just never ends, does it?


Straw Man: Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

[Politigal]

It just never ends, does it?


Straw Man: Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

"Straw Man" or Scarecrow?:biggrin:

Happy Halloween

[J. J. in Phila]

It just never ends, does it?


Straw Man: Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.


No, we just have so many false arguments on this point.

The trail was planted. The scent wasn't really RFG's. There was a breeze in the car. The driver collected a huge number of skin rafts and re-shed them in the parking lot.

None of them work.

[UndertheRadar]

Breeze? It was you, JJ, who went searching out wind speeds on 4/16, as if lighter-than-air skin rafts and bacterial-induced vapors were pieces of paper that needed wind greater than five miles an hour to pick them up and carry them from the car. I was the one who said that any movement of the air, even as slight as opening the car door, could disturb the scent in the car and carry it from the car's interior to the surrounding atmosphere.

As to the other things you mention, these are ideas that have been previously theorized about, and each could scientifically have been a possibility. Scent is easily transferable and could have been transferred to the scene. Fact. Before we knew whether the dog handlers used an article belonging to RG or whether they scented the dogs to the driver's seat of the Mini-Cooper, it was of course possible to theorize that the scent was not RG's. Fact.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Unfortunately, you create your own "facts" as a way of maintaining your own closed mind, insisting that RG absolutely was in Lewisburg when that may or may not have been the case.

[J. J. in Phila]

Fact, none of the things suggested are likely. Occum's Razor.

Fact, the most likely reason that the scent was found in the parking lot was because RFG walked in it.

Scent isn't easily transferable. It will hard for rafts to remain airborne in a car for the time frame involved. If the explanation were different, no scent evidence could ever be used in court. But it is, because it is reliable.

We're now to the point where the idea that scent is somehow becomes increasingly bizarre explanation for something easily explained.

[Politigal]

snipped

Fact, the most likely reason that the scent was found in the parking lot was because RFG walked in it.



NO, not fact.

The most likely reason that the scent was found in the parking lot, is because Gricar's car was in the parking lot....not Gricar...just his car.

There's no evidence Gricar was in the parking lot....period.

And if Patty handled the evidence article, the dogs could have alerted to *her* scent in that parking lot.

IMO, that's even a helluva lot more likely.

[J. J. in Phila]

NO, not fact.

The most likely reason that the scent was found in the parking lot, is because Gricar's car was in the parking lot....not Gricar...just his car.

There's no evidence Gricar was in the parking lot....period.

And if Patty handled the evidence article, the dogs could have alerted to *her* scent in that parking lot.

IMO, that's even a helluva lot more likely.

No, P'gal, false once again. It is not more likely that the Mini would create that trail. There is both indirect evidence that RFG was present, the scent, and direct evidence, the witnesses.

For your theory to be right, everything else has to be wrong. All the witnesses have to be completely wrong. The dogs have to be completely wrong.

Under your theory, Scott Peterson should never have been tried, much less convicted. :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

No, P'gal, false once again. It is not more likely that the Mini would create that trail. snipped

Exactly what *trail* are you referring to. There was no trail. In the earliest articles Dixon said the dogs circled in the area where the car was.

[gstickley]

(Snip)
For your theory to be right, everything else has to be wrong. All the witnesses have to be completely wrong. The dogs have to be completely wrong.

(snip)


Name one (1) witness who actually SAW Ray Gricar on the parking lot of the SOS. One (1) witness who actually knew & identified Ray Gricar.

[gstickley]

It was reported numerous times that police could not corroborate any of the witness sightings with any other evidence...period. No 2 people saw him in the same place at the same time, there was no forensic evidence he was there, there was no evidence on any surveillance video, there were no receipts in his name at any establishment, and the dogs didn't go anywhere but that danged parking lot where the car had been.

Pretty slim chance Gricar was anywhere near there that weekend IMO.

Thought I'd bring one of your better posts forward, Pgal. IMO, it says it all about 'all the witnesses'.

[UndertheRadar]

Exactly what *trail* are you referring to. There was no trail. In the earliest articles Dixon said the dogs circled in the area where the car was.

Dixon also said the dogs picked up no trail.

JJ says that scent isn't easily transferable and that if it were, scent evidence wouldn't be used in court.

Yet nearly every case study from the FBI I have read regarding scent has included a statement similar to this one from the link I previously provided for Chump:

Human scent is easily transferred from one object to another so that relationships between objects and people are sometimes unknowingly established.

warning not to use it as primary evidence but giving the proviso that scent can be effective evidence when used in conjunction with OTHER corroborating evidence.

Where is the corroborating evidence that would place Gricar in Lewisburg?


Where is the video tape?
Where is the credit card receipt?
Where are his fingerprints?
Where are the reports that the dogs found his scent at the same spot a witness or witnesses reported seeing someone who resembled RG, so that witness and scent evidence corroborated each other?
Where is the witness who knew RG and who saw him in Lewisburg?

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, as you are well aware, the names of most witnesses (who you once claimed were doing it for publicity) have not been released. This is more of your double standard.

I'll also ask you to name one witness who saw Scott Peterson, that know him, at the marina or on the way to the marina. You must believe, in the abscence of any, that he is innocent. Do you? I don't.

LW, we can eliminate that a trail would be created by a laptop. The bulk of skin rafts come from a body, not from some item. This is again the double transfer. Yes, some rafts would get on the laptop, but from RFG directly; he used it. A smaller amount would drop off the laptop and end up in on the parking lot.

I recall nothing about PEF "cleaning" anything on 4/15-4/16/05.

UTR, since you are the person who has raised the Peterson case:

* Where is the video tape of Scott Peterson going to the Bay?
* Where is the credit card receipt of Scott Peterson at the Bay?
* Where are his fingerprints on Laci's body?
* Where is the witness who knew Scott Peterson and who saw him by the Bay?

By the standard you've just used Scott Peterson is not guilty.

In truth, neither Peterson nor RFG used a credit card that day. Neither moved past a video camera (or in the Peterson case, one LE checked). In the RFG case, most of the area where he was was reported was not covered by a video camera. The fingerprints were not wiped and could have been smeared naturally. The was on on the window. In very few case does someone who knew the victim or perpetrator actually see him, especially when they are reasonably far from home.

On to the witnesses, that we don't know, though he was seen in the general area. And, as you should know, the trail would not be on the exact spot.

Now, we do have evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg, after noon on 4/15/05. That ruins your theories, so come up with another one.

[Politigal]

JJ....you're on a downhill spiral.

Police had Scott Peterson's fishing license & his marina parking ticket...plus oodles of other *corroborating* evidence.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/evidence-pictures-trial2.html

There is nothing to corroborate the premise of RG being in Lewisburg. Nothing.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you asked about someone who knows RFG and gave this some greater weight. You seem to have forgotten Ms. Fenton. If we are to give a personally known witness greater weight, than RFG acquired a metallic colored car someplace and drove it to Bellefonte at 3:00 PM.

Here is what Dixon really said,

Dixon said yesterday that a police dog that sniffed around the parking lot where Gricar's car was found acted in a way that "possibly could have meant that Ray might have gotten into another vehicle." He also said Gricar's laptop cannot be found.

http://www.annointed.net/pn_vb.php?pn_do=showthread&p=170960#post170960

Now even hopping into a car right next to the Mini wouldn't produce that result. The only thing that would produce that result is if RFG left the immediate area of the car and walked someplace across the parking lot.

[Politigal]

UTR, you asked about someone who knows RFG and gave this some greater weight. You seem to have forgotten Ms. Fenton. If we are to give a personally known witness greater weight, than RFG acquired a metallic colored car someplace and drove it to Bellefonte at 3:00 PM.

Here is what Dixon really said,

Dixon said yesterday that a police dog that sniffed around the parking lot where Gricar's car was found acted in a way that "possibly could have meant that Ray might have gotten into another vehicle." He also said Gricar's laptop cannot be found.

http://www.annointed.net/pn_vb.php?pn_do=showthread&p=170960#post170960

Now even hopping into a car right next to the Mini wouldn't produce that result. The only thing that would produce that result is if RFG left the immediate area of the car and walked someplace across the parking lot.


JJ - even you posted about the dog/s CIRCLING

From the Odds & Ends thread:

I'm saying that BW was wrong. The circled in the parking lot about 20 yards away from the car. DZ and possibly Dixon noted that the dogs circled in the parking lot and that the handler thought it indicated RFG could have gotten into another car.

Note:

An example of a circle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Circle_-_black_simple.svg/500px-Circle_-_black_simple.svg.png

[J. J. in Phila]

The only "cleaning" reference that I recall is that LE looked for freshly cleaned spots in the house, and didn't find any.

The laptop also has the double transfer problem, again. The dogs need what is basically a critical mass of rafts to detect them. The bulk of those come off a body. They lay on another surface. Rarely, if ever, does the other surface, and certainly not the laptop, have even an equal number to a body. Never do those rafts fall off at the same rate from that other surface at the same rate. There would be minimal amounts, but not enough.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - even you posted about the dog/s CIRCLING

From the Odds & Ends thread:



Note:

An example of a circle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Circle_-_black_simple.svg/500px-Circle_-_black_simple.svg.png

P'gal, the distance came out later, in the "Dateline" story.

[J. J. in Phila]

That is not the 'cleaning' reference I mention. The one you refer to occurred a couple of weeks after the 'fact', and it was a mention of looking for newly painted walls, and newly laid carpet, which would be quite a 'streeeeetch'. The family had been there during that first week, and would likely have noticed something, unless LE either thought the family assisted in covering up, or someone in the family noticed these areas and wanted LE to check it out.

There is no problem with the laptop leaving a trail. Something caused the trainer to say 'possibly' instead of a firm, 'the dog tracked him to another vehicle'. Most likely reason is because the dog did not indicate a solid 'track' for RG. What we need to know is did the dog indicate a solid track from the driver's seat to 20 yards away. If so, I will guess it was the laptop that was trailed, not RG. PF claims nothing else was missing from the house.
JMO

This was the only "cleaning" I recall, and the walk through seems to have occurred within the first week.

Since the dog can't testify, the trainer can't say that RFG did enter another vehicle, only that the dogs acted as if he did.

[UndertheRadar]

^^

JJ, the handler didn't say that the dogs "acted as if" RG got into another vehicle. You've forgotten some critical words: possibly could have meant. What the handler offered was a possible theory, not a definitive statement, and that's a hugely important difference.

A couple other points.

You have continually posted about the MSNBC "20 yards" report (the one offered with no attribution and corroborated nowhere else) as if the dogs put noses to the ground and followed a straight beeline path, then quit at 20 yards. We don't know that because we don't have the handlers' reports on the dogs, and given the description of the circling and Dixon's statements regarding "no trail," it seems unlikely that's what occurred. Your frequent assertions that scent doesn't travel "that far" whenever the issue of scent pockets is raised is simply incorrect, since scent can frequently travel a half mile or more. A trailing dog often works 10 yards or more from the actual path that someone walked. Until and unless we get to see the actual handlers reports, your reliance on that "20 yards" figure from MSNBC (the place of death for journalism in 2008 IMO) is extremely suspect and means very little. I'm going to add my voice to Logic's in asking whether you can nudge PB into getting us those reports.

Speaking of Logic, I want to address your "rebuttal" of the theory she posed about the laptop. I think it's a theory worth considering. Just based on actual experience, I can say I've watched dogs follow scent coming from an object being carried by someone other than the person whose scent is on the object, so I know that it can happen.

You claim that dogs need a "critical mass" of rafts falling off to pick up a scent and that "rarely" would enough rafts fall from an object to create scent the dogs could pick up. Couple things on that from a scientific standpoint, JJ. First, rafts don't have to "fall" to create scent. A trailing dog can work the air, and scent is released in the air as vapor from the bacterial work on the rafts occurs. Second, and more important, you are way off base on the "critical mass" idea. Dogs in general can pick up scent at the low parts per billion range, and it's believed that a bloodhound, the best scent dog, can pick up scent from only one or two skin cells.

Beyond that--and I haven't brought this up before nor will I go into it in great detail here because it's not within the scope of this forum--the traditional skin raft theory of scent is being challenged (or at least added to) in recent scientific studies. Bottom line is that recent studies suggest the differentiating qualities of human scent may lie at the DNA/molecular level.

Ultimately, I'm more inclined to think the scent pockets in the parking lot came from the heavy concentration of RG's scent which obviously would have been in the Mini-Cooper, but there's no reason to discount Logic's theory based on your claims. Sorry.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I've posted the quote and here it is again:

Dixon said yesterday that a police dog that sniffed around the parking lot where Gricar's car was found acted in a way that "possibly could have meant that Ray might have gotten into another vehicle." He also said Gricar's laptop cannot be found.

http://www.annointed.net/pn_vb.php?p...960#post170960

Something in the dogs behavior triggered this.

Since you seem to have forgotten, here is the "Dateline," story: http://ori.msnbc.msn.com/id/12756052/

Now, even halving it, just to make you happy, that is still 30 feet, from a spot that, according to the "Patty done it" theory, RFG was never within 40 miles of.

Now were at your theory where not only pooling occurred, but it occurred because first the scent was transferred to something else. It's now transferred then pooling. By this new theory, you better start spouting the "railroading" of Scott Peterson (I won't be joining you in that).

[J. J. in Phila]

Pooling could occur, but almost exclusively from a spot where the person is for a fairly long amount of time. Transfer from the laptop again creates the same problem of the double transfer.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, let's do some quick fact checking on the generalities you keep throwing out here:

1. Scent will be emitted from a person or from an object a person has had contact with. The scent which a dog can detect is found in vapor.

2. Scent in that vapor travels. Even at a zero wind level, scent will move from away from the person or object in a plume that has areas of dense concentration and areas of fainter concentration. If it encounters obstacles, scent pooling will occur.

To the best of our knowledge, the door to the Mini was opened in the parking lot at least twice, once by whoever drove it into the lot and once by LE. It may have been opened additional times if reports of the car being moved within the lot are accurate. We also don't know if whoever drove it there opened both doors and/or whether LE did the same. Either which way, we know there was opportunity for RG's scent to be in the parking lot whether or not he was physically there himself.

There is no super fancy hocus pocus double transfer involved. Just basic scent theory.

The question I have for you is why you keep posting inaccurate generalities to protect the "scent in lot equals RG was there" claim. It limits possibilities in the search for what may have happened to RG.

One last side issue. You keep bringing up the Scott Peterson thing, saying dogs would have tracked Laci's scent on him. Not if LE used a version of the missing member method. Yes, she was already missing/dead at that point, but her scent was still available to work with.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, what is your theory about the last time RFG was in the Mini?

[Politigal]

Once again....for clarity

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:-0hlMP4957sJ:skepdic.com/refuge/funk46.html+gricar+dogs+circling&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Bellefonte police officer Darrel Zaccagni said that details such as "the cigarette ash on the floor and the search dogs circling as if Gricar got into a vehicle, were pre-reported,


http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6426
On April 17, scent dogs were brought in and only detected his scent in the parking lot.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12756052/
They also used a bloodhound—but the dog lost Gricar’s scent 20 yards from the car.
The tracker suggested Gricar got into another vehicle, perhaps with his killer.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7592249/
Dixon said Thursday that a police dog that sniffed around the parking lot where Gricar’s car was found acted in a way that “possibly could have meant that Ray might have gotten into another vehicle.” He also revealed that Gricar’s laptop cannot be found.



http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0HElUSPkgX0J:www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39539.html+gricar+police+dog&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&client=firefox-a
"After the car was found by a passing state trooper, police dogs were brought to the parking lot but lost the scent very close to the car. According to Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni, one of the K-9 handlers said that could mean Gricar got into another car. "

[J. J. in Phila]

P'gal each source points to RFG's trail being in the parking lot to the point where the handler thought he got into another car.

[Politigal]

Note - the word "trail" is not included in any of the articles.

[J. J. in Phila]

Note - the word "trail" is not included in any of the articles.


Note the distance 20 yards. Note what the handler though it indicated, that RFG got into another car.

[Politigal]

Perhaps a 20 yd circle?

:lol:

[J. J. in Phila]

Perhaps a 20 yd circle?

:lol:

No, just more evidence you are not even reading your own posts.

:lol:

[Politigal]

respectfully snipped

As far as the Gricar case goes, what little scent the dogs detected in the parking lot is essentially worthless as proof RG was in Lewisburg without corroborating evidence. I think many of us would feel differently if we knew the dog handlers' report showed that the dogs had picked up RG's scent where Bennett said he saw the man who "closely resembled" RG waiting on Saturday or where the witnesses said they saw someone who might have been RG with the LMW in the SOS. Or if we had a receipt with his handwriting on a credit card slip or if his photo had been on a video loop . . . but we have at the moment nothing concrete to back up the dogs failure to trail away from the vicinity of where the car had been.

You've nailed it.

[UndertheRadar]

You've nailed it.

Thanks, Pgal. I think it's the common sense approach to the whole scent picture, and it's based on reality and science.

Unfortunately, JJ wants to cherry pick his evidence. He wants to ignore the description of how the dogs failed to track away from the car, and he wants to ignore Dixon's statements that the dogs picked up no trail.

He prefers instead to hold on to the MSNBC report of scent 20 yards from the car and extrapolate from that a "trail" rather than scent pooling.

I've been skeptical of the MSNBC "20 yard" designation for multiple reasons I've expressed before. Let me add to my general skepticism of MSNBC that they reported in November it was the thirteenth anniversary of the People's Temple tragedy.

And in breaking, unrelated news, the body of a small child has been found 3/10 of a mile from Caylee Anthony's home. No confirmation yet that it is Caylee, but it doesn't look good.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, we have early descriptions from both DZ and Dixon of what the handler said.

"The handler said the way the dog acted, it could have indicated [Gricar] got into another car," Dixon said. But, he continued, "We have no evidence he was planning to meet anyone in Lewisburg."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05112/492590.stm

"After the car was found by a passing state trooper, police dogs were brought to the parking lot but lost the scent very close to the car. According to Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni, one of the K-9 handlers said that could mean Gricar got into another car. "

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39539

PB orginally, but now saved on that forum.

Now, c'mon UTR. That was the opinion of the handler and most forensic evidence is indirect evidence (even DNA).

So now we have both direct, the witness reports and indirect evidence, the scent detection, that RFG was there.

We have both eyewitness and physical evidence RFG was there. Instead of trying, and failing, to explain it away to fit you scenario (or agenda), why don't you try to figure out what happened after that.

[UndertheRadar]

I have no scenario or agenda.

What I know is that the scent evidence means RG may or may not have been in Lewisburg.

What I know is that the overwhelming majority of witness sightings in missing persons cases are mistaken identifications, I understand the reasons for such, and I believe that the (8-10, probably more!) witnesses you keep crowing about in Lewisburg may or may not be accurate identifications of Ray Gricar.

You're the one with an agenda, not me.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, for two years, I've watched you say all the witnesses are wrong, the scent is really any good, oh, and, we shouldn't trust a polygraph (the polygraph is the weakest, IMO). You, and a few other posters, were doing that before I came here.

We've gotten more evidence since then, in terms of witnesses, and I'm still hearing the same thing.

I'm beginning to wonder why?

[UndertheRadar]

Reading comprehension is your friend, JJ. Try a little some time.

When you claim that scent definitely puts Gricar in Lewisburg and someone tries to set you straight, that's not saying the dogs were wrong (as you keep claiming). It's simply the truth: scent in the parking lot around the car does not equal proof that Gricar was in Lewisburg.

When you claim that witnesses (8-10, probably more!) mean Gricar was in Lewisburg and someone tries to show you how frequently witnesses are wrong and why, especially in missing persons' cases, it's not some super secret agenda. It's simply the truth.

My only agenda is accuracy so that a reasonable discussion of the RG case can proceed, and it's far from accurate to make the claims you make.

If you want to live in a fantasy land, go right ahead, but don't expect everyone else to jump on board.

[J. J. in Phila]

First of all, you have it backwards, but what else is new.

What I have said is that there are 3 to 4 witnesses that we know of that saw RFG in Lewisburg in the parking lot. We have another witness that saw RFG, just before this, heading in the direction of the parking lot.

I've asked, excluding cases of racial misidentification, how many cases are there where 3 witnesses (the minimum number) that were wrong when they saw the same person in the same place in the same car. I've asked how frequently has this occurred?

UTR's answer to the question:



[This space intentionally left blank]


Now, I've said that there is some physical evidence that RFG was there, supporting what the witnesses already reported. So to make UTR happy, I'll ask:

How many cases are there where 3 witnesses (the minimum number) that were wrong when they saw the same person in the same place in the same car and how many of those cases has physical evidence been found to support, wrongly, what these witnesses say they saw?

My answer is, I don't know of any. I bet I won't get an actual answer to the question from UTR.

[gstickley]

UTR, ya better answer, cause this is JJ's board & ya'll probably be expelled or have to sit in the corner or somethin'. RIM is givin' ya a test here. :lol:

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I gave you an answer, and you didn't like it.

The car, per se, is immaterial.

I gave you the example of the 7+ witnesses who in a narrow time frame in a limited geographical area identified "Laci Peterson."

Not just identified a person, but identified a PREGNANT person with a GOLDEN RETRIEVER.

That's two additional factors, three if you count breed of dog, not just dog, as opposed to the one factor, car.

None was Laci.

What did you tell me? They were all ruled out.

Well, duh! That's the point. I'm giving you an example where more than four witnesses made a mistaken identification in a narrow time frame in a limited geographical area.

No cross-racial component involved, and BTW, you can leave that out of future posts, since that's been proven not to cause most misidentifications.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, they were ruled out, and not even called by the defense. Here, LE did rule out witnesses, but not these. These survived the screening.

The Mini is quite material, because it is large, rare, identifiable and was found where the people saw him parking it. Only you would say it's immaterial. :rolleyes:

And I see with GStickley the "Spin Sisters" are back. You have to wonder about their agenda. :read:

[gstickley]

UTR, they were ruled out, and not even called by the defense. Here, LE did rule out witnesses, but not these. These survived the screening.

The Mini is quite material, because it is large, rare, identifiable and was found where the people saw him parking it. Only you would say it's immaterial. :rolleyes:

And I see with GStickley the "Spin Sisters" are back. You have to wonder about their agenda. :read:

"Spin Sisters"??? I thought I was "The Queen of Nastiness". And, Arnold, I'm honored to be included with Pgal. & UTR . . . and you can call us whatever you want, because "sticks & stones won't break my bones"!

[J. J. in Phila]

"Spin Sisters"??? I thought I was "The Queen of Nastiness". And, Arnold, I'm honored to be included with Pgal. & UTR . . . and you can call us whatever you want, because "sticks & stones won't break my bones"!


It's more descriptive of what you post, not you.

It's a certain agenda, which is usually:

1. All the witnesses are wrong.

2. The dogs were wrong.

3. Evil Patty did it because she can beat a polygraph and has magical powers to transform people into looking like RFG.

4. All the evidence was planted magically.

5. The press has magical powers to make people see things.

:rolleyes:

I won't even include the massive conspiracy theory.

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is an example, early on, on LE ruling out a witness:

The first report:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-22-05tdc/04-22-05dnews-09.asp


The resolution:

Reports that a possible third witness saw Gricar in Lewisburg at about 1:30 p.m. April 16 proved to be negative, according to a Bellefonte Police Department press release.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-25-05tdc/04-25-05dnews-06.asp

[gstickley]

I keep forgetting, Arnold. This is YOUR board. You are always right. No one knows anything except you. The rest of us just post to make you crazy. We are all in great awe of your expertise, your great mind, your looks, your personality. You are truly wonderful. And you are the only one who nows anything whatsoever about investigations, Ray Gricar, & everything else. Okay!:lol:

[J. J. in Phila]

No, GS, I may get some of the answers from people who post. I did already. :)

Keep spinning "Spinning Sister." It may help. Indirectly, it's led evidence of walkaway.

[Politigal]

Reading comprehension is your friend, JJ. Try a little some time.

When you claim that scent definitely puts Gricar in Lewisburg and someone tries to set you straight, that's not saying the dogs were wrong (as you keep claiming). It's simply the truth: scent in the parking lot around the car does not equal proof that Gricar was in Lewisburg.

When you claim that witnesses (8-10, probably more!) mean Gricar was in Lewisburg and someone tries to show you how frequently witnesses are wrong and why, especially in missing persons' cases, it's not some super secret agenda. It's simply the truth.

My only agenda is accuracy so that a reasonable discussion of the RG case can proceed, and it's far from accurate to make the claims you make.

If you want to live in a fantasy land, go right ahead, but don't expect everyone else to jump on board.


scent in the parking lot around the car does not equal proof that Gricar was in Lewisburg.

and that's the bottom line folks

[J. J. in Phila]

scent in the parking lot around the car does not equal proof that Gricar was in Lewisburg.

and that's the bottom line folks

It is evidence, backed up by 3-4 witnesses. But keep spinning. :lol:

[UndertheRadar]

scent in the parking lot around the car does not equal proof that Gricar was in Lewisburg.

and that's the bottom line folks

It IS the truth, Pgal.

JJ ignores the way the car itself was soaked in RG's scent.

And he ignores the fact that the none of the witnesses "back up" the scent evidence, since none of the witnesses we're aware of place RG somewhere away from the car in a spot where the dogs also detected RG's scent.

I kept asking him to show us the dog handlers' report as evidence of such. He just told ME to call LE and get it. LOL, HE was the one claiming that the witnesses backed up the scent evidence. You'd think he could offer proof for that claim.

I'm just gonna go with GS. JJ knows more than everybody about everything. After all, PB did say he was the one logical poster here! :scared:

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, it the dog just detected the scent where the car was, I'd believe it could have been from the car. If the scent was detected in the grassy area next to the car, I'd believe it could have been pooling. From what has been reported, neither of those things are accurate.

Top that off by at least three witnesses seeing RFG driving the Mini in the parking lot, at that pretty much ends it.

Now, I and a few other posters, are interested in determining what happened to RFG. You, and two or three other posters are interested in saying that the evidence is wrong. For years, literally, that is what you've been claiming. Why is that?

[Serendipitous1]

UTR, it the dog just detected the scent where the car was, I'd believe it could have been from the car. If the scent was detected in the grassy area next to the car, I'd believe it could have been pooling. From what has been reported, neither of those things are accurate.

Top that off by at least three witnesses seeing RFG driving the Mini in the parking lot, at that pretty much ends it.

Now, I and a few other posters, are interested in determining what happened to RFG. You, and two or three other posters are interested in saying that the evidence is wrong. For years, literally, that is what you've been claiming. Why is that?Because we are not "amazing", I guess. Hey, I am still pissed that history has not caught up with the JFK assassination. OTOH, I do not "see" drones smacking into the WTC. So, put me in the middle when it comes to a mysteriously disappeared DA in PA.

[J. J. in Phila]

Because we are not "amazing", I guess. Hey, I am still pissed that history has not caught up with the JFK assassination. OTOH, I do not "see" drones smacking into the WTC. So, put me in the middle when it comes to a mysteriously disappeared DA in PA.

Sorry, while I've been involved in a few conspiracies, I find that those who try to come up with them are usually wrong.

My immediate goal is fairly simple, however. It is to see that LE checks out the possibility of a walk away, even if at the end it is debunked.

[Serendipitous1]

Sorry, while I've been involved in a few conspiracies, I find that those who try to come up with them are usually wrong.

My immediate goal is fairly simple, however. It is to see that LE checks out the possibility of a walk away, even if at the end it is debunked.My goal has always been for LE to treat this case as a homicide, which it did not (a mistake specifically noted by LE in the Elaine Pierson murder). That would have precipitated a state investigation by the PSP because of the potential conflicts of interest in the DA's office...or just because it was (or should have been) that important.

RG deserved a state investigation (I know, you agree). And you were probably right when you pointed out that there would be no political solution in 2008...it would be too late. But, damn it all to hell, there have been several people who failed Ray Gricar, a sitting district attorney, from the outset. They failed Ray Gricar...and, therefore, me (John Q. Public).

[J. J. in Phila]

My goal has always been for LE to treat this case as a homicide, which it did not (a mistake specifically noted by LE in the Elaine Pierson murder). That would have precipitated a state investigation by the PSP because of the potential conflicts of interest in the DA's office...or just because it was (or should have been) that important.

RG deserved a state investigation (I know, you agree). And you were probably right when you pointed out that there would be no political solution in 2008...it would be too late. But, damn it all to hell, there have been several people who failed Ray Gricar, a sitting district attorney, from the outset. They failed Ray Gricar...and, therefore, me (John Q. Public).


My proximate goal is for LE to rule out, or confirm, walkaway(if the have not already). Once that is done, I would want to see this treated as homicide, if walkaway is ruled out.

Ironically, when you are moving toward the "helper" scenario, you may end up beginning a homicide investigation.

[Serendipitous1]

My proximate goal is for LE to rule out, or confirm, walkaway(if the have not already). Once that is done, I would want to see this treated as homicide, if walkaway is ruled out.

Ironically, when you are moving toward the "helper" scenario, you may end up beginning a homicide investigation.Not at all, J.J....which is part of the frustration.

[Politigal]

IMO,

the case should have been looked at in this sequence

#1 Homicide

#2 Suicide

#3 Walkaway

Instead, it looks like they focused on Suicide/Walkaway and now unfortunately too late..Homicide.

[J. J. in Phila]

IMO,

the case should have been looked at in this sequence

#1 Homicide

#2 Suicide

#3 Walkaway

Instead, it looks like they focused on Suicide/Walkaway and now unfortunately too late..Homicide.

P'gal, actually that is wrong again. I found out that they continued searching 192 at the same time they were checking the water; they obviously didn't think the Mini drove to Lewisburg by itself. Further, if it was murder, a likely place for the body to be was in the river.

As you have pointed out, there is no evidence of murder.

Now, we have some evidence of walkaway, but it's largely circumstantial. Right now the possibility should either be debunked as much as possible or confirmed. If it is debunked, I think the most likely reason for RFG's disappearance is murder.

[UndertheRadar]

My goal has always been for LE to treat this case as a homicide, which it did not (a mistake specifically noted by LE in the Elaine Pierson murder). That would have precipitated a state investigation by the PSP because of the potential conflicts of interest in the DA's office...or just because it was (or should have been) that important.


Exactly, S1, and exactly what was done in the Song case, despite the fact that there were more logical arguments there for potential suicide (depression over a breakup with a boyfriend) or walkaway (statistically, because of demographics).

This is precisely why I've been doggedly pursuing accuracy (not conspiracy) about whether or not RG even made it to Lewisburg (maybe, maybe not) and doggedly pursuing accuracy about what witness sightings mean and don't mean (maybe RG, maybe not).

DZ's claims in the Renner article, maybe elsewhere, about witnesses definitely ID'ing Gricar in various places may well come back to bite a prosecution case in the azz later on if it turns out there's a homicide case to be built. Same thing if, say, GS's old theory of the VCF/R would turn out to be true, and RG were murdered on the way to Lewisburg and the VCF/R were the one to complete the trip to Lewisburg with the Mini. All the claims supposedly placing RG in Lewisburg are going to hurt a later prosecution.

There's a reason I push for accuracy, and it ain't conspiracy.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, right now, there is no homicide case that can be build, under any scenario.

Let's however focus on your semi premise of two years, **RFG was dead prior to 5:00 PM on 4/15/05.**

Okay, there is no evidence to support that claim. Is there evidence to refute that claim?

Yes, and this is it:

1. 4-5 witnesses saw RFG driving his Mini after 5:00 PM. 3-4 saw him in the parking lot at 5:30 PM, the other one saw him driving toward the parking lot before the other witnesses saw him.

2. The Mini was found in the parking lot.

3. The dog detected his scent in the parking lot.

All of these things are consistent with RFG being alive after 5:00 PM. What evidence is there that contradicts this evidence? None that anyone has ever indicated.

It isn't about DZ to Renner, because Buehner has said the same thing. The evidence sure seems to be there. DZ's investigation turned up some things that can't be put back in the bottle; whether or not he says it publicly has no bearing on it. You just saw what happens if there is an effort to suppress the evidence; I'm pretty sure that Mike Nif..., er, Madeira really doesn't want that.

And this part is just saying that RFG was alive after 5:00 PM.

Right now, somebody could make an excellent argument that RFG walked away. Could they prove it? No, IMO. Would it create reasonable doubt. Heck yes; there is a lot circumstantial evidence that points straight to it. That much of it coming from ADA's and judges really doesn't weaken the case. That is yet another reason why LE should look very strongly at walk away, even if they can eventually rule it out.

[UndertheRadar]

You're missing my point, JJ. Of course there's no evidence to build a homicide case now. That's not what I was saying, and it would be unlikely, since no one seems to be pursuing this with any fervor as a potential case of foul play.

I'm saying in the future if there's evidence that turns up sufficient to charge someone with RG's murder, the defense could have a field day with statements made in the press by DZ and others and with all you've been doing to push the walkaway theory.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, in the future, you are still going to have do something with those witness reports and scent issue. It would be impossible to claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that RFG was dead before 5:00 PM. And the more "new" evidence that keeps bubbling to the surface, the more it supports the premise that RFG was alive, in Lewisburg, after 5:30 PM on 4/15/05.

Ironically, some of that has come from McKnight and Buehner, who both believe RFG was murdered.