The Most ~Solid~ Sighting of Gricar

[Politigal]

IMO

The most solid sighting of Ray Gricar (other than the Thurs night courthouse surveillance video)

Is when Vicki Wedler spoke face to face with Gricar & Patty as they were walking that Thursday thru Talleyrand Park. She saw them face to face.....she spoke to them......she saw their reactions to her compliment.....It was also reported at one time that Patty didn't appreciate Wedler telling about this encounter. And IIRC, JKA (posting as Parlorelephant) even wrote that Patty didn't own up to it until it was made public by Wedler. Wedler also stated that Gricar was depressed looking.

Here's a good background on Vicki Wedler:

http://www.1kbb.com/about-kbb/kbb-realtors/Vicki_Wedler/

Is she a believable person? A credible witness? IMO - You betcha!

And, I still believe that something was going awry in the relationship between Gricar & Patty, preceding that walk in the park, that ultimately led to Gricar's disappearance.

[J. J. in Phila]

You read incorrectly again. She never said any such thing.

Also note that there is video tape of RFG after that sighting, along with multiple other witnesses.

I would add that he have two witnesses to the same event.

[Politigal]

You read incorrectly again. She never said any such thing.

Also note that there is video tape of RFG after that sighting, along with multiple other witnesses.

I would add that he have two witnesses to the same event.

from the CDT article:

Former Centre County Commissioner Vicki Wedler, a Kissinger Bigatel & Brower Realtor, added a new piece to the Gricar puzzle, describing to police her encounter with Fornicola and a "depressed" Gricar in Bellefonte's Talleyrand Park on the evening before he disappeared.

And *YES* - Parlorelephant posted about Wedler. You've just chosen to conveniently forget.

[J. J. in Phila]

from the CDT article:

Former Centre County Commissioner Vicki Wedler, a Kissinger Bigatel & Brower Realtor, added a new piece to the Gricar puzzle, describing to police her encounter with Fornicola and a "depressed" Gricar in Bellefonte's Talleyrand Park on the evening before he disappeared.

And *YES* - Parlorelephant posted about Wedler. You've just chosen to conveniently forget.

JKA never claimed any such thing that I've read. Post the link, or is this more "twisting the bejeezus out of" the facts or "outright making things up to support murder scenarios."

[Politigal]

JKA never claimed any such thing that I've read. Post the link, or is this more "twisting the bejeezus out of" the facts or "outright making things up to support murder scenarios."


Yes she did...and you know as well as I that Parlor's posts are no longer available. But I know that others read it too.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes she did...and you know as well as I that Parlor's posts are no longer available. But I know that others read it too.

Some are I think. Did JKA say it under her own name? The only thing I've seen was PEF being asked about in the press and saying that she thought the comment was a bit personal.

I recall no such statement from PE, or Lustor.

You've said several things that have been wrong. The most recent was TG claim that Sloane no longer believes it was a walkaway. TG had said that Sloane didn't think it was suicide and that was it. Sloane hasn't been emailing the CDT asking for a retraction.

[Serendipitous1]

Yes she did...and you know as well as I that Parlor's posts are no longer available. But I know that others read it too. UTR, Just an example, correct. Putting the pieces together for a possible scenario, PF (so far as LE has ever said) was utterly silent to LE during what was supposed to have been a weekend of intense questioning, about the hour she spent with Gricar in Tallyrand Park between 5-6 PM on Thursday, 4/14, 16 hours pre-disappearance.This was the opening part of a very lengthy (and, in my opinion, provably off-base) post in which "PE" also labeled PF as "his paramour" (go figure). Gee, I wonder where I have heard "paramour" since.

[J. J. in Phila]

This was the opening part of a very lengthy (and, in my opinion, provably off-base) post in which "PE" also labeled PF as "his paramour" (go figure). Gee, I wonder where I have heard "paramour" since.

I'm not certain why anyone would ask her if there were any witnesses prior to RFG being video taped. I probably saw RFG on TV sometime in the 1980's, does that count?

[Serendipitous1]

I'm not certain why anyone would ask her if there were any witnesses prior to RFG being video taped. I probably saw RFG on TV sometime in the 1980's, does that count?I think KA was intentionally left out of the loop, and that she could not possibly know what PF told the investigators. Saunterer provided a lengthy analysis of Wedler vs. Gricar the same day, much to PE's displeasure. And everyone else seemed to assume that PF had not told investigators about that walk in the park, pre-Wedler. But is that true? Bottom line: ParlorElephant, Lustorumanimae, KA, etc...vaporous, whimsical nonsense in lieu of supporting facts. So..."Where's the beef?"

[J. J. in Phila]

It isn't P'gal's claim about the "depressed" part. It is her claim that PEF didn't "own up" to it, a bit more "twisting" on her part. As soon as PEF was asked, she did.

Sloane didn't mention Wiley until asked.

That is the key, asking the right questions.

From what I've heard, the meeting was not planned and I don't know if they spoke. That might be important eventually, but keep something in mind: RFG was definitely alive after that.

The sightings of 4/14/05 may not be the most solid however.

[J. J. in Phila]

One other thing about Wedler. She said the looked like a "cute couple."

[Serendipitous1]

What I do take exception to is Politigal's assertion that, "It was also reported at one time that Patty didn't appreciate Wedler telling about this encounter." To me that is revisionism, or just made-up nonsense. Is Wedler a believable person...a credible witness? Sure, but to what, and of what significance?

[J. J. in Phila]

What I do take exception to is Politigal's assertion that, "It was also reported at one time that Patty didn't appreciate Wedler telling about this encounter." To me that is revisionism, or just made-up nonsense. Is Wedler a believable person...a credible witness? Sure, but to what, and of what significance?

I think it was reported that PEF thought the comment was private. Except for demeanor, until Weldler's comment, Wedler thought they were a "cute couple." That REALLY doesn't sound like a troubled relationship.

[sherrijean981]

Indeed, it is true. The big question though is whether whatever was bothering him actually had anything to do with the relationship. There are certain things that seem strange at a glance, puzzle pieces but without forming any sort of full picture.

I would guess there were few things that would 'depress' RG. He appears to be a 'solid rock' as a prosecutor, who gave his all building cases upon what he believed to be the truth. And if in any case, he found that he needed to backstep, he did so with dignity.

I would guess the biggest issue that would bother a man who had prosecuted so many cases, none of which seemed to have rattled him, and been through a couple of divorces, including one where he was no longer living under the same roof as his daughter whom he loved, would be if he felt somehow he was being betrayed, if he had to make a move on an issue because he had no other choice; it was his job to do so, yet feeling some sense of betrayal for having to proceed.

There is one other witness on Thursday that I would like to know more about. It has been said that a doctor who knew RG saw him down at Raystown Lake. Anyone know whether he spoke with the doctor, and if it was a planned meeting? I will add that I am NOT necessarily thinking it had anything to do with RG's health, although we obviously don't know. I would like to hear more about whether this was a 'sighting' or a meeting. And was this doctor treating anyone involved in any of RG's cases, or anyone personally known to RG? Would the doctor's need for confidentiality regarding a patient outweigh LE request for information? Was the doctor male or female? I want to know more about Thursday, BEFORE he was seen in the park. We have a witness, but know little about that 'sighting' OR meeting.
JMO


Was the doctor a practicing doctor at the time and could he have retired since then? Maybe now deceased?

[sherrijean981]

I thought it was said there were workers in the court house that Thursday night? Cleaning people or other employees? It was said RG was on video and was he the last one out of the building or were there other straglers as well?

[J. J. in Phila]

Was the doctor a practicing doctor at the time and could he have retired since then? Maybe now deceased?

I've heard him described as a "doctor," but I'm not sure he's a physician. The area has a lot of people with a doctor's degree, a PH D, but are not medical doctors.

[J. J. in Phila]

I thought it was said there were workers in the court house that Thursday night? Cleaning people or other employees? It was said RG was on video and was he the last one out of the building or were there other straglers as well?


That one I don't know about.

I would have expected someone to be in the building even at night, security, cleaning staff, et c. After the recent vandalism there, however, I'm surprised no one heard or saw it happening, if someone was in the building.

[J. J. in Phila]

Wedler's report only has this relevance in the case, it shows RFG's demeanor (well and PEF's). The were walking in the park, not intently discussing something, not arguing, looking like "a cute couple." It really doesn't tell us more than that.

[Politigal]

What I do take exception to is Politigal's assertion that, "It was also reported at one time that Patty didn't appreciate Wedler telling about this encounter." To me that is revisionism, or just made-up nonsense. Is Wedler a believable person...a credible witness? Sure, but to what, and of what significance?

You are correct....I worded my post badly.

It was not "reported" in the news that Patty didn't appreciate it. It was discussed here by others that Patty didn't appreciate it. And I can't recall specifically if it was Parlor or who....but I recall reading it. There was also a lengthy discussion & attack on Wedler at the time....much like there was when JKA wrote her googlepages. Go figger.

The board has always seemed to have a few cheerleaders for Patty.

[J. J. in Phila]

You are correct....I worded my post badly.

It was not "reported" in the news that Patty didn't appreciate it. It was discussed here by others that Patty didn't appreciate it. And I can't recall specifically if it was Parlor or who....but I recall reading it. There was also a lengthy discussion & attack on Wedler at the time....much like there was when JKA wrote her googlepages. Go figger.

The board has always seemed to have a few cheerleaders for Patty.


No, it wasn't. You claimed that someone said that PEF wouldn't admit to it. No one is claiming that, except you.

Here is what you actually said, emphasis added:

IMO

The most solid sighting of Ray Gricar (other than the Thurs night courthouse surveillance video)

Is when Vicki Wedler spoke face to face with Gricar & Patty as they were walking that Thursday thru Talleyrand Park. She saw them face to face.....she spoke to them......she saw their reactions to her compliment.....It was also reported at one time that Patty didn't appreciate Wedler telling about this encounter. And IIRC, JKA (posting as Parlorelephant) even wrote that Patty didn't own up to it until it was made public by Wedler. Wedler also stated that Gricar was depressed looking.

Here's a good background on Vicki Wedler:

http://www.1kbb.com/about-kbb/kbb-realtors/Vicki_Wedler/

Is she a believable person? A credible witness? IMO - You betcha!

And, I still believe that something was going awry in the relationship between Gricar & Patty, preceding that walk in the park, that ultimately led to Gricar's disappearance.






Unless JKA was present at the questioning, or had a detailed account, she couldn't have known. And in a very brief defense of JKA, she PE, or Lustor never made that claim. She probably wasn't asked iif she talked to anyone in the park since Wedler obviously wasn't threatening anyone and there was ample evidence that RFG was alive after that.

[Politigal]

JJ - you posted some of Parlor's post on this topic on 11/17/07 at 10:56pm

Posted by JJ:
There are smoke and mirrors, with JKA.

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

ParlorElephant
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

....

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

PE

07-08-2006 12:33 PM

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

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

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

Posted by Parlorelephant:

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


Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-04-2006 11:01 AM

[Politigal]

the thread I posted from is here:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=315442&page=6

[J. J. in Phila]

the thread I posted from is here:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=315442&page=6

And? As far as I know, PEF was never asked if anyone saw the two of walking in the park, especially since there was a video of RFG after that. :rolleyes:

Wedler saw them around 5:30 PM and RFG wasn't at the office until 6:19 PM. It isn't a 45 minute walk to the Courthouse from Tallyrand park; it is less than 400 yards away. So either her "around" was closer to six, they went someplace for 45 minutes after that (unlikely) or they kept walking. I thing she made the comment as they were leaving.

If it was closer to six, that gives the "cute couple," in Wedler's words, about an hour and a half to leave work eat and walk.

And PE, JKA, or Lustor never said that PEF did not "own up" to Wedler's comments. She very probably was never asked.

[Politigal]

And? As far as I know, PEF was never asked if anyone saw the two of walking in the park, especially since there was a video of RFG after that. :rolleyes:

Wedler saw them around 5:30 PM and RFG wasn't at the office until 6:19 PM. It isn't a 45 minute walk to the Courthouse from Tallyrand park; it is less than 400 yards away. So either her "around" was closer to six, they went someplace for 45 minutes after that (unlikely) or they kept walking. I thing she made the comment as they were leaving.

If it was closer to six, that gives the "cute couple," in Wedler's words, about an hour and a half to leave work eat and walk.

And PE, JKA, or Lustor never said that PEF did not "own up" to Wedler's comments. She very probably was never asked.

You're pretty naive if you think police didn't question Patty about the day prior to the disappearance. And from what Parlor (& Lustor) wrote...Patty didn't tell police about the walk in the park until after Wedler made it public.

[Politigal]

there was a line of posts about it in the past...

some posters complained about Wedler & why she hadn't gone to police with the info instead of going to the media.

but by the same token, why didn't Patty tell police about the park walk?

Go to www.boardreader.com and do an advanced search for poster's names or keywords and you can find snippets of a lot of old posts there.

edited to add:

here's a link to Lustor's posts

http://tinyurl.com/58aqbv

[J. J. in Phila]

You're pretty naive if you think police didn't question Patty about the day prior to the disappearance. And from what Parlor (& Lustor) wrote...Patty didn't tell police about the walk in the park until after Wedler made it public.

No, not relevant. You have a problem with that.

The police might ask where she was and where RFG was, but since was on video tape twice, after seeing Wedler they really don't need proof that he was alive at c. 5:30 PM on 4/14/05.

More "twisting the bejeezus" out of the facts from P'gal.

BTW: I'm not complaining about Wedler. Except of the demeanor of the "cute couple," her words, nothing is relevant.

[Politigal]

No, not relevant. You have a problem with that.

The police might ask where she was and where RFG was, but since was on video tape twice, after seeing Wedler they really don't need proof that he was alive at c. 5:30 PM on 4/14/05.

More "twisting the bejeezus" out of the facts from P'gal.

BTW: I'm not complaining about Wedler. Except of the demeanor of the "cute couple," her words, nothing is relevant.

the day before isn't relevant?


lol :lol:

[sherrijean981]

And? As far as I know, PEF was never asked if anyone saw the two of walking in the park, especially since there was a video of RFG after that. :rolleyes:

Wedler saw them around 5:30 PM and RFG wasn't at the office until 6:19 PM. It isn't a 45 minute walk to the Courthouse from Tallyrand park; it is less than 400 yards away. So either her "around" was closer to six, they went someplace for 45 minutes after that (unlikely) or they kept walking. I thing she made the comment as they were leaving.

If it was closer to six, that gives the "cute couple," in Wedler's words, about an hour and a half to leave work eat and walk.

And PE, JKA, or Lustor never said that PEF did not "own up" to Wedler's comments. She very probably was never asked.


I am wondering what the big deal is about the walk in the park and whether someone else told they were in the park or not?? The fact is, they were seen in the park and RG was seen on the security camera after 9pm that night and he was still there and alive at both those times. Whether he was not in a good mood or not, he was there.

I want to know what happened after PF went to work on Friday? What time he left his home, if he got any phone calls or visitors after that time that prompted his leaving the home so quickly he grabbed the clothes he wore the night before.

I was also thinking he could have had a suitcase full of new clothes that he paid cash for weeks earlier or or could have been on a shopping spree somewhere the day before to complete his purchases. He could have been in any small town with a Walmart, where no one takes the time to look a stranger in the eye. Unless you ask questions on where to go for a nice dinner or thrift shops, etc. (I know that since I go to small towns to visit thrift shops, historical societies, etc) and if a young person waits on you they could care less to look at you while giving you your change from purchases.

If both Judge Grine and Carloyn Fenton saw that car, I wonder if there was a discussion between them on the make or year of the car? New flashy car or family sedan?

[J. J. in Phila]

SJ, P'gal just like to spin her conspiracy theory, without any regard to the facts.

It certainly isn't relevant if RFG was alive at 5:30 PM it there is a video tape of him walking around at 9:06 PM later in the day. Her next theory will be **That witch used voodoo to animate his corpse.**

P'gal also seems to think looking like a "cute couple," Wedler's words, means that one person was standing there with a chainsaw getting ready for the remake of Friday the 13th.

Those are good questions, but unknowable, at this point. The car is a possibility, and so far as I know, it wasn't checked. He could have left any time between about 8:20 and 10:40.

I'm also not sure he was wearing the same clothing. The Fleece was outerwear and I will the same outerwear days at a time, temperature dependent. I will trousers two day in a row, especiall jeans. I'm also not sure if he wore them all of Thursday; he had a meeting in the morning.

[J. J. in Phila]

I would doubt, especially from a trial attorney, that too much could be read from a security camera video tape.

This sighting only has value only as an indication of demeanor, both RFG's and PEF's demeanor. Were they arguing? No. Yelling at each other? No. Having an intense conversation? No. Wedler thought RFG looked "depressed." A subjective view, but that's about it.

Basically, the sighting isn't relevant to what happened to RFG, except that someone that P'gal thinks has the "most solid sighting," didn't see PEF angry, intent or depressed, and described them as a "cute couple."

[sherrijean981]

I would doubt, especially from a trial attorney, that too much could be read from a security camera video tape.

This sighting only has value only as an indication of demeanor, both RFG's and PEF's demeanor. Were they arguing? No. Yelling at each other? No. Having an intense conversation? No. Wedler thought RFG looked "depressed." A subjective view, but that's about it.

Basically, the sighting isn't relevant to what happened to RFG, except that someone that P'gal thinks has the "most solid sighting," didn't see PEF angry, intent or depressed, and described them as a "cute couple."

With RG taking the day out of the office and going who knows where on Thursday (other than Huntingdon), the long hours being put in on the VM case both during office hours, in the evenings, and maybe at home, he might just have been exhausted that night in the park. What does RG look like exhausted? Was he down because of the case he was working on? Something at the parole board hearing? Maybe it had nothing to do with PF and he just needed the break of a walk in the park before going in to the office again.

How long do they keep the security camera tapes? Were they ever checked to see when the last time RG took the camera to the office or removed it from the office?

[J. J. in Phila]

SJ, you raise a couple of good points. One thing is that this sighting was 5:30 PM or later. The PBM was at 8:00 AM. He may have been tied and he may have eaten a reasonably short time before that. A good meal will make a guy a bit drowsy.

Unless he napped, he probably was up at 6:30 AM, if not before.

I don't believe there was extensive checking of the tapes, though I'm hoping they were preserved.

[sherrijean981]

Article on a search with only someone being seen in the area of a missing little girl. Sounds like a grid search using volunteers from many states.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/978244.html

[J. J. in Phila]

Article on a search with only someone being seen in the area of a missing little girl. Sounds like a grid search using volunteers from many states.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/978244.html

It is, but not in a five mile radius.

[Politigal]

SJ, you raise a couple of good points. One thing is that this sighting was 5:30 PM or later. The PBM was at 8:00 AM. He may have been tied and he may have eaten a reasonably short time before that. A good meal will make a guy a bit drowsy.

Unless he napped, he probably was up at 6:30 AM, if not before.

I don't believe there was extensive checking of the tapes, though I'm hoping they were preserved.

IIRC the police couldn't corroborate the Huntingdon sighting ...either.

[J. J. in Phila]

IIRC the police couldn't corroborate the Huntingdon sighting ...either.

The witness is credible and knew RFG.

This one, for me, is the great unknown.

[gstickley]

The witness is credible and knew RFG.

This one, for me, is the great unknown.

Link for this, please.

[J. J. in Phila]

Link for this, please.

For what, that I don't know what to make of this sighting?

Here are some references to the sighting:

http://officialcoldcaseinvestigations.com/showthread.php?t=1806

http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6371

TG mentioned once that the witness was "credible."

It has been discussed in the past on this site.

[UndertheRadar]

TG was also careful to make the distinction between "credible witness" and "credible sighting."

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, that is why I used the term "'credible' witness."

He's solid, has been identified as a "doctor," and knew RFG. I don't know the circumstances of the contact or if he saw him at 50 yards.

[UndertheRadar]

I'm just saying, JJ . . .

You've been zipping around these boards acting as if the revelation that one witness in Wilkes-Barre was a "ranking" police officer means we've got the second coming of Christ.

A credible witness does not a credible sighting make.

[J. J. in Phila]

Wilkes-Barre is enough to move my numbers by, two percentage points. It hasn't even taken it to 50%.

Wilkes-Barre is significant because of several factors, many of which were known. What wasn't known was that the second witness was in LE. It was a strong sighting that got stronger.

The sighting was "credible" in part because two witnesses saw the same thing at the same time, and remembered it independently. The second witness happened to be someone who would be reliable, a "credible" witness.

This one is solid.

[UndertheRadar]

First of all, JJ, I doubt your "numbers," pulled as they are from thin air, mean very much to anyone but you. Posters have asked you before how you derive these magical numbers, and your explanations have absolutely no scientific or statistical basis. They're just "JJ's guesses," the same as any other poster has.

Second, even if your "numbers" are moved only two percentage points, you've still been zipping around these boards acting as if identifying one witness in Wilkes-Barre as "ranking LE" means the sighting is more credible.

It doesn't, and there is scientific basis for that. Training may affect observation, but it does not affect recall or memory. You claimed elsewhere that an LE officer would be the last person affected by media (or other) influence, as if what happens subconsciously to memory is something a "ranking LE" officer could control.

In short, when you say this "one" is solid, you can only mean that the witness himself is solid, not that the sighting is solid. And therefore the same holds true for the Michigan sighting. Do you also believe that sighting to be true?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I have said, when this broke, that it would make walkaway (at least from Lewisburg), slightly more likely, not that it was proof, or even that it made walkaway, "more likely than not." That's represented by that 2%.

No, as I indicated, but you missed, this has different elements than the MI sighting.

Present here are:

1. Interaction (actually with both in Wilkes-Barre). Out of all the witnesses after noon on 4/15, this one is unique in that regard.

2. Independent corroboration. These two witnesses never communicated. In MI, it was father and daughter.

Like I said, this one is solid.

Now, that is not enough for me to say "RFG walked away after being in Lewisburg." It is more than enough for me to say, "The next focus of the investigation should be on looking for evidence that RFG did walk away from Lewisburg."

[Politigal]

JJ - don't you think it's odd that law enforcement haven't publicly stated that this one witness is "solid" ?? that this is *the* one???

I think you (and Pete) have assigned wayyyyy more importance to it than anyone else on the planet.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - don't you think it's odd that law enforcement haven't publicly stated that this one witness is "solid" ?? that this is *the* one???

I think you (and Pete) have assigned wayyyyy more importance to it than anyone else on the planet.

The sighting was important when reported. It remains so and gained a bit more this week (though LE has known about since late April 2005).

[Cloudbuster]

Early on April 18th 2008 Article states no witnesses. The SHERIFF even said nothing was a miss.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/missing_pa_da_fails_show_for_work.htm

[J. J. in Phila]

Early on April 18th 2008 Article states no witnesses. The SHERIFF even said nothing was a miss.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/missing_pa_da_fails_show_for_work.htm

Nothing reported until 4/21/05.

[UndertheRadar]

Let me repeat my earlier question and echo Pgal's, JJ:

When you say "This one is solid," does your use of the pronoun "one" refer to "witness"?

"One" is singular, so you can't mean "both."

Please answer just the above question. TIA.

[Hbgchick]

I read it as "this sighting is solid". Could be wrong though.

[J. J. in Phila]

I read it as "this sighting is solid". Could be wrong though.


You read it correctly. This one, this sighting, is solid. Now, obviously, the credibility of each witness plays into that, just does the number of witnesses. That sould be clear since I've referred to the MI sighting as opposed to the MI witness.

[J. J. in Phila]

What gets me is that by 4/30/05, DZ and Dixon had these reports:

1. RFG was seen in a different car by two people that he knew personally, at least within the 24 hours prior to his last report (and never reported it publicly). One of those witnesses was a former police officer.

2. He was seen by two witnesses, in Wilkes-Barre, at the same place, at the same time, doing the same thing. One of those witnesses was a police officer (and never reported it publicly). Both witnesses confirmed it independently of the other.

Why didn't they look at the possibility of RFG getting a different car? If they did, and it was negative, why didn't they report that?

[Cloudbuster]

What gets me is that by 4/30/05, DZ and Dixon had these reports:

1. RFG was seen in a different car by two people that he knew personally, at least within the 24 hours prior to his last report (and never reported it publicly). One of those witnesses was a former police officer.

2. He was seen by two witnesses, in Wilkes-Barre, at the same place, at the same time, doing the same thing. One of those witnesses was a police officer (and never reported it publicly). Both witnesses confirmed it independently of the other.

Why didn't they look at the possibility of RFG getting a different car? If they did, and it was negative, why didn't they report that?

JJ I understand your frustration I really do. I think MM is starting to see something now.:rose:

Dixon also said he would see this case thru but he didn't. Then DETZ?? What ever happened to Thal? Something is just not right but I can't put my finger on it.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ I understand your frustration I really do. I think MM is starting to see something now.:rose:

Dixon also said he would see this case thru but he didn't. Then DETZ?? What ever happened to Thal? Something is just not right but I can't put my finger on it.

Dixon was planning to retire, so I understand that part. Either DZ/Dixon never checked, basically ignored leads, they checked and decided to keep the results out of the press. I can't understand why they would keep a negative result out of the press, i.e., why they wouldn't say **We looked at this, and we didn't find anything.**

S1 mentioned "the big secret." Why would this be "the big secret?"

[Cloudbuster]

JJ I wonder what the big secret was? S1 are you out there?

[Cloudbuster]

JJ this case is cloaked in secrecy. I also wonder if the sighting of RG in Skillamy park, was he alone? For I don't feel he was alone. I think there is more to that sighting too that we are missing the cookie list for. I think they are leaving something out.

I have always seen a vision of a watch and I can't figure out why.

Also 2 times now dollar bills? Two separate dreams.

I have never heard them say his watch is also missing it's always his sun glasses, his wallet, and keys, but no mention of his watch?

[sherrijean981]

Dixon was planning to retire, so I understand that part. Either DZ/Dixon never checked, basically ignored leads, they checked and decided to keep the results out of the press. I can't understand why they would keep a negative result out of the press, i.e., why they wouldn't say **We looked at this, and we didn't find anything.**

S1 mentioned "the big secret." Why would this be "the big secret?"


My question is why would they put DZ on the case when they had DETECTIVE THAL on the force? Just because he answered the phone when PF called? No, that is not how it is to work. There is a reason they are called DETECTIVES, and DZ did not have it. Screwed up from the beginning.

[J. J. in Phila]

My question is why would they put DZ on the case when they had DETECTIVE THAL on the force? Just because he answered the phone when PF called? No, that is not how it is to work. There is a reason they are called DETECTIVES, and DZ did not have it. Screwed up from the beginning.

I actually thought the first week was great. All LE acted quickly. They had an APB out on RFG within 15 hours of last contact. They found the car 24 hours. They had the search dogs out within 60 hours. I can't fault them there.

I can fault them for this. Fifteen days after RFG was reported missing, they had solid sighting of RFG in an unknown car within 24 hours of his disappearance, by a former police officer. The had a solid sighting of RFG, about 72 miles from where the Mini was found, be a police officer. Both sightings had multiple witnesses.

They never asked the question, "Did RFG get another vehicle and drive those 72 miles?"

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, are you deeming the sighting a solid one based only on

a) the fact that the police officer is a credible witness and

b) the fact that the bartender independently said the same thing?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I am deaming the sighting solid for a number of reasons.

1. One witness was LE.

2. There was more than one witness.

3. Both witnesses saw the same thing at the same time, at the same place.

4. Neither witness had additional contact with the other after seeing the event.

It is more than solid enough to say that LE should have regarded it as likely to be accurate. Not proof, but solid enough to ask, "Is there any evidence that RFG got from Point A (Lewisburg) to Point B (Wilkes-Barre)."

It still comes down to means, but there is some evidence that some means, whatever those means were, were used.

[UndertheRadar]

Based on everything I've read about evaluating credibility of witness sightings/testimony vs. evaluating witness credibility, I disagree with your assessment that the sighting itself is "solid" for the reasons you've provided.

However, asking whether evidence exists that RG could have gotten from Lewisburg to Wilkes-Barre is, of course, valid.

But that question was on the table back in April of 2005 as something to consider. I'm not seeing why there's anything "new" here.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I give people that are trained observers a bit more weight than everyone else. In this case, it is supported by someone else as well.

The weighting is new. I had no idea how we should weight the witness. That changes the equation a bit.

LE's known about it. Why didn't they ask the valid question?

[J. J. in Phila]

More Clues, No Answers In Gricar Search
04/22/2005
(Source: Centre Daily Times) -- Despite uncovering more clues, including testimony from a third person claiming to have seen missing District Attorney Ray Gricar Saturday, Bellefonte police still do not have any answers regarding Gricar's whereabouts.

I found this line, er interesting, in light of the date.


Those close to Gricar have asked the media to stop speculating about the case, at least until more conclusive evidence is uncovered.


http://www.centrecounty.com/baldeagle/localnews/news.phtml

[SuperKyle]

Hello everyone. I couldn't just sit out and watch anymore with the recent news of the police officer being a witness.

But the main reason for me being here is this question...
Does anyone know the estimated time that Mrs. Fenton (I believe) saw Mr. Gricar outside of the courthouse?

To me, (Li'll Ole Me) that is the most credible sighting you could possibly have and absolutely positively (unless she is just plain lying) points to him being alive and well on the 15th. Recognizing someone you work with is second nature. There is very little doubt in my mind that Ray was there at that time for whatever reason.

Also, the man who found the book on his desk, was he also the one who was camping that weekend with family and friends? Has he been looked into for any kind of knowledge?

I wish you all well

[J. J. in Phila]

Fenton saw him at 3:00 PM on 4/15/05. Judge Grine saw him at the same place also driving a different car, but isn't sure if it was 4/14 or 4/15.

Smith found the book; he was camping that weekend with family and friends, someplace in Western Pennsylvania.

BTW: Welcome to the thread, and the board. :)

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, note the one they didn't list as ruled out. Wilkes-Barre.

[gstickley]

GS, note the one they didn't list as ruled out. Wilkes-Barre.

They never mentioned Wilkes-Barre.

The article states: "He's reportedly been seen in Michigan, Ohio, Maryland and Virginia. But in all but one of those instances, Michigan, police were able to prove beyond doubt that the man people saw was not missing Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar."

The article further states: [B]"Since then, people have called Bellefonte police from all over the East Coast, saying they thought they had seen him.

The recent sighting police have been unable to rule out is the one in Michigan, where a retired Detroit police officer who also worked as a composite artist said he saw a man who looked familiar to him at a restaurant May 27 in Southfield, Mich."

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll try explain this to you slowly. Wilkes-Barre is in Pennsylvania[/ui]. That is a [i]state. "Michigan, Ohio, Maryland and Virginia" are also states but are not the same state as Pennsylvania.

It is interesting, however, about what the police were not saying.

[gstickley]

I'll try explain this to you slowly. Wilkes-Barre is in Pennsylvania[/ui]. That is a [i]state. "Michigan, Ohio, Maryland and Virginia" are also states but are not the same state as Pennsylvania.

It is interesting, however, about what the police were not saying.

Golly gee, JJ. Sorry, I'm not privy to what police were not saying.
I haven't read anyplace what police were not saying. All I have read is what police were saying. On June 26, 2005, police were saying:

"Since then, people have called Bellefonte police from all over the East Coast, saying they thought they had seen him.

The recent sighting police have been unable to rule out is the one in Michigan, where a retired Detroit police officer who also worked as a composite artist said he saw a man who looked familiar to him at a restaurant May 27 in Southfield, Mich."

[gstickley]

Golly gee, JJ. Sorry, I'm not privy to what police were not saying.
I haven't read anyplace what police were not saying. All I have read is what police were saying. On June 26, 2005, police were saying:

"Since then, people have called Bellefonte police from all over the East Coast, saying they thought they had seen him.

The recent sighting police have been unable to rule out is the one in Michigan, where a retired Detroit police officer who also worked as a composite artist said he saw a man who looked familiar to him at a restaurant May 27 in Southfield, Mich."

And, the "retired Detroit police officer who also worked as a composite artist" IMO, would have more expertise in recognizing a person than someone who was not a "composite artist"!!!

[J. J. in Phila]

Golly gee, JJ. Sorry, I'm not privy to what police were not saying.


Sorry, my bad, I thought you could read.


I haven't read anyplace what police were not saying. All I have read is what police were saying. On June 26, 2005, police were saying:

"Since then, people have called Bellefonte police from all over the East Coast, saying they thought they had seen him.

The recent sighting police have been unable to rule out is the one in Michigan, where a retired Detroit police officer who also worked as a composite artist said he saw a man who looked familiar to him at a restaurant May 27 in Southfield, Mich."

Note the word, "recent." April 18 wasn't "recent," and it was reported more than a month before.

[J. J. in Phila]

And, the "retired Detroit police officer who also worked as a composite artist" IMO, would have more expertise in recognizing a person than someone who was not a "composite artist"!!!

If you want to advance the theory that RFG was alive on May 27, 2005, be my guest. I have some problems raising this to the height of Wilkes-Barre, but I will admit that it is possible.

[UndertheRadar]

And, the "retired Detroit police officer who also worked as a composite artist" IMO, would have more expertise in recognizing a person than someone who was not a "composite artist"!!!

I've thought the same thing, GS. A retired composite sketch artist--that's someone who would really notice features with a high degree of accuracy.

I'm not sure JJ is picking up on the phrase "Since then" in your article above, in that it refers to the two paragraphs previous describing Gricar's disappearance and the subsequent search around the SOS.

I'm also not sure he's anything but slippery in distinguishing between credible witness and credible sighting, or that he understands how a credible witness' memory/observations can be affected post-sighting at a subconscious level without the witness even realizing it.

Actually, one of the most credible witnesses in many respects was the woman in the Chili's restaurant in Texas. She had seen reports on the Gricar disappearance, and when she saw the man dining in Chili's, her first reaction was, "I believe that man may be Ray Gricar." There was no 4 day lapse before making the ID (as in the Wilkes-Barre sighting) or even a viewing of GVS (as in the Michigan sighting).

She decided on the spot it might be RG, got a cell phone photos, and even cleverly arranged to ask a few questions designed to see if his responses would reveal anything.

Very credible witness. We know that the FBI analyzed the photos, and it turns out the sighting wasn't credible. Perfect example of a great witness but a sighting that is meaningless.

[J. J. in Phila]

No UTR. In the TX sighting there was one witness. The supportive evidence proved negative.

You are dreaming if you think everybody sits around and watches GVS.

Now, UTR, this is what just said. A witness, singular, who had no personal contact with the individual, and who isn't a trained observer, is more credible than:

1. Two witnesses,

2. Both of whom had personal contact (one of whom had a five minute conversation with the man),

3. One of whom was a trained observer.

Get real. Nobody really objective is going to believe that. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

Aaargh, JJ. You're just making up your own criteria without regard to any underlying science of witness credibility.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, a witness who talked to the person is more likely remember the person than someone who saw him at a distance and didn't interact. A trained observer is more likely to get it right.

[SuperKyle]

Yes, 2 things would make a sighting credible and likely correct. 1. If the person actually spoke to the person and 2... if the two people in question were well aquainted with eachother.

I'd like to know just how credible people feel Mrs. Fenton's sighting was? That wasn't some crazy person in Michigan claiming to have seen Ray it was a colleague (spelling???) Someone who knew him well enough to say hey, he was right there.

[Chump#7]

Yes, 2 things would make a sighting credible and likely correct. 1. If the person actually spoke to the person and 2... if the two people in question were well aquainted with eachother.

I'd like to know just how credible people feel Mrs. Fenton's sighting was? That wasn't some crazy person in Michigan claiming to have seen Ray it was a colleague (spelling???) Someone who knew him well enough to say hey, he was right there.

Interesting take (in the other thread - not having the nerve, etc.)

I would think Ms. Fenton & Judge Grine's sightings to be the most credible that I'm aware of.

Someone can dig up the quote, but I believe in Ms. Fenton's words, her sighting was discounted because it conflicted with the Lewisburg 'time line' - whatever that is. I don't think anyone here is aware of a conflicting Lewisburg witness in that time frame.

Her sighting as far as the day is concerned was corroborated by fact that she was taking off early and saw Ray, thinking "If the DA is taking off, it's OK for me too..." or words to that affect.

But Ray also worked a half a day on 4/14 (Please correct me if I'm wrong, y'all. I'm sure you will). That would add an interesting twist on the Raystown sighting if it was 4/14/ she & Judge Grine saw Ray in another car.

[SuperKyle]

Interesting take (in the other thread - not having the nerve, etc.)

I would think Ms. Fenton & Judge Grine's sightings to be the most credible that I'm aware of.

Someone can dig up the quote, but I believe in Ms. Fenton's words, her sighting was discounted because it conflicted with the Lewisburg 'time line' - whatever that is. I don't think anyone here is aware of a conflicting Lewisburg witness in that time frame.

Her sighting as far as the day is concerned was corroborated by fact that she was taking off early and saw Ray, thinking "If the DA is taking off, it's OK for me too..." or words to that affect.

But Ray also worked a half a day on 4/14 (Please correct me if I'm wrong, y'all. I'm sure you will). That would add an interesting twist on the Raystown sighting if it was 4/14/ she & Judge Grine saw Ray in another car.


That is exactly what I am saying. Mr. Fenton's sighting makes 1 thing for sure. Ray was driving a different car.

Right there we have a means of him getting out of Lewisburg. (Someone had supplied him with a car... a lady, maybe a man???) either way, Ray was in a different car.

Most likely though, provided Mrs. Fenton wasn't taking a half day on the 14th as well, it was the 15th and Ray was already out of Lewisburg and on his way to a new life.

[UndertheRadar]

Having seen Gricar's photograph in news coverage, the woman, whose name was not released by police, spotted a man she thought was Gricar at a Chili's restaurant in Nacogdoches, Texas, last week.

The woman, believing the man was Gricar, approached him and asked him for directions to a nearby zoo, Zaccagni said. The man replied that he was not from the area.

When she pressed him further as to where he was from, the man seemed evasive before finally saying Tennessee, Zaccagni said. The woman said he did not have a Southern accent.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3793.html

But don't let little things like reality or accuracy get in your way, JJ.

See, here's what you want us to ignore in favor of buying your claim that there's all this new evidence that Gricar was alive after 4/15, based apparently in large measure on the Wilkes-Barre sighting:

The cop didn't "realize" it was Gricar until four days following the sighting, meaning there were four days during which all manner conversations and various media coverage could influence his memory of the event at a subconscious level.

The bartender was apparently approached by LE following the cop's report to LE, meaning there was opportunity for the bartender's memory to be influenced by confirmation feedback and other subtle/inadvertent information flowing from LE to the bartender, as well as from any media he may have come in contact with between the sighting and the interview with LE.

We have no way of evaluating any of these factors, but we do know that these factors are ones researchers into the accuracy of witness memory agree upon as influential.

[J. J. in Phila]

Again UTR, she was not a trained observer and "sorry, I'm not from the area," isn't a five minute conversation.

Did you ever consider that the police officer might not heard the story, "Gricar is still missing" until the end of those four days.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I'm simply considering what the experts say about evaluating the credibility of witness testimony.

Woman in Texas: No time lapse between sighting and identification; therefore no opportunity for any factors to influence/taint her memory and/or identification.

Cop in Wilkes-Barre: Four days lapse between sighting and identification; four days worth of opportunity to be exposed to television, radio, cop talk and other gossip/rumor; identification prompted by exposure to something during those four days; memory and identification therefore potentially influenced/tainted by exposure.

Now if you have resources which demonstrate that time lapse between sighting and identification don't influence memory, which demonstrate that exposure to media reports, gossip, rumor, LE questioning, etc. don't influence memory, please point me in the direction of such. I'd certainly like to add such resources to my reading on the credibility of witness memory/testimony.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you have to remember something very important. It is doubtful the the "cop in Wilkes-Barre" knew that RFG was missing when he made the sighting. He isn't from Central PA, he is traveling on that day, so he's not going to be reading newspapers. That time lapse is a lot less.

There is another factor. Unless he's closely following the story, he isn't going to realize that RFG is still missing. The guy he saw was alive and well, not being kidnapped, not wondering around confused. I was interested in the case, when I heard it reported and I checked back a few days later to see if they found his body. I had to use the Internet because there was little local reporting. The police officer doesn't have any connection with Central PA; he's not keeping tabs on what's going one in Centre County.

And keep in mind that the bartender isn't affected by any of this either.

[UndertheRadar]

Sigh. No, JJ, I don't have to remember anything about whether or not the cop knew RG was missing. The time lapse refers to the time between the sighting and making the identification. It's a factor in accuracy of witness identification/memory. Reasons for the time lapse are immaterial.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the sighting was made on 4/18/05 or 4/19/05, in the evening. Now, unless the officer was watching the news the news that night, and watching as opposed to listening to it, he didn't see a photo.

He reported it 3-4 days later, 4/22, but we know that he was from out of town, so there would be a lapse, naturally. He also doesn't know if the case has been resolved, if RFG phoned home. He has to realize that RFG is still missing. It's not going to be on the local news or possibly not in the local paper.

You make an underlying assumption that everyone in the state has perfect knowledge. Everyone does not.

I was in a similar situation. I heard that RFG was missing someone on the evening of 4/18. Had he knocked on my front door at that point, I wouldn't have recognized him. Why? Well, I wasn't expecting him and I didn't really look at the photo. It wasn't until I checked back, in about a week, that I really looked at the photo.

I'm in the same general media market as the guy. I'm not even sure they ran a photo on the news here. Certainly, had I been traveling at that point, I wouldn't have noticed it.

[UndertheRadar]

I'm making no assumptions, JJ.

There was a four day lapse between sighting and identification. That is a fact.

The cop in Wilkes-Barre didn't know RG personally. Something had to prompt the identification. That is a fact.

Period.

[J. J. in Phila]

Fact, when the police officer saw RFG, he didn't know RFG was missing (or who RFG was). This is common in much of eyewitness reports.

I also do not give the "personally known" aspect to be as important as you do, and will again point out that many witnesses to not "personally know" the person they are seeing. I have been mistaken for someone else on occasion, someone they "personally knew," but never by a police officer.

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, on 4/18/05, virtually no one in either the Northeastern or Southeastern Media Markets knew that RFG was missing. Why? The didn't run the story. The press conference wasn't until the morning of 4/18 and it wasn't carried live; I don't even remember seeing it at all or seeing any photos of RFG when I first heard the story. If it wasn't from someplace I'd have had a connection with, I wouldn't have noticed it at all.

They officer was out of town and would be driving, so he's not watching TV and reading the paper, or searching on the Internet. It's going to take time for him to see the photo. Also, since he saw RFG alive and well, the officer may have thought that he's called home and it was over. He sees a story where RFG is still missing, he realizes that RFG is still missing and reports it.

[gstickley]

Posted 4/17/2005 11:28 AM Updated 4/18/2005 6:54 PM







Today's Top News Stories

• 1 dead, 2 hurt in Mich. office shooting; police say suspect had worked there - 6:04 PM
• AP Poll: Congress' approval hits high point - 5:35 PM
• Katrina claims stagger corps - 4:22 PM
• National Guard tapped for Iraq tour - 3:04 PM
• Edwards scared of 'rabid Republican' neighbor - 2:00 PM


• Add USATODAY.com RSS feeds


Missing prosecutor fails to show up for work
BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — A county prosecutor who was reported missing late Friday failed to show up for work Monday, colleagues said.

Centre County District Attorney Ray F. Gricar's car was found Saturday in Lewisburg, Pa.

(snip)

By Nabil Mark, Centre Daily Times via AP
___
There was also a photograph of RF, wearing a suit, with this article.

Now, IMO, if an article, along with a photograph of RG, appeared in USA Today on 04/17, USA Today being a highly distributed newspaper throughout the entire country, I suspect there were also articles on both TV & radio on 04/17. I would also suspect that an article relating to a missing district attorney in PA would catch the attention of most people from PA. If said cop had time to take away from his travels to go to a sports bar, it also seems likely he may have stopped for gasoline/whatever & saw a copy of said newspaper. It is also possible said cop saw or heard the report on TV or radio.

Even though the press conference was on 04/18, the news of Ray Gricar's disappearance had "hit the press" on 04/17, apparently having been sent by a reporter for the CDT.

[gstickley]

Fails to show up for work
By Genaro C. Armas
ASSOCIATED PRESS
7:48 a.m. April 18, 2005

BELLEFONTE, Pa. – A county prosecutor who was reported missing late Friday failed to show up for work Monday, colleagues said.
(snip)

Associated Press has story out early Mon., 04/18. Was the press conference prior to 0748 hrs.?

[J. J. in Phila]

Fails to show up for work
By Genaro C. Armas
ASSOCIATED PRESS
7:48 a.m. April 18, 2005

BELLEFONTE, Pa. – A county prosecutor who was reported missing late Friday failed to show up for work Monday, colleagues said.
(snip)

Associated Press has story out early Mon., 04/18. Was the press conference prior to 0748 hrs.?

Note the times. At 7:48 AM, all morning newspapers have been printed and distributed, already. The news conference occurred some time during the day of 4/18/05, after the newspapers go out for the day. :rolleyes:

Also consider this. RFG's disappearance was not the major news story that day in either SE or NE PA, and it never had the repeated coverage. Also, depending on the officer's activities, he might not have looked at the newspaper or the story that day. We know he had a long drive.

[J. J. in Phila]

First, none of thosde stories, reported on Sunday afternoon would be seen until Monday morning, and would not be seen unless the person picks up a copy of USA Today.

Second, if the man was out for the day, it is hugely unlikely he'd be watching television while driving.

Third, please explain how the officer, or anyone else, can see a photo over the radio? :rolleyes:

[gstickley]

First, none of thosde stories, reported on Sunday afternoon would be seen until Monday morning, and would not be seen unless the person picks up a copy of USA Today.

Second, if the man was out for the day, it is hugely unlikely he'd be watching television while driving.

Third, please explain how the officer, or anyone else, can see a photo over the radio? :rolleyes:

#1. You are so right on this one, JJ. However, newspapers are out early. You have no way of knowing whether cop picked up a newspaper or not, just like I don't know. However, the cop could have seen the article early Mon. morning, prior to bar time.

#2. You are so right about this one too, JJ. However, AP (Associated Press) reports are also heard regularly on the radio. Couldn't see the photo, but could have heard the report. You have no way of knowing whether cop heard the news on the radio or not, just as I don't know. However, the cop could have heard the article early Mon. morning, prior to bar time.

#3. Gee, I can't explain that one, JJ, because it can't be done as far as I know. However, if AP had the news (also, UPI had the news Mon.), prior to Mon., the cop could have seen the news on television. You don't know whether he did or not, just like I don't know. However, the cop could have seen the news on television on Mon., prior to bar time.

Since you have so much "newfound" information on the WB sighting, why don't you find out exactly how & when the cop learned that Ray Gricar had disappeared. Try to find out what time cop saw RG in the bar. Might cut down on all this back-&-forth a little. Also, try to find out why he waited from 04/18 when he saw the report that RG had disappeared until 04/22 to report his "sighting" to police.

Thanks so much. :smile:

[J. J. in Phila]

I also live in the same media market as the police officer and recall no photo.

The time was in the evening, which would kind of preclude catching it on the 6:00 PM news.

On the third point, I strongly suspect that he didn't know the person was a "missing person" when he talked with him, from the time line. I would also guess that he didn't call the police because he didn't realize RFG was still missing.

I'd love to talk with him, and the offer has been extended.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, 2 things would make a sighting credible and likely correct. 1. If the person actually spoke to the person and 2... if the two people in question were well aquainted with eachother.

I'd like to know just how credible people feel Mrs. Fenton's sighting was? That wasn't some crazy person in Michigan claiming to have seen Ray it was a colleague (spelling???) Someone who knew him well enough to say hey, he was right there.

Fenton was about 20 feet away, and there was no personal contact. RFG was driving past.

As for the half day, I have not been able to get a time line for RFG for that day. (Cind provided the minutes. Thank you again) The Prison Board Meeting (PBM) at 8:05 AM and adjourned at 8:45 AM, but there was an unminuted executive session after that to discuss a union grievance (the prison is unionized). My guess is that the "legal question" related to a personnel matter in regard to that. My guess is that it would have been less than an hour, possibly less than 20 minutes.

After that, sometime prior to 3:00 PM, RFG had a call from LG, but I don't know where he was when he got the call, office or cell. There were forceful door closings in the mid afternoon, according to JKA. The was also the Lake Raystown sighting. No times that I know of.

[Politigal]

The key words in the article are that the guy had "seen* a news report about Gricar several days prior. So apparently he had *seen* something on TV...not heard something via radio or read something via a newspaper.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, re your post #93:

You're truly not helping whatever case you're trying to make for sighting credibility in Wilkes-Barre by arguing what is common in most eyewitness sightings.

Fact: the vast majority of eyewitness sightings in missing persons' cases are not credible identifications.

What you're talking about leads to unconscious transference, and it's a huge problem in eyewitness identification both in missing persons cases and criminal cases. In criminal cases, when DNA came on the scene, researchers were able to demonstrate that more than 80% of wrongful convictions were based on inaccurate witness identification.

Think about the mistaken ID's we know of in missing persons' cases. We've talked before about LP, Caylee Anthony and Carrie Culberson. We can add the sightings of Maddie McCann that have been disproven.
And in the Jennifer Kesse case, there have been hundreds of sightings, none of them Jennifer. In fact, dozens of the sightings turned out to be just one woman in a specific area who happened to look a lot like Jennifer.

I'm sure we could go on and on, even to the point of showing that Jim Morrison and Elvis must certainly still be alive based on witness identification.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the "vast majority" of eyewitness accounts are not:

1. From two people independently seeing the same thing at the same place at the same time.

2. From a police officer.

As for your statistics, most are not from multiple witnesses and most have an element of racial misidentification. This is not happening in this case.

Now, come up with some with both of those elements, and you could have a point.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, nowhere in the studies about identification accuracy have I read about "two people independently seeing the same thing at the same place at the same time" increasing the odds of accuracy. It doesn't, because each witness sighting needs to be evaluated independently by legitimate, scientifically proven criteria--and not by the things you're just making up in order to add gravitas to the Wilkes-Barre sighting.

I have, however, seen studies regarding trained observers, including police officers. The accuracy of witness recall was not affected by training and experience in any significant way.

I deal in facts, not in stuff that's just creative fantasy, to make my points.

[Politigal]

JJ, nowhere in the studies about identification accuracy have I read about "two people independently seeing the same thing at the same place at the same time" increasing the odds of accuracy. It doesn't, because each witness sighting needs to be evaluated independently by legitimate, scientifically proven criteria--and not by the things you're just making up in order to add gravitas to the Wilkes-Barre sighting.

I have, however, seen studies regarding trained observers, including police officers. The accuracy of witness recall was not affected by training and experience in any significant way.

I deal in facts, not in stuff that's just creative fantasy, to make my points.

I don't have the energy to wade back thru all the posts...do you know if *both* the bartender & the off-duty officer phoned police (independently) to say that they had seen Gricar? or was it just one call?

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't have the energy to wade back thru all the posts...do you know if *both* the bartender & the off-duty officer phoned police (independently) to say that they had seen Gricar? or was it just one call?

LE went to the location and asked the bartender. The police officer called either the BPD or the PSP.

They were independent of each other.

[UndertheRadar]

I don't have the energy to wade back thru all the posts...do you know if *both* the bartender & the off-duty officer phoned police (independently) to say that they had seen Gricar? or was it just one call?

JJ is correct that the cop called the report in, and the police then looked for other witnesses and turned up the bartender.

Of course, that increases the possibility for witness memory being affected by LE suggestion, something JJ isn't considering when he trumpets his "two people, independently reporting the same thing at the same time" criterion.

[J. J. in Phila]

As far as I know, the bartender never saw RFG in the media and was possible asked to identify him from a "photo line-up" thought there is also the possibility of a video line-up.

What I've heard about the followup is scant.

[Politigal]

I think KA was intentionally left out of the loop, and that she could not possibly know what PF told the investigators. Saunterer provided a lengthy analysis of Wedler vs. Gricar the same day, much to PE's displeasure. And everyone else seemed to assume that PF had not told investigators about that walk in the park, pre-Wedler. But is that true? Bottom line: ParlorElephant, Lustorumanimae, KA, etc...vaporous, whimsical nonsense in lieu of supporting facts. So..."Where's the beef?"

I would imagine that Wedler & JKA probably communicated about it...and Wedler may have told her that police said they were previously unaware of that walk. Otherwise, I don't think JKA would have posted about it.

[J. J. in Phila]

I would imagine that Wedler & JKA probably communicated about it...and Wedler may have told her that police said they were previously unaware of that walk. Otherwise, I don't think JKA would have posted about it.


Except for establishing demeanor, the walk is irrelevant. There is evidence that RFG was alive after that point.

[Serendipitous1]

Except for establishing demeanor, the walk is irrelevant. There is evidence that RFG was alive after that point.The walk in the park is relevant. Our (including KA's) interpretations are not.

[J. J. in Phila]

The walk in the park is relevant. Our (including KA's) interpretations are not.

There I don't agree. Except as demeanor, I don't see that determines anything about what happened to RFG.

[Serendipitous1]

There I don't agree. Except as demeanor, I don't see that determines anything about what happened to RFG.It's the box you are in. I agree with you...based on what has been published. But it is the unanswered questions which...how did PE put it?...keeps it (and so much else) in the back of the brain.

[J. J. in Phila]

It's the box you are in. I agree with you...based on what has been published. But it is the unanswered questions which...how did PE put it?...keeps it (and so much else) in the back of the brain.


Continue... .

[Serendipitous1]

Continue... .No thanks...you have to wiggle the worm more, before I fall for the hook. Nice try!

[Politigal]

The walk in the park is relevant. Our (including KA's) interpretations are not.

Our interpretations could be relevant (if one of them is the correct interpretation...)

But of course the walk in the park is relevant IMO.

It still bothers me that Gricar was described as depressed, and that he & Patty didn't accept the compliment very well.

If Gricar was depressed or upset about something at that particular moment....one would think that Patty would be aware what that something was...yet she told police (to my knowledge) nothing about what may have been wrong.

And again IMO, that sort of connotates to something being wrong between the 2 of them....

And add to that, it was suggested that Patty hadn't told police about that walk...which makes it even more curious.

[J. J. in Phila]

Our interpretations could be relevant (if one of them is the correct interpretation...)

But of course the walk in the park is relevant IMO.

It still bothers me that Gricar was described as depressed, and that he & Patty didn't accept the compliment very well.

If Gricar was depressed or upset about something at that particular moment....one would think that Patty would be aware what that something was...yet she told police (to my knowledge) nothing about what may have been wrong.

And again IMO, that sort of connotates to something being wrong between the 2 of them....

And add to that, it was suggested that Patty hadn't told police about that walk...which makes it even more curious.

Wedler was opposed to RFG wanting to make the DA position full time, vocally opposed. There was history between the two, that was not good.

I'm not sure if PEF:

1. Was asked about where she was at 5:30 PM on 4/14/05, since RFG was obviously alive after that.

2. Was asked it she saw anyone she knew.

This might not have come up at all. It's only relevant to RFG/PEF's demeanor, and looking like "a perfect couple" doesn't speak ill of that relationship.

[UndertheRadar]

Accuracy issues again, JJ. When are you going to get that last point straight?

Wedler never said RG and PF looked like the perfect couple that evening in the park.

She said she stopped them to tell them something she'd been thinking for a long time, that they made a "perfect couple."

There's a difference.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, Wedler didn't say, "You looked like a perfect couple, until today." Now unless she is exceedingly sarcastic or cruel (and I don't think she is), if she didn't think they looked like a "perfect couple" at the time, why mention it?

Her full description gives no indication that they appeared any different than the did for "a while," and, to her, they appeared to be a "perfect couple."

[gstickley]

Wedler said Gricar appeared depressed.

[J. J. in Phila]

Wedler said Gricar appeared depressed.

Which doesn't give PEF a motive. It could speak to walkaway (he wanted out) or suicide. Or, RFG could have been tired and Wedler took that as depressed looking. Remember he had a meeting at 8:00 AM that morning.

[Politigal]

If Gricar being depressed was attributed to some discord between he & Patty, of course it speaks to motive.

[J. J. in Phila]

If Gricar being depressed was attributed to some discord between he & Patty, of course it speaks to motive.

She wasn't "depressed." He was. His "depression" might be a sign indicating suicide or of a desire to walkaway, but nothing for her.

Also, remember Welder isn't a doctor and didn't examine him and RFG had been up for a while. The PBM started at 8:00 AM.

[Serendipitous1]

Snipped from "The Abrams Report" special edition, show transcript for June 9, 2005 [just after the Michigan sighting]:

DZ - "Almost every sighting that we‘ve received we‘ve tried to check out as thoroughly as possible and we‘ve been able to rule them out as being accurate sightings."

ABRAMS - "... you were able to investigate them and to the best of your knowledge, found that they weren‘t accurate."

DZ - "Yes, that‘s correct."

ABRAMS - "... what is it about this one that makes it different?"

DZ - "Well when we did the Wilkes-Barre sighting—and we haven‘t totally ruled Wilkes-Barre out as a valid sighting also—we used a procedure where they identified the individual from what they‘d seen on TV and then we showed them a single photograph of Ray for further identification and they readily identified that individual or that picture as being Ray. When we started talking with the state police about this matter, Sergeant Byron (ph) thought about doing—possibly doing a lineup, using Ray‘s picture rather than just one picture because people would have a tendency to already want to be helpful because they contacted us about the matter to say that they believed they saw him, and when we‘d show that single photograph, you know, they‘re even more sure it was him.

I then went with—to Ralph Ralston, State College police and he put together a lineup for me using Ray‘s picture. We sent this lineup to the Southfield Police Department where they contacted the individual who initially contacted us about possibly seeing Ray within the restaurant. He then reviewed that lineup and immediately picked out Ray‘s picture out of the eight photos that were in the lineup, rather than just a single identification photo."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8171216/

[J. J. in Phila]

As far as I've been able to find out, there was no followup with the Wilkes-Barre witnesses, at least one of them.

It is interesting that the had, in June, not ruled out Wilkes-Barre.

[Politigal]

they might not have completely ruled out Wilkes Barre...but....

DZ - "Almost every sighting that we‘ve received we‘ve tried to check out as thoroughly as possible and we‘ve been able to rule them out as being accurate sightings."

ABRAMS - "... you were able to investigate them and to the best of your knowledge, found that they weren‘t accurate."

DZ - "Yes, that‘s correct."

[J. J. in Phila]

P'gal:

DZ - "Well when we did the Wilkes-Barre sighting—and we haven‘t totally ruled Wilkes-Barre out as a valid sighting also—

In June DZ had not ruled it out. This sighting was reported 4/22 and revealed in the press on 4/30.

This is one that begs for follow up.

[gstickley]

Snipped from "The Abrams Report" special edition, show transcript for June 9, 2005 [just after the Michigan sighting]:

DZ - "Almost every sighting that we‘ve received we‘ve tried to check out as thoroughly as possible and we‘ve been able to rule them out as being accurate sightings."

ABRAMS - "... you were able to investigate them and to the best of your knowledge, found that they weren‘t accurate."

DZ - "Yes, that‘s correct."

ABRAMS - "... what is it about this one that makes it different?"

DZ - "Well when we did the Wilkes-Barre sighting—and we haven‘t totally ruled Wilkes-Barre out as a valid sighting also—we used a procedure where they identified the individual from what they‘d seen on TV and then we showed them a single photograph of Ray for further identification and they readily identified that individual or that picture as being Ray. When we started talking with the state police about this matter, Sergeant Byron (ph) thought about doing—possibly doing a lineup, using Ray‘s picture rather than just one picture because people would have a tendency to already want to be helpful because they contacted us about the matter to say that they believed they saw him, and when we‘d show that single photograph, you know, they‘re even more sure it was him.

I then went with—to Ralph Ralston, State College police and he put together a lineup for me using Ray‘s picture. We sent this lineup to the Southfield Police Department where they contacted the individual who initially contacted us about possibly seeing Ray within the restaurant. He then reviewed that lineup and immediately picked out Ray‘s picture out of the eight photos that were in the lineup, rather than just a single identification photo."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8171216/

Hummmmm. W-B "witness" shown one (1) picture for identification. Michigan "witness" shown lineup with 8 photographs & "immediately" picked out Ray. (BTW, I believe most police departments would use a lineup as a form of ID. . . as the "power of suggestion" is pretty well known. At least that's been my experience here in the boondocks.)

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, note that "witness" is singular.

[Politigal]

bottom line ...from the report that S1 posted...

JJ's "8 to 10" witnesses went KAPUT!

[J. J. in Phila]

bottom line ...from the report that S1 posted...

JJ's "8 to 10" witnesses went KAPUT!

Wrong again P'gal. He's talking about the Wilkes-Barre sighting. They never did the followup there, and in June, it had not been ruled out.

[Politigal]

read it again JJ...I think you aren't soaking it in...

DZ - "Almost every sighting that we‘ve received we‘ve tried to check out as thoroughly as possible and we‘ve been able to rule them out as being accurate sightings."

ABRAMS - "... you were able to investigate them and to the best of your knowledge, found that they weren‘t accurate."

DZ - "Yes, that‘s correct."


"almost every sighting"

So, there are *not* 8 to 10 witnesses that saw Gricar.

[Politigal]

and IMO, per the report...that also means that any of the witness accounts who claimed to have seen Gricar anywhere near Lewisburg - moving the car, at the park, at the museum, at the Street of Shops...were eliminated.

[J. J. in Phila]

read it again JJ...I think you aren't soaking it in...

DZ - "Almost every sighting that we‘ve received we‘ve tried to check out as thoroughly as possible and we‘ve been able to rule them out as being accurate sightings."

ABRAMS - "... you were able to investigate them and to the best of your knowledge, found that they weren‘t accurate."

DZ - "Yes, that‘s correct."


"almost every sighting"

So, there are *not* 8 to 10 witnesses that saw Gricar.

He's talking about the post 4/16/05 sightings. :rolleyes:

Here is the lead in:

All right, Officer Zaccagni, you‘ve gotten a number of phone calls from people saying oh, I think I saw him, I think I saw him. It seems that you‘ve discounted almost all of them, and yet from what I‘ve read, it sounds like you‘re taking this one pretty seriously.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8171216/

DZ's talking phone calls after 4/16, especially since he said, in November that they could place RFG in Lewisburg on 4/16.

Keep spinning, P'gal. :lol:

[J. J. in Phila]

and IMO, per the report...that also means that any of the witness accounts who claimed to have seen Gricar anywhere near Lewisburg - moving the car, at the park, at the museum, at the Street of Shops...were eliminated.

:rolleyes:

Well, those were not phone calls and DZ referred to those on 4/16 as being accurate.

[Politigal]

and how much credibility should Zaccagni be given, since he also said all the prints in the car belonged to Gricar???

NONE

[Politigal]

:rolleyes:

Well, those were not phone calls and DZ referred to those on 4/16 as being accurate.

how do you know they weren't phone calls?

you don't

[J. J. in Phila]

how do you know they weren't phone calls?

you don't

Because the were canvassing for witnesses. :rolleyes:

Her his what DZ said five months later:

Zaccagni anticipates his visitor’s response. This makes no sense.
“It makes a lot of sense,” he replies with a smile, before returning to the chronology.
“Friday night, people remember the car sitting in the parking lot. It’s a very distinct car. Two people in the antique mall are positive they saw him in there. One man is positive he saw Gricar talking to a female on several occasions. I asked him, Were they together? He said, ‘Well, in my mind they were together, but they weren’t holding hands; they weren’t lovey-dovey or anything.’
“We have three or four good witnesses from down there who are definitely IDing him in the park. They saw him sitting in his car. They watched him driving his Mini Cooper back and forth on Friday.
“We can definitely put him there on Saturday, too. There’s a museum right here, across from the park. I think it’s called Cottingwood House. The employees there watched Ray bring his car and park it two or three different times across the street. He came and left, came and left, came back. He got out of his car, sat on a bench.

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


Now, witnesses that can "can definitely put him there on Saturday," have not been ruled out. BTW, Buehner mentioned the witnesses to the parking lot as well.

Keep spinning P'gal. :lol:

[gstickley]

JJ, going by posts by S1, whom I tend to believe knows what he/she is talking about (gawd knows why???), doesn't put much faith in Renner; S1's posts the last day or so correspond with his/her posts in the past. I also seem to remember TG didn't place much stock in Renner either.

What you have posted above ("Two people in the antique mall are positive they saw him in there. One man is positive he saw Gricar talking to a female on several occasions. I asked him, Were they together? He said, ‘Well, in my mind they were together, but they weren’t holding hands; they weren’t lovey-dovey or anything.’) does not correspond with early reports, both by Dixon & DZ, that the dogs did not track/trail RG into the antique mall. If the dogs went nowhere in the parking lot except 20-ft or so around the vehicle, then there is no way RG was inside the mall; therefore, how can these people be called "witnesses"? Also, while I don't know about Dixon, I know that DZ has been pretty fast & loose with the truth, so how can you believe him about these "witnesses", especially when he's talking with a writer? And, if you can't believe him about this particular "sighting", how can you believe very much of anything he said??

[Serendipitous1]

Hummmmm. W-B "witness" shown one (1) picture for identification. Michigan "witness" shown lineup with 8 photographs & "immediately" picked out Ray. (BTW, I believe most police departments would use a lineup as a form of ID. . . as the "power of suggestion" is pretty well known. At least that's been my experience here in the boondocks.)I was typing a reply, with links, when my computer decided to revolt. So here is the abridged version. The photo lineup idea was a waste of time IMO.

After the Saturday evening press briefing in Bellefonte, AP writer Mark Scolforo put the story (original still available) out...to the world. When news that the Mini Cooper had been found in Lewisburg came in that night, he updated it. So, by Sunday morning the story had broken out of the local media area...made available to every citizen in PA, and far beyond.

This is the reality Dixon and company faced when they began the Lewisburg phase of the investigation. A photo lineup would have been virtually useless...then, or thereafter. And they would have known that. From that moment on, witness statements in this case (to have garnered any special weight) would have to have gone beyond RG's photographic image, the description of the car (excepting the yet unpublished vanity license plate 'number') and the clothing he supposedly was wearing. All of that had already been published.

[gstickley]

I was typing a reply, with links, when my computer decided to revolt. So here is the abridged version. The photo lineup idea was a waste of time IMO.

After the Saturday evening press briefing in Bellefonte, AP writer Mark Scolforo put the story (original still available) out...to the world. When news that the Mini Cooper had been found in Lewisburg came in that night, he updated it. So, by Sunday morning the story had broken out of the local media area...made available to every citizen in PA, and far beyond.

This is the reality Dixon and company faced when they began the Lewisburg phase of the investigation. A photo lineup would have been virtually useless...then, or thereafter. And they would have known that. From that moment on, witness statements in this case (to have garnered any special weight) would have to have gone beyond RG's photographic image, the description of the car (excepting the yet unpublished vanity license plate 'number') and the clothing he supposedly was wearing. All of that had already been published.

Thank you, S1, thank you.

[J. J. in Phila]

I was typing a reply, with links, when my computer decided to revolt. So here is the abridged version. The photo lineup idea was a waste of time IMO.

After the Saturday evening press briefing in Bellefonte, AP writer Mark Scolforo put the story (original still available) out...to the world. When news that the Mini Cooper had been found in Lewisburg came in that night, he updated it. So, by Sunday morning the story had broken out of the local media area...made available to every citizen in PA, and far beyond.

This is the reality Dixon and company faced when they began the Lewisburg phase of the investigation. A photo lineup would have been virtually useless...then, or thereafter. And they would have known that. From that moment on, witness statements in this case (to have garnered any special weight) would have to have gone beyond RG's photographic image, the description of the car (excepting the yet unpublished vanity license plate 'number') and the clothing he supposedly was wearing. All of that had already been published.

There is a difference between "published" and "read." The worse time to get the word out is a weekend, especially Saturday night and Sunday morning. A lot of folks go to church, sleep in, go to brunch, and don't look at the morning paper until evening. It was big news in Central Pennsylvania, but I don't think I heard about until Monday.

I'm not even sure the folks in Lewisburg woke up the story that Sunday.

[Serendipitous1]

Thank you, S1, thank you.Here is Mark Scolforo's original report (I think)...before the car was found. I am in awe of the (apparent) depth of the investigation at that point in time. You might also detect an important clue...though it apparently did not pan out.

http://crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=782

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is Mark Scolforo's original report (I think)...before the car was found. I am in awe of the (apparent) depth of the investigation at that point in time. You might also detect an important clue...though it apparently did not pan out.

http://crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=782

The things I saw, in reporting, was that the call was from Union County (which seems to have been wrong), and this:

Authorities said they did not know if Gricar had any medical issues, although he had been working hard lately and had told others that he felt tired.

That is plural.

They were considering an accident.

[Serendipitous1]

The things I saw, in reporting, was that the call was from Union County (which seems to have been wrong), and this:

Authorities said they did not know if Gricar had any medical issues, although he had been working hard lately and had told others that he felt tired.

That is plural.

They were considering an accident.You like mushrooms, not?

[J. J. in Phila]

You like mushrooms, not?

No, except very early on, they didn't see any case links either.

[gstickley]

Here is Mark Scolforo's original report (I think)...before the car was found. I am in awe of the (apparent) depth of the investigation at that point in time. You might also detect an important clue...though it apparently did not pan out.

http://crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=782

So . . . the call came into the courthouse that RG was supposedly on Rt. 192 . . .

And . . . the cell phone tower was south of or in the vicinity of Bellefonte . . .

And . . . everyone/everything pointed towards Lewisburg . . .

Why . . . was state police helicopter searching NORTH EAST OF STATE COLLEGE?????

[Serendipitous1]

No, except very early on, they didn't see any case links either.The presumption must have been that "Sunday's witnesses" knew who RG was...knew his car...knew his likeness...knew the clothes he was supposedly wearing. Enter the BPD. What a mess. 'Is this who you saw?' 'Why yes, that's him...at least I think that was him.'

[J. J. in Phila]

So . . . the call came into the courthouse that RG was supposedly on Rt. 192 . . .

And . . . the cell phone tower was south of or in the vicinity of Bellefonte . . .

And . . . everyone/everything pointed towards Lewisburg . . .

Why . . . was state police helicopter searching NORTH EAST OF STATE COLLEGE?????

North east of State College is, Brush Valley.

State College is south of Bellefonte.

The two cell towers and Route 192 are "North East of State College". :)

[J. J. in Phila]

The presumption must have been that "Sunday's witnesses" knew who RG was...knew his car...knew his likeness...knew the clothes he was supposedly wearing. Enter the BPD. What a mess. 'Is this who you saw?' 'Why yes, that's him...at least I think that was him.'


Ah, you kind of want them to know what the missing person looks like. The question is, how many people really saw the story?

[ladyheartfixer]

So . . . the call came into the courthouse that RG was supposedly on Rt. 192 . . .

And . . . the cell phone tower was south of or in the vicinity of Bellefonte . . .

And . . . everyone/everything pointed towards Lewisburg . . .

Why . . . was state police helicopter searching NORTH EAST OF STATE COLLEGE?????


:thumbsup:

don't ask...don't tell

[J. J. in Phila]

:thumbsup:

don't ask...don't tell


Ah, that's where Brush Valley is.

[gstickley]

:thumbsup:

don't ask...don't tell

To me, Rt. 192 looked more "east" than "northeast" on State College Mapquest, Bellefonte being "northeast".

[J. J. in Phila]

To me, Rt. 192 looked more "east" than "northeast" on State College Mapquest, Bellefonte being "northeast".

Well, if I didn't want to cite those small towns, I'd describe it as "northeast of State College." East is almost below Route 45 (and even that is technically northeast of State College).

[ladyheartfixer]

Ah, that's where Brush Valley is.




and.....what else is north east of State College???

does this post make me look fat? (or is it stoopid?)

[J. J. in Phila]

and.....what else is north east of State College???

does this post make me look fat? (or is it stoopid?)

Actually so is Lewisburg, though that is actually a bit of a shallower angle.

The area LE was searching was along 192, which was also reported.

The post that I'm quoting does makes you look neither.

[ladyheartfixer]

The area LE was searching was along 192, which was also reported.

ok...so being the lemmings that we are... we are told that LE was searching along 192...because we are told that is where the call came from...but we have never had the luxury of actually seeing the cell phone records published ( and I know I would look like a smurf if I threatened to hold my breath til they released them). Interesting that he would give such a broad location as "I am on 192". Having driven that road...and planning to again in the near future...it is a large area...even the Brush Vally area is a big area. But...since it has been reported and since no one ever lies ...we accept it as gospel....whether walk away or homicide that everything reported is true. ( I have totally ruled out suicide...it is out of character and his psychological profile does not even come close to a decent percent of possibility. )

[J. J. in Phila]

ok...so being the lemmings that we are... we are told that LE was searching along 192...because we are told that is where the call came from...but we have never had the luxury of actually seeing the cell phone records published ( and I know I would look like a smurf if I threatened to hold my breath til they released them). Interesting that he would give such a broad location as "I am on 192". Having driven that road...and planning to again in the near future...it is a large area...even the Brush Vally area is a big area. But...since it has been reported and since no one ever lies ...we accept it as gospel....whether walk away or homicide that everything reported is true. ( I have totally ruled out suicide...it is out of character and his psychological profile does not even come close to a decent percent of possibility. )

Well, according to JKA, that is what the police said on 4/16, privately as well as publicly. So, that is a first person source, not only reporting.

The only thing that they knew, however, was that the call was carried by a specific tower, not the actual location of the phone.

I generally would just use a route number when driving on roads in that area, unless I needed to be specific, like, "I hit show on 220." If the call was routine, I wouldn't expect any different wording.


Should there be a record's release, redacted for privacy? Yes, IMO. This phone call record probably won't tell us too much.

[Serendipitous1]

SnipJJ, going by posts by S1, whom I tend to believe knows what he/she is talking about (gawd knows why???)To some it has always been about the battle for the "hearts and minds". But I am actually more of a lover than a fighter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPzJWeICzY

[gstickley]

SnipTo some it has always been about the battle for the "hearts and minds". But I am actually more of a lover than a fighter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPzJWeICzY

Aaaahhhh, S1, one of my favorites!
Howdcha know??????????? :mellow:

[UndertheRadar]

Thank you, S1, thank you.

Let me add my gratitude as well.

[Serendipitous1]

Thanks. Here is the AP story (with the reference to having found the car), which apparently went out at 11:45 pm Sat., and was posted on the Free Republic site less than an hour later:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385294/posts

The discussion there quickly went to Luna. But if you scroll down to post 14, there is a Lewisburg area local stating that he checked the Daily Item and WNEP websites late Sun. morning, and found nothing about RG. That in itself does not mean the story was not in the local newsprint and/or broadcast on Sunday. Interestingly, the Times Leader website apparently posted the AP story very early on Sun. morning.
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1385361/posts

The point is, the story and the early witnesses were popping up at the same time, so it is not possible for us to know if the story influenced any of the witnesses...even those who were sought out by LE, Sun. into Mon. The real test is not in the numbers of people who reported seeing that which had already been published. The real test would be whether any of the witnesses had reported seeing something which could be positively linked to RG, but which had not already been reported.

That is not to say any of the witnesses were fabricating anything....rather that we have not heard anything definitive from LE by which we might think, geewhiz, RG was cavorting in Lewisburg. And, as has been previously demonstrated, DZ's published comments require massive doses of salt. LE repressed the MW story, the fingerprint evidence...and, quite apparently, some witness statements. And I do not blame them one bit (except when it is also inflicted on RG's loved ones). But, one wonders what else has been repressed...particularly in regard to that which suggests foul play.

[gstickley]

(snip)
The point is, the story and the early witnesses were popping up at the same time, so it is not possible for us to know if the story influenced any of the witnesses...even those who were sought out by LE, Sun. into Mon. The real test is not in the numbers of people who reported seeing that which had already been published. The real test would be whether any of the witnesses had reported seeing something which could be positively linked to RG, but which had not already been reported.

That is not to say any of the witnesses were fabricating anything....rather that we have not heard anything definitive from LE by which we might think, geewhiz, RG was cavorting in Lewisburg. And, as has been previously demonstrated, DZ's published comments require massive doses of salt. LE repressed the MW story, the fingerprint evidence...and, quite apparently, some witness statements. And I do not blame them one bit (except when it is also inflicted on RG's loved ones). But, one wonders what else has been repressed...particularly in regard to that which suggests foul play.

The MW story, especially the gold/tan car information, should have been made public immediately; apparently, even the family was not informed of same until a year later. If LE had enough information to question 2 possible women, then they would have had enough information for a sketch artist or at least to give out a description. Trying to 'save the feelings of the family' doesn't cut it, IMO; if LE was serious about locating RG, the information would have been made public. If nothing else, releasing it a year later certainly raised more questions about LE's 'investigation'.

IMO, the repression of the fingerprint evidence is inexcuseable. After all this time, there is no reason to not release the telephone records either. Again, IMO, it appears LE is trying to 'hide' something, what & why I don't know. But, if LE is 'holding on' to all pertinent information in case it is ever needed for a 'foul play' investigation, then LE needs to actually start a 'foul play' investigation!

JMO