What Keeps Us Stuck In Lewisburg? Empathy Witnesses and Staging in the RG Case

[UndertheRadar]

Friday. April 22, 5:34 p.m.
By Norm Jones
Search Continues for Missing D.A.

"Being the last place he was observed, we're going to continue to search down in this area until we get leads that tell us otherwise, to go another direction," Dixon said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1388886/posts

One week after Ray Gricar disappeared, this was a reasonable and perhaps necessary position to take.

Nearly four years after the disappearance, we seem still hopelessly mired in the "RG disappeared from Lewisburg" scenario. Should the investigation still be focused on a disappearance from Lewisburg, as if it were written in stone?

Some of us on the boards have questioned this scenario. We've been met with criticism in the press--incredulity that anyone could believe RG might never have been in Lewisburg on 4/15/05. We've been met with two and a half years of board discussion repeating the mantra that proof beyond a reasonable doubt puts RG there.

At first, it was the phone call made in the Brush Valley area, the water bottle with RG's DNA, the Mini Cooper parked in the lot, and the traces of RG's scent found in the parking lot offered as proof. One by one, these have all fallen as proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that RG was in Lewisburg, with reasonable questions and reasonable alternative possibilities being raised about each.

More recently, the last 6-8 months, a growing and morphing list of witnesses to RG's presence in Lewisburg has been offered as "proof." And this "proof" has been extended: since none of the witnesses saw RG in any kind of distress, the reasoning goes, perhaps that points to a walkaway. With no signs of a struggle and no witnesses to an abduction, perhaps RG just up and walked away from his life.

But how useful are witness sightings in missing persons cases? This topic has already been debated extensively on the board, with dueling lists: one, cases where mistaken identifications ultimately proved not to be the missing person; the other, lists of witnesses who "saw" RG in Lewisburg.

Just how far astray can a case go if witnesses are believed without "documentation and corroboration"? And why does the FBI require those conditions be met before confirming witness sightings as accurate?

Consider the case of missing/murdered tourists Carole Sund, her daughter Juli, and family friend from Argentina, Silvina Pelosso. While clearly not a point-by-point parallel to the RG case, much is instructive.

Throughout the case, the FBI maintained that the last confirmed, reliable sighting of the three missing women occurred February 15, 1999 at El Portal, where they had been staying

The three women were reported missing on February 17, 1999, after they failed to show up in San Francisco from a trip to Yosemite the previous day.

On March 18, 1999, their burned out rental car was found more than 100 miles and nearly a three hour drive from the lodge where they had been staying during their trip. Two badly burned bodies were in the trunk, later identified as Carole Sund and Silvina Pelosso. Complicating the case, Carole Sund's wallet had been found in Modesto, CA.

When the women disappeared, hundreds of sightings of the three were reported to authorities. Dozens of these were reports of the three that came a) along the only route from their lodge to where the car was located; b) specifying live sightings after February 15; and c) before the car was located, eliminating the possibility that witnesses were "remembering" sightings to fit the facts of the case once the car was found.

The credibility of the witnesses and the specificity of the reports would seem persuasive. A few of them are described below:

A postmistress said she sold stamps after February 15 to a woman and two teenage girls who asked for enough postage to get a postcard to Argentina.

A visitors' center worker said she spoke to a woman and two teenage girls for about five minutes on February 16, and was 100% certain she could identify them as Sund and the two missing girls. The worker says she complimented the woman on the appearance of her daughters, and the woman said the girls weren't both her daughters, that one girl was a friend visiting from Argentina.

A county employee at the visitors' center identified the 1999 red Pontiac rental car, something he said he noticed because he had just purchased a Pontiac.

A motel owner along the route the car would have taken said he was certain the two teenagers came into his motel to ask about room availability on February 16.

The motel owner's wife said one of their employees saw the two girls get into a car with a woman about 8:30 or so on February 16.

A restaurant/gift shop owner along the route said the three visited her business on February 16.

A gas station owner along the route said the three stopped at her station on February 16.

When these witnesses are placed along the route the women would have taken from El Portal to where the car was located, they form an apparently convincing pattern of travel for the women, a "pattern" being something we've been told to look for in the witness sightings in the RG case. But even after interviewing these witnesses, the FBI held fast to their belief that the last reliable, confirmed sighting of the women was in El Portal on February 15.

Had they not done so, the slayings of these women might never have been solved. When Cary Stayner was arrested in July 1999, after murdering yet a fourth woman, he eventually confessed to murdering Carole Sund and Silvina--in their room in El Portal on the night of February 15--then driving Juli with the dead bodies of her mother and friend in the trunk of the rental car to another location and murdering her.

Not a single one of the sightings above had any merit, nor did any of dozens along the route from El Portal to the burned out car, nor did any of the hundreds reported to authorities. Yet we've been told again and again in the RG case that while some of the witnesses might be wrong, there is serious doubt that all could be wrong.

Gil Alba, a 28-year veteran of the NYCPD with expertise in missing persons' cases involving unusual circumstances, was speaking today on the news about one of the latest sightings in the Haleigh Cummings case. He noted that all reports of sightings have to be investigated but called valid identifications by witnesses--such as Elizabeth Smart's--RARE.

What about the RG case would lead us to believe the witness sightings fit the rare Elizabeth Smart model (actually, more rare, if we are to believe the many witnesses DZ cites as "definitely ID'ing" RG in Lewisburg)? Is it not more likely that the RG sightings fit the Sund/Pelosso model--convincing on the surface but ultimately not accurate? Perhaps it's time to get "unstuck" from the "RG was in Lewisburg" scenario and start looking more seriously at alternative scenarios, including the possibility that the whole Lewisburg scene was staged to appear that RG was there.

[gstickley]

Radar, in 3+ years of reading this miserable board, your last post is, without a doubt, one of the best ones I've ever read. Your research, your intelligent posts, & your dedication to RG are always exceptional; your last post was fantastic. I salue you. :thumbsup:

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, first, there was a new Lewisburg witness, brought forward about 8 months ago by Mr. McKnight.

Second, there have been additional disclosures about the Lewisburg witnesses.

Third, the call does not point to Lewisburg. A future blog will describe the effect of the call.

Fourth, the latest major revelation was about Wilkes-Barre.

The problem, for you at least, is that there are now a minimum of 6 witnesses that said, **I saw RFG with his Mini on 4/15/05.** And there is physical evidence of his being in Lewisburg in support of those witnesses.

Now, #1, #2, and #3 point to RFG being in Lewisburg after noon on 4/15/05. And yes, it's probably beyond a reasonable doubt.

The key questions are:

1. What was RFG doing in Lewisburg?

2., How did he get out of Lewisburg? It's a cinch that he hasn't been wondering around the SoS or the corner St. John and Water Streets for nearly four years.

[Politigal]

The issue with Lewisburg in my opinion is the total lack of evidence. There's no physical evidence ....period...that RG was there. There's no physical evidence that he drove there. There's no receipts, nothing on 100's of hours of surveillance videos from surrounding businesses, there's no absolute ID of him there, no fingerprints in the car, nothing. There's no evidence that he actually made the call that day. There's no one in the neighborhood who saw him leaving, who saw the car.

And some will say there's no evidence in Bellefonte either....but the problem with that argument, is that police didn't thoroughly look for evidence in Bellefonte. They didn't do a forensic investigation of the home, they didn't use luminol, they didn't fingerprint the laptop case, they didn't question friends & co-workers when they should have.....just a myriad of mistakes IMO.

And I still say that the John Glasgow case in Little Rock was a copycat of this one.....*someone* saw how well it worked, to place his vehicle some distance away, and that's where the investigation centered...and stayed. There's been no resolution in his case either.

IMO - Lewisburg was a wild goose chase.

[Cloudbuster]

Pgal I agree John Glasgow case in Little Rock was a copycat and remains as such. We do have someone in Bellefonte that Id RG, as per C Fenton. She should be a crediable witness because she knew RG even in a different colored car. To me that's evidence in Bellefonte. As for why LE keeps insisting Lewisburg is remote. Okay many witnesses think they saw RG but did they? Only CFenton could possibly identify RG and that takes us right back to Bellefonte to the back of the courthouse where Ray actually spent many years at that place and makes more sense he was there. The colored metallic car is what they should be looking at such as why the unknown car? Like was he doing undercover work for starters.
JAHO

[UndertheRadar]

And I still say that the John Glasgow case in Little Rock was a copycat of this one.....*someone* saw how well it worked, to place his vehicle some distance away, and that's where the investigation centered...and stayed. There's been no resolution in his case either.


This is also exactly what Stayner hoped to achieve in the Sund/Pelosso case, Pgal. He admitted that dumping Carole Sund's wallet in Modesto and driving the car 100 some miles from the murder site were efforts to throw LE off the trail. If the FBI had believed the witness sightings, they would have been looking for someone who abducted the women along the route between El Portal and where the car was discovered a month later.

[UndertheRadar]

It's backwards, IMO. A murderer in the Aardsma case has been free all of these years to live a 'life', while Betsy was not permitted to live even one of those days. How just is waiting for a 'fortuitous stroke of luck'? Not any more just than this case is as it now heads toward the fourth anniversary of disappearance and NO move off the Lewisburg lot where the car was found.


Thanks, GS and Logic. Logic, I completely agree with the sentiments in your above post. I am hoping if any part of the investigation is still active that someone is considering a scenario where RG runs up against foul play before arriving in Lewisburg. I have more thoughts on that which I'll post later.

[UndertheRadar]

Other random observations: I think the primary lesson of the Sund/Pelosso witnesses is being missed by some {ahemcoughahem} on this thread. Many of these witnesses were furious that their reports weren't being taken as seriously by the FBI as the witnesses believed they should be taken. Look at the specificity of the sightings: the exact route between El Portal and where the burned out car was found; the description of the 1999 red Pontiac; the reported mentioning that one girl was a daughter, the other a visitor from Argentina; stamps for postage to Argentina; etc, etc.

I can imagine whatever message boards might have been devoted to the case in 1999 all abuzz with talk: the women must have delayed their return trip! They must have driven that route! The FBI must be wrong about the last reliable sighting!

I mean . . . witness sightings are so . . . concrete, right? Wonder then why Alba, with all his experience, would call valid sightings in missing persons' cases rare.

As for the McKnight witness, FWIW, our current DA says that one had already been checked out: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/07/07/das_hold_conference.aspx

And as for the phone call on the way to Lewisburg, it seems perhaps someone {ahemcoughahem} has forgotten his own argument of two+ years ago claiming that the call on the way to Lewisburg was part of the evidence that RG was in Lewisburg, an argument other posters quickly dismissed as not logical.

[J. J. in Phila]

You cannot honestly claim that there was no evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg. You are even to the point where Buehner and McKnight are saying this, at exactly the same time they are saying that RFG was murdered (and that remains a good probability).

Now, if the evidence does not fit a theory, I toss the theory. We have a few people on this thread who think that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, they should toss the evidence.

The evidence has sunk more than one of my theories. It keeps torpedoing the "he wasn't in Lewisburg" one.

[UndertheRadar]

There is no concrete evidence Ray Gricar was ever in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

No videotape images.

No signed credit card receipts with RG's handwriting.

No one who personally knew RG as a witness to his presence.

No concrete evidence whatsoever.

The scent in the vicinity of the car's parking spot is not hard evidence. See the FBI, ease of scent transferability and cautions regarding use of scent presence as evidence without corroboration. See Seitz, testimony that scent can be transferred from a vehicle's interior to the surrounding area when the vehicle doors are opened.

The witnesses are not hard evidence. See Alba's observation: valid sightings rare. See invalid sightings above. Add this:

Two women - one a gas station owner, the other a gift shop owner - said they are certain the tourists paid their businesses a visit on Feb. 16. They both told The Examiner they had made attempts to contact authorities and report the sightings, but never got calls back.

The three female tourists appeared to be alone and under no apparent stress, the women told The Examiner.

Louise Guthmiller, the owner of a Chevron gas station in Sierra Village, a few miles from where the car was found, said Thursday she was convinced she pumped gas into the trio's car and talked briefly with Pelosso while the girl purchased snacks.

"They were in my station," said Guthmiller, 71. "I asked (Pelosso) if she was heading home, and she said, "No, I live in Argentina.' "

Guthmiller said the three drove off after buying $5 or $6 worth of gas.

Penny Mann, owner of the Cottage Cafe and Gift Shop in nearby Twain Harte, said the three entered her shop the same day. She said she talked to Carole Sund while they browsed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/03/19/NEWS3327.dtl

There is no evidence to "toss" in the "RG was in Lewisburg" theory. His car was there. His laptop and its hard drive were found in the river. Period. How those things got there--that's an open question.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, your statement that there is "no concrete evidence" is false. In most cases, you don't have handwriting samples. In cases that are not in the home area, you don't someone "personally known." I could drive five miles from my house and no person that "personally knows" me would see me.

For example, unless you claim that the Mini was "mass hypnosis" there are no videotapes it in Lewisburg, yet we know it was there.

This is no longer a question of if RFG was in Lewisburg, but when RFG was in Lewisburg (and that one is debatable). If is also a question of if RFG was in Wilkes-Barre.

As to MM checking out the witness, the witness was never reported in the press before. I'd never heard of it prior to 7/1/08; did you?

The reason we, in your mis-characterization, that we are " Stuck In Lewisburg," is because we keep getting more evidence that RFG was there. We now are finding out that the evidence that RFG was in Wilkes-Barre was stronger than we thought. Now, I'd love to see LE establish a full list, but they have not. I would have loved to have seen this list in the summer of 2005 or at the first anniversary, but we didn't.

All this does not mean that we can say, **Okay, RFG wasn't murdered,** but it mean that more than a few theories here get tossed. If you don't like it, okay, find some evidence that RFG was someplace else on 4/15/05 where, if correct, he couldn't be in Lewisburg. Not theory, but evidence.

[UndertheRadar]

In July 2005, Chief Dixon said, "We haven't really gotten anywhere other than the fact the car was found in Lewisburg."

LE knew all about the witnesses then; they had the dog handlers' reports.

Fast forward a couple months, and we can add the laptop and the hard drive to the car. Those are the three things we have in Lewisburg. But no concrete evidence RG himself was there on 4/15/05.

Is it possible that he was? Yes.

Is it possible that he never made it there? Absolutely. All empirical evidence from studies done by the FBI and the country's leading experts in memory and witness testimony tells us this.

To clarify, I did not start this thread to re-litigate the question of whether RG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 or not. It's a given that he may or may not have been. It's also a given that we (the board and the investigation) have been largely "stuck" in Lewisburg, spinning wheels for nearly four years.

My purpose here was first, to use Sund/Pelosso as a glaring example of how witness sightings could seriously mislead a case if investigators weren't as careful as the FBI about requiring documentation and corroboration and second, to move past the "RG was Lewisburg" scenario and look more closely at Lewisburg as a potentially staged scene.

One reason I want to do so is that no theory of the case we've been working with makes sense IMO without varying amounts of willing suspension of disbelief.

Suicide: A man "tied to the future," as one psychiatrist/talking head put it, a man looking forward to retirement, traveling, spending time with his daughter, etc. No documented history of depression. No body anywhere in the vicinity of Lewisburg or in the river that's turned up in almost four years. Where suicide was a viable option to consider early in the case, it's a stretch at this point.

Foul play after arrival in Lewisburg: Unlikely RG would arrange a meeting with someone he didn't know well enough to trust an hour away from home and unlikely he could have been abducted in broad daylight in Lewisburg. Unlikely he'd be meeting someone regarding a case he was working on without some kind of record, electronic or paper trail, regarding such. Unlikely he'd tell PF he was playing hooky if he was going to a work-related meeting.

Walkaway: Unlikely a man looking forward to retirement, no alarm clocks, time to travel with PF, visit with his daughter, etc., is secretly plotting to throw all that away for a life of looking over his shoulder, scrambling for money, and being unable to visit with his beloved daughter when there's no classic motive for doing so.

In short, I find scenarios where RG has to act out of character or where porn buddies slip in to pilfer laptops difficult to swallow.

Yet there's a scenario that's been percolating for a long time which makes a great deal more sense. GS first brought a variation of it to the board early in her tenure here, in her VCF/R scenario.

Very close friend, relative, and let's add the possibility of a professional association--any one of a number of people who would know RG well enough to know certain facts about him, such as his penchant for traipsing through antique shops and perhaps some of the facts of his late brother's passing.

Let's call this person "X" and assume that there's some kind of problem between X and RG. It might be a financial issue, such as GS suggested in her theory, or it might be something else entirely. But let's imagine that this problem, whatever it might be, has been dragging on for some time, and that RG is the one beyond whom the buck does not pass. He is the one who has to deal with it. It's not a threat (something he would have channels and protocols in place to deal with). But it's causing him enough distress that by the week that ends with Friday, 4/15, he is "distraught" enough that some close to him are beginning to notice something is bothering him.

He decides he needs to "deal with" the problem and meet with X. Because X is someone known to him, close to him, the meeting may have been set up in a face-to-face conversation, or if set up by telephone, the call may have looked like a "routine call" by LE standards. No red flags and no obvious trail.

Because the issue under discussion may be a delicate one, perhaps the meeting is best not held in RG's office or in any other obvious public place (restaurant in Bellefonte, or whatever). Perhaps it's set up as a drive in the country on a beautiful spring day, with RG's habit of enjoying such rides as cover. Maybe the two ride together in the Mini. Maybe X takes his own vehicle. Maybe it's a tan car, maybe not. This is a VCF/R/Prof. Assoc.; RG has no reason to be suspicious of setting up such a meeting.

Perhaps sometime after the call to PF, RG and X stop somewhere along route 192, maybe at one of the state parks. In this scenario, RG would have the laptop with collected material/data he wants to place in front of X. Perhaps RG makes an ultimatum regarding such.

Now, perhaps X has sensed this ultimatum coming and has come prepared for this. Or conversely, perhaps X is taken completely by surprise by the ultimatum. One way or the other, perhaps the meeting quickly turns sour, spins out of control, and somewhere between where the call was placed to PF and Lewisburg, RG is overpowered and winds up dead as a result.

X disposes of RG's body somewhere it has yet to be discovered. He then drives the Mini Cooper to Lewisburg, parking it across from an antique mall RG has been known to frequent. X finds a way out of Lewisburg himself (various options exist). Maybe he deposits laptop and hard drive that day; maybe he waits a while and does so to refocus attention on Lewisburg later on. Maybe he's already erased data from the drive before depositing it in the river. Maybe since then he's been hiding in plain sight.

If RG was murdered, I believe it could have happened this way. Most people who are murdered are killed by someone they know. This scenario accounts for RG having the laptop with him. It doesn't require him to agree to let someone he might not trust download information onto his computer (that was always a leap for me). It accounts for him being distraught. It explains why he might not tell PF about where he was going or what he was doing that day. In my own humble opinion, and thanks to GS and also S1 who explored similar territory, I believe it could potentially explain a lot about RG's disappearance.

It requires only letting go of the "RG was definitely in Lewisburg" position.

[sherrijean981]

Everyone keeps talking about the witnesses at the SOS but what about the witness who placed a red and white Mini Cooper at the quarry on Rt 192 just leaving Lewisburg? What was that car doing at the quarry and did LE drag the ponds that can be seen around that quarry? Did they take the dogs and searchers up in that area, or to the quarry just east of the Susquehanna Bridge on Rt 45?

Did they search the parks off Rt 192 and Rt 45 where the vista's and walking paths are? The camping area's? With the dogs?

[J. J. in Phila]

So basically, UTR, you are saying that there is absolutely no evidence that RFG was anyplace else on the entire planet.

The question is not, is it possible that RFG was there but is it probable that RFG was there? Yes. What evidence do we have?

A. The car that he was known to drive was there, with no evidence it it that anyone else drove it (and no evidence that anyone tried to remove that evidence).

B. People saw RFG driving the car there. They didn't just see RFG there, but they saw him in or by the car.

C. People saw RFG there, apart from the car, but after witnesses saw him driving it.

D. RFG's scent was detected there, apart from the car.

If this was case where you had to prove in court that Joe was in Lewisburg, and you had these things:

A. The car Joe drove found in Lewisburg, with no evidence of anyone else driving it,

B. People saw Joe driving it, in Lewisburg (I have 4 confirmed, with possibly two or more others).

C. People saw Joe there, apart from the car, but after witnesses saw him driving it.

D. Joe's scent was detected there, apart from the car.

Would you have any reasonable doubt that Joe was in Lewisburg. If Joe took the stand and said, "I wasn't in Lewisburg that day," would you honestly believe him? I'd say, "Joe, you're lying; you were in Lewisburg that day."

Now, I wouldn't say that if there was evidence that Joe wasn't, or couldn't be, there; I wouldn't say that if there was evidence that RFG wasn't, or couldn't be, there either. So, where is that evidence?

Why do you believe that Buehner and McKnight, both of whom had to deal with witness reliability professionally, that strongly believe that RFG was murdered, are asking LE to check motels is the Lewisburg area?

Let's be blunt, Dixon did not release everything, case in point the police officer. I would have like to have known that in the summer of 2005.

[UndertheRadar]

Using the logic in post #15, the FBI would have concluded that Carole and Julie Sund and Silvina Pelosso drove from El Portal to Long Barn, where the car was found, on February 16. If fact, an article published shortly after the car's discovery looked at the so-called sightings and concluded that the women must have driven on two specific highways to reach the area where the car was found, a completely erroneous conclusion.

It has long since been established that the scent in the SOS parking lot has a very high probability of resulting from the car doors being opened in the lot--at least twice. Whoever drove the car there had to exit. Then LE opened the doors Saturday evening upon discovery of the vehicle, only 18 hours or less before the dogs' arrival on the scene. It's inaccurate to claim that the scent was detected "apart from the car." In truth, the scent was detected only in proximity to the car, according to what's been released publicly. If we were to find out that the dogs picked up RG's scent inside the SOS where witnesses claimed to see him, that would change the complexion of things. But we do not have that.

What would happen with the "Joe was in Lewisburg" scenario in a courtroom would depend in large part on whether the jurisdiction allowed experts on eyewitness testimony. Courts frequently limit or block the use of such experts, keeping jurors from understanding the complexity of eyewitness testimony and the current research in the field. As a result, jurors tend to over-believe eyewitness accounts. It would also depend on whether a good dog handling expert testified and explained how Joe's scent could have been there without Joe ever having been there. With an eyewitness expert and a dog handling expert both testifying, there would indeed be reasonable doubt that "Joe" was in Lewisburg.

More importantly, the question of whether RG ever actually made it to Lewisburg has to be put into context with the question "What happened to RG?" That is what I am trying to do with this thread, i.e., not to re-litigate the question of whether RG was in Lewisburg or not.

In my humble opinion, every theory that rests on shaky witness sightings and places RG in Lewisburg on 4/15 has significant problems if we start to ask what happened next and if we try to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

I believe we need to explore the possibility that he never made it to Lewisburg and that Lewisburg was staged to look like a possible suicide/walkaway/foul play scene as a way to confound authorities.

[Politigal]

UTR, once again, you've shown us such intelligent, logical analysis ....

Take that #15!!

:laugh:

[Serendipitous1]

I understand those who feel compelled to follow an absolute scientific process in this matter. But I have never felt fettered by the inability to leap across certain "public" gaps in information.

A tribute then to all of us...Judy Collins - Send in the Clowns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5yG1Dy5b4A)

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you are basically claiming that we shouldn't look at eye witness testimony in criminal cases. Sorry, that's how are system works.

We, as a justice system, say that eyewitness testimony has value and can be used to determine the aspects of an event. There can be issues, racial misidentification is one, but it certainly doesn't appear to one here.

You could argue that was a fleeting glimpse; the witness didn't get a good look at the person. Okay, that isn't an issue here.

You could argue, as you did, that it was just someone that looked like RFG. Okay, but we have several who not only saw RFG but saw him in a red Mini. We know where the red Mini was found. So now it has to be not only someone who looked like him, but also drove a red Mini.

You keep asking why we're stuck in Lewisburg; it's because you and a few other posters are trying to do everything you can to discuss it. Why, because it doesn't fit your theory. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence. It's nothing to be ashamed of, may of mine have failed as well.

I'm willing to ask, okay was RFG really in Lewisburg on 4/16 and was he Wilkes-Barre on 4/18. And I'm asking the question, okay, if he was in those places, how did he get out?

[Politigal]

I understand those who feel compelled to follow an absolute scientific process in this matter. But I have never felt fettered by the inability to leap across certain "public" gaps in information.

A tribute then to all of us...Judy Collins - Send in the Clowns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5yG1Dy5b4A)

Ixnay ithway ethay ypticray ostspay easeplay?

ityay akesmay emay eelfay upidstay

anksthay

:tongueside:

[UndertheRadar]

Ixnay ithway ethay ypticray ostspay easeplay?

ityay akesmay emay eelfay upidstay

anksthay

:tongueside:

LOL, Pgal! :thumbsup:

[Serendipitous1]

LOL, Pgal! :thumbsup:Yes, thanks, Pgal! :shrug:

[UndertheRadar]

No, JJ, I have never claimed the justice system shouldn't look at eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. I think you'd find, however, that most, if not all, eyewitness research scientists would be happy if there were no more criminal cases relying solely on eyewitness testimony. And valid eyewitness identifications in missing persons' cases are far less common than in criminal cases, where the track record is already not good.

You have failed to answer the question I posed in my opening post: since accurate eyewitness sightings in missing persons' cases are rare, what is it about the RG case which should make us believe it fits the rare Elizabeth Smart/Shasta Groene model rather than the overwhelmingly typical model of inaccuracy? It can't be the car identification, as witnesses in the Sund/Pelosso case who "identified" the women in the 1999 Red Pontiac demonstrate. And it can't be the scent (see Seitz). And as far as the Wilkes-Barre sighting goes, it can't be a witness-as-cop. See the Culberson case and research by one of the country's leading witness testimony researchers. So let's not go over that well-worn ground again. I'd be all for knowing that RG was definitely in Lewisburg, but so far I see nothing persuasive to move the witness sightings there out of the "typical and inaccurate" category and into the "rare and accurate" category.

You've also failed to address anything in the scenario I laid out. I believe it can account for everything we know about publicly in the RG case without having to make illogical leaps.

[J. J. in Phila]

You have made a false assumption UTR; it is that eyewitness in missing persons cases is rare. It often isn't. It is rare for this many witnesses to be completely wrong. It becomes much rarer once the sightings of RFG include his car. It becomes even rarer when some physical evidence, his scent, is found there.

The reason a few people here, UTR, P'gal, for example, get struck in Lewisburg is because it destroys their theory, so they have to keep on trying to come up with increasingly far out theories to explain it.

Occam's razor, the most likely explanation is the correct one. The most likely explanation for all the witnesses seeing RFG in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 is that he was there. The most likely reason for the dog finding his scent in the parking lot is that he left it there.

[gstickley]

Exactly how many "witnesses" saw Ray Gricar in Lewisburg? None who knew him. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar moving a Mini around apparently didn't say much about it to the head of the museum, as he didn't mention it in his interview; all he mentioned that the disappearance occurred in the area. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar with a MW inside the SOS apparently was mistaken as, according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar standing outside the SOS as though he were waiting for someone apparently was mistaken also, since according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. These "witnesses" may have seen someone, but in no way does that prove it was Ray Gricar & that Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 04/15/05.

Yes, the Mini Cooper was found on the SOS lot, but there is no proof Ray Gricar drove it there.

The scent does not prove Ray Gricar was on the SOS lot, since the vehicle door(s) were opened at least twice.

There is no absolute proof of Ray Gricar being anywhere on 04/15/05; the last known sighting of Ray Gricar was at the courthouse on Thursday, 04/14/05.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[UndertheRadar]

I do not believe the parking lot of the SOS was the location, otherwise there would be no ashes nor smoke odor. I do not believe he was going to 'meet' anyone that day. I believe he was followed.


I agree with your timeline observations. Something had to occur which prevented RG from either a) returning home or b) contacting PF to alert her he would be later still than he had planned.

On the meeting vs. being followed: if he was simply out for a drive and was being followed, that would limit the pool of suspects to only those who would have been alerted somehow that RG was taking the day off. Otherwise, it's difficult to picture anyone knowing that RG would not be engaged in his usual "going to work" routine that day. That's certainly possible. But there's the added wrinkle of the laptop. If he was followed on what was simply a pleasure drive, we then have to assume that either a) he had the laptop with him for some unknown reason, even though we're told he rarely used the laptop or b) whoever was behind the "following" got access to the laptop.

[gstickley]

But there's the added wrinkle of the laptop. If he was followed on what was simply a pleasure drive, we then have to assume that either a) he had the laptop with him for some unknown reason, even though we're told he rarely used the laptop or b) whoever was behind the "following" got access to the laptop.

IMO, there is an additional wrinkle ref. the laptop. WE don't know exactly when the laptop left the residence. If it hadn't been used for awhile, there is also the possiblity the laptop left the house sometime prior to 04/14-15.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[UndertheRadar]

IMO, there is an additional wrinkle ref. the laptop. WE don't know exactly when the laptop left the residence. If it hadn't been used for awhile, there is also the possiblity the laptop left the house sometime prior to 04/14-15.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Agreed. At some point the laptop was described (I think by Dixon, IIRC) as "shuttling" between home and office. Colleagues were asked to search their workspaces for the laptop shortly after RG disappeared, lending credence to the possibility that someone, somewhere believed the laptop could have been in the office rather than in the closet.

[UndertheRadar]

Exactly how many "witnesses" saw Ray Gricar in Lewisburg? None who knew him. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar moving a Mini around apparently didn't say much about it to the head of the museum, as he didn't mention it in his interview; all he mentioned that the disappearance occurred in the area. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar with a MW inside the SOS apparently was mistaken as, according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar standing outside the SOS as though he were waiting for someone apparently was mistaken also, since according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. These "witnesses" may have seen someone, but in no way does that prove it was Ray Gricar & that Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 04/15/05.

Yes, the Mini Cooper was found on the SOS lot, but there is no proof Ray Gricar drove it there.

The scent does not prove Ray Gricar was on the SOS lot, since the vehicle door(s) were opened at least twice.

There is no absolute proof of Ray Gricar being anywhere on 04/15/05; the last known sighting of Ray Gricar was at the courthouse on Thursday, 04/14/05.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Completely agree with your assessment, GS.

Bloodhounds are frequently used to determine validity of witness sightings, and if Bennett's sighting (actually inside the SOS) or the supposed MW sightings were valid, the Bloodhound would have confirmed that. We don't have that confirmation.

I've been thinking more, too, about the handler's "might possibly" equivocation regarding the possibility that RG might have gotten into a car. From everything I've come to understand, Bloodhounds can determine if someone got into a car, so why the equivocation? Two things come to mind as possibilities:


The handler knew, as we've been saying here, that the Mini-Cooper had been in the lot.

The dog didn't follow the scent out of the lot on to the street, trailing the vehicle which RG "might possibly" have gotten into.


Those are two good reasons for equivocation, and would make it less likely RG got into another car, more likely the scent is the result of the Mini's doors being opened in the lot.

Additionally, if accurate sightings in missing persons cases weren't rare, I doubt a 28-year veteran of the NYCPD with expertise in missing persons' cases involving unusual circumstances would have characterized them as such. I think any one of us here could tick off dozens and dozens of cases where multiple witness sightings of a missing person were invalid. The Sund/Pelosso case is a beautiful example, complete with the car, along the "right" route, multiple witnesses including details of "Argentina" being mentioned . . .

But I doubt anyone could come up with a long list of cases where multiple witness sightings in a missing persons case were accurate. Anyone is free to prove me--and Gil Alba--wrong. But I simply don't believe it, and I don't see anything to persuade me the witness sightings in Lewisburg are anything other than garden variety inaccurate empathy sightings.

[Politigal]

My problem with that whole day (Friday) is that darned call. It still doesn't make sense to me.

If RG left shortly before the call, the dog would most likely have already been let out. If he left earlier, where the heck did he go?

And, there's no evidence or proof as to who used the phone....no fingerprints, etc.

And of course, if the call was *not* made by RG, the implications are obvious and HUGE.

[Serendipitous1]

My problem with that whole day (Friday) is that darned call. It still doesn't make sense to me.

If RG left shortly before the call, the dog would most likely have already been let out. If he left earlier, where the heck did he go?

And, there's no evidence or proof as to who used the phone....no fingerprints, etc.

And of course, if the call was *not* made by RG, the implications are obvious and HUGE.I understand where you are coming from. The reasoning is logical given the published record in this case. And to get beyond that does require a leap of faith...past the Friday morning call, maybe on to Lewisburg, and maybe beyond.

If we all were to stick to the last publicly confirmed sighting, on Thursday evening, we would be forever stuck on the shortest of all of the dead-end roads in this case. It has been perfectly and repeatedly stated...there is nowhere else for us to go with that. The alternatives are also all still dead ends, so far. But there is a chance, however remote, that someone here might suggest an important clue that has somehow escaped LE.

I am not stuck. I am still looking at possibilities. But I have no illusion that I will ever be able to help solve this case. My effort (however unfocused it might at times seem) has always been directed at those who are in a postion (or who should or could be in a position) to actually make a difference.

Unless the gods prevail, that effort will likely end this year.

[day2day]

My problem with that whole day (Friday) is that darned call. It still doesn't make sense to me.

If RG left shortly before the call, the dog would most likely have already been let out. If he left earlier, where the heck did he go?

And, there's no evidence or proof as to who used the phone....no fingerprints, etc.

And of course, if the call was *not* made by RG, the implications are obvious and HUGE.

I agree completely...The call has never made sense to me..ever!

[J. J. in Phila]

I have not it being used at home since 2005, but being used as a "home computer" prior to the purchase of the desktop; He would also use if for infrequent conferences.

We have had a number of different versions described as to the laptop's usage.
We were told---- he only took it when he went 'out of town' conferences.
----He used it at home to work on cases.
----They used it at home for personal use until the beginning of 2005.
----It had been in storage in the closet.
So which is it?

The laptop may have been in the car from earlier than Friday.
It may have been taken along for any number of reasons unrelated to the disappearance, and was only checked out after the fact, if there was a 'fact'.

Was there anything on the car other than the PFO, or PLO, or whatever the initials were said to be on the vanity plate? Is it possible that someone who thought RG was 'eavesdropping' or snooping around in their territory, didn't realize that he was a DA? Possibly only after they saw the tag on the laptop they saw there in the car and took with them?

My point is--------did it have to be a disappearance aimed directly at RG, the prosecutor, the DA, or could it have been someone who didn't know who he was, just that they thought he was someone snooping around, and possibly witnessed something illegal they were doing?

If they had followed him, checked out the license plate or the address, wouldn't they have only come up with PF's last name, not his last name, as living there or owner of the car? Maybe they thought this was Mr. F? If they dared to check on her, and found out she worked at the courthouse, there would be no surprise then seeing her car there. Could something have happened to RG without someone from out of the area ever putting the pieces together that he was the DA of Centre County?
JMO

The question is, if this was a murder, was it, in any way related to his official action. There are a few possibilities where it wasn't or where the killer didn't know the victim. One problem with that is, why hide the body?

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, please be more specific as to the witnesses. Overall, there are minimum of 13 witnesses that saw RFG between noon on 4/15/05 and midnight on 4/18/05. I'll be doing extensive blogs on the witnesses, in a few weeks.

[puzzled]

I feel that the key to this case will be found in Ray's cell phone records. Something was going on and there were probably calls related to it. It could be that the calls that are on his record are from people who the police would never ever suspect of being involved in his kidnapping. Think about it ...the fingerprint, MW everything in this case has been kept from us. I believe that the answers are right in front of them ...they just have chosen not to put two and two together.
I also think that a grand jury should be called in this case! :thumbsup:

[Politigal]

Re: Post #36

"Extensive blogs" about the alleged witnesses won't mean squat, unless law enforcement comments/confirms that the witness sightings have been corroborated with some type of evidence or have not been eliminated/discounted .... by *them.*

[gstickley]

Re: Post #36

"Extensive blogs" about the alleged witnesses won't mean squat, unless law enforcement comments/confirms that the witness sightings have been corroborated with some type of evidence or have not been eliminated/discounted .... by *them.*

You got it, Pgal. When & if LE ever steps up & releases information on any credible witnesses with credible corroborated sightings of RG being in Lewisburg on 04/15 or anyplace else afterwards, then it's possible RG was there. Until that time, there apparently were no 'credible witnesses with credible corrorborated sightings' of RG there. And no amount of trying to force-feed them down everyone's throat is going to work.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[UndertheRadar]

You got it, Pgal. When & if LE ever steps up & releases information on any credible witnesses with credible corroborated sightings of RG being in Lewisburg on 04/15 or anyplace else afterwards, then it's possible RG was there. Until that time, there apparently were no 'credible witnesses with credible corrorborated sightings' of RG there. And no amount of trying to force-feed them down everyone's throat is going to work.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Exactly, GS, and unless LE has something to prove these sightings as valid, I certainly hope they are pursuing other possible scenarios. They've been stuck with "three possible theories, all leading nowhere" for nearly four years now--perhaps it's the Lewisburg problem that's got them stuck.

I'll repeat what I posted on another thread: the FBI requires documentation or corroboration before it will confirm a sighting in a missing persons' case.

In Sund/Pelosso, there were literally dozens of "sightings" of the three missing women after February 15 along the route between El Portal and Long Barn (far more than whatever number is currently in fashion in the RG case). I can find only one that was definitively ruled out--a motel clerk who "saw" the women as guests at the motel where she worked. The FBI located the actual people who stayed in the motel--not the Sund/Pelosso party--and ruled out that sighting.

But of the dozens of other alleged sightings, the FBI neither ruled them out nor confirmed them, saying that it would be difficult to "weigh" their value without substantive corroboration. They had things like three witnesses with "Argentina" references; they had sightings of the specific color and make of car. They did NOT have substantive corroboration.

And as far as we know publicly, we don't have it in the RG case.

[UndertheRadar]

My point is--------did it have to be a disappearance aimed directly at RG, the prosecutor, the DA, or could it have been someone who didn't know who he was, just that they thought he was someone snooping around, and possibly witnessed something illegal they were doing?

If they had followed him, checked out the license plate or the address, wouldn't they have only come up with PF's last name, not his last name, as living there or owner of the car? Maybe they thought this was Mr. F? If they dared to check on her, and found out she worked at the courthouse, there would be no surprise then seeing her car there. Could something have happened to RG without someone from out of the area ever putting the pieces together that he was the DA of Centre County?


Under this theory, how would RG acting recognizably distraught prior to the disappearance fit in? Distraught over something unrelated to the disappearance and completely coincidental that he disappeared in the same time period?

[J. J. in Phila]

You got it, Pgal. When & if LE ever steps up & releases information on any credible witnesses with credible corroborated sightings of RG being in Lewisburg on 04/15 or anyplace else afterwards, then it's possible RG was there. Until that time, there apparently were no 'credible witnesses with credible corrorborated sightings' of RG there. And no amount of trying to force-feed them down everyone's throat is going to work.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Actually most of the witnesses are corroborated by other witnesses and in the Lewisburg case, by physical evidence.

UTR, there another factor other than RFG being "distraught." RFG was increasing his work activity in the week prior to his disappearance. That has been overlooked by us, until now.

I've also found out that it had been increasing prior to that, which might have been tied to his retirement, but it jumped just before he disappeared.

[gstickley]

PF, the person with whom RG lived, stated RG had seemed tired & taking naps a week or so before he disappeared. RG had an upcoming 1st Degree Murder case, plus whatever other cases might have been pending. Then, of course, there is the possiblity that he may have been privately working on some problem perhaps relating to 'close friend/relative/co-worker'. Sometimes workloads increase, believe it or not. Yet, RG took off work on Thu., 04/14/05, going into the office for approx. 3 hrs. that evening. RG also took off work on Fri. morning, planning on going into work in the afternoon, according to some reports. One would assume he would have the weekend off.

Some people having contact with RG prior to his disappeance reported observing no change in him; namely SPM, who exchanged e-mails with RG during the week, & Commissioners Conklin & Excharos, who was in a meeting with RG on 04/14. RG's daughter reportedly spoke to her father several times per week; in fact, she spoke to him on 04/14, & noted no difference in him. Perhaps if other co-workers had been allowed to speak, more light would have been shed on RG's demeanor during the week(s) prior to his disappearance. Perhaps if his so-called only 2 best friends in the whole world had given a statement, more information would have been gained.

IMO, it's almost laughable to think that because RG was tired, perhaps distraught, the week(s) prior to his disappearance he was planning on committing suicide or on the famous "YITMAMPWT". Laughable: no. Ignorant: pretty much.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[UndertheRadar]

IF he was distraught, moody, tired needing naps two weeks before disappearance, most likely reason was ------
Cleveland Indians games------ April 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15and the Indians were not on the winning side yet.

I wonder what kind of man RG was in regard to sports. I've known some who let the failures of their favorite sports team affect their overall mood. But I think many devoted to a team go to/watch a game, get deeply disgusted if the team isn't playing up to par, and then put it all aside the minute the game is done, not letting it affect their own lives in any way. (I'm leaving out the inebriated fans who riot after a win or loss, since I don't see RG ripping down goal posts or tipping over cars on Beaver Avenue.) Has anyone ever said that the success or failure of RG's favorite teams spilled over into the rest of his behaviors?

I continue to believe those two weeks prior to disappearance likely had a lot of time built in to listen to the games, which would then require working late to get his heavy caseload at the time in order. If he was also traveling somewhere in order to be able to actually listen to the games, to an area where he could pull in the radio station required, his repeated appearance in a place could have raised someone else's ire, possibly thinking he was there for another reason.

Question about this: A.M. radio has a pretty short reach. Unless an area chooses to carry a particular team's games, you're not going to hear them. Central PA radio tends to carry Pirates games more often than Phillies games, for instance. Would any central PA radio stations be carrying Indians games unless they were playing a team typically carried by that station? If RG had satellite/XM radio (which I'm not sure was widespread in 2005), he wouldn't need to pull over somewhere to get better reception. Just wondering if there would even be a signal in central PA carrying Indians games . . .

Just trying to make sense of your theory and see if it fits . . .

[UndertheRadar]

Then, of course, there is the possiblity that he may have been privately working on some problem perhaps relating to 'close friend/relative/co-worker'.

I see this possibility as something RG would likely try to keep to himself, try to cover up in whatever circumstances he could (such as the meeting on 4/14 or in conversations with LG), but as something that would clearly gnaw away at him, especially in circumstances where the source of the distress might be right in front of him. So many people were not interviewed or weren't interviewed in depth, a la DZ's notion that it "would only lead to another theory." But it seems to me this possibility is an area where further investigation might potentially reveal the source of RG's distress--though I doubt by simply asking whether anyone knew the reason.

JMO.

[UndertheRadar]

You got it, Pgal. When & if LE ever steps up & releases information on any credible witnesses with credible corroborated sightings of RG being in Lewisburg on 04/15 or anyplace else afterwards, then it's possible RG was there. Until that time, there apparently were no 'credible witnesses with credible corrorborated sightings' of RG there. And no amount of trying to force-feed them down everyone's throat is going to work.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Post #42 says in response to this that the witnesses are "corroborated" by each other and by physical evidence.

The FBI, however, must have something in mind other than multiple witnesses at the same place when they say they require corroboration or documentation before they'll confirm a witness sighting in a missing persons' case.

In Sund/Pelosso, for instance, of the few sightings actually detailed in press reports, at least two separate instances had multiple witnesses at the same "sighting":

At the visitors' center, one witness "identified" the threesome and said the older woman identified one of the girls as her daughter and the other as a friend from Argentina. A second witness at the same sighting identified the women with the red 1999 Pontiac.

At a second "sighting," a motel owner said the two girls came in to ask for a room, and an employee there said the two girls got into a car with an older woman.

So clearly, by FBI standards, multiple witnesses at the same scene does not equal corroboration.

Their standards must clearly require something more concrete before they will confirm a sighting as valid.

As for the physical evidence referred to in post #42, if that is supposed to be the scent, I have to wonder why FBI standards aren't being applied here as well.

If extensive blogging is done about the witnesses without a fair and balanced discussion of these issues, the result will be a public readership spun to believe that RG most likely pulled off a YITMAMPW.

That result will NOT be good for the case. The more the public believes RG left of his own accord, the less public pressure will exist on officials to get to the bottom of what happened to this man.

My opinion, to which I am also entitled.

[gstickley]

[QUOTE=UndertheRadar;12843799]Post #42 says in response to this that the witnesses are "corroborated" by each other and by physical evidence.

The FBI, however, must have something in mind other than multiple witnesses at the same place when they say they require corroboration or documentation before they'll confirm a witness sighting in a missing persons' case.

In Sund/Pelosso, for instance, of the few sightings actually detailed in press reports, at least two separate instances had multiple witnesses at the same "sighting":

At the visitors' center, one witness "identified" the threesome and said the older woman identified one of the girls as her daughter and the other as a friend from Argentina. A second witness at the same sighting identified the women with the red 1999 Pontiac.

At a second "sighting," a motel owner said the two girls came in to ask for a room, and an employee there said the two girls got into a car with an older woman.
So clearly, by FBI standards, multiple witnesses at the same scene does not equal corroboration.

Their standards must clearly require something more concrete before they will confirm a sighting as valid.

As for the physical evidence referred to in post #42, if that is supposed to be the scent, I have to wonder why FBI standards aren't being applied here as well.

[B]If extensive blogging is done about the witnesses without a fair and balanced discussion of these issues, the result will be a public readership spun to believe that RG most likely pulled off a YITMAMPW.

That result will NOT be good for the case. The more the public believes RG left of his own accord, the less public pressure will exist on officials to get to the bottom of what happened to this man. [QUOTE]

Common sense, Radar, common sense. Why try to push the public into complacency, "Oh, well, RG just walked away, let him go, forget about him." That's what, IMO, has been the problem all along: complacency. Three theories, even though one (suicide) should have been ruled out years ago, one (foul play) put on the back burner until 'somebody comes forward', & the easy one (walkaway) pushed because . . . it's easy: not much investigation, no worries, just sit back & say, "Oh, well, RG just walked away, let him go, forget about him."

[SIZE="1"]This is my opinion, to which I'm entitled.

[Serendipitous1]

My view is that unbalanced blogging, by an anonymous blogger, hosted on a newspaper website, is already a reality.

Of far greater concern IMO has been the affect of the progression of "news" reporting which, with few exceptions (e.g. "Missed leads", "Montour County DA blasts Gricar investigation", etc.), has been a choice between covering that which LE has decided to release to the media...or reporting nothing at all. Is it any wonder then why the intentional disappearance theory (where there is no crime, per se) has gotten so much attention in the press?

I heard Paul Harvey died yesterday (good fellow, may he RIP). "The rest of the story" in the Gricar matter does need to be told. It can be here or in a competitive blog. But neither has the potential to impact this case without a ground swell of public outrage. And clearly, that is not going to happen.

I had hoped for a political change at the state level last year. It did not happen. I really hope for a political change in Centre County this year. It can happen. And I think it is probably the last, best chance of getting another "pair of eyes" involved in this case.

"Good day!"...and so long, Paul Harvey. :patriot:

[Serendipitous1]

:ohmy: :shrug:

Nine days left all ye members of the bar. For God's sake, what say you? Speak now...pretty please!

[J. J. in Phila]

My view is that unbalanced blogging, by an anonymous blogger, hosted on a newspaper website, is already a reality.

Of far greater concern IMO has been the affect of the progression of "news" reporting which, with few exceptions (e.g. "Missed leads", "Montour County DA blasts Gricar investigation", etc.), has been a choice between covering that which LE has decided to release to the media...or reporting nothing at all. Is it any wonder then why the intentional disappearance theory (where there is no crime, per se) has gotten so much attention in the press?

I heard Paul Harvey died yesterday (good fellow, may he RIP). "The rest of the story" in the Gricar matter does need to be told. It can be here or in a competitive blog. But neither has the potential to impact this case without a ground swell of public outrage. And clearly, that is not going to happen.

I had hoped for a political change at the state level last year. It did not happen. I really hope for a political change in Centre County this year. It can happen. And I think it is probably the last, best chance of getting another "pair of eyes" involved in this case.

"Good day!"...and so long, Paul Harvey. :patriot:

S1, in dealing with people who are fairly interested in the case, I've been surprised how few of the details are known. They need to be restated.

The reason that the coverage has drifted to "intentional" is that there is at least some circumstantial evidence of RFG planning not to be there at least for a while. It points to some voluntary action on his part (which doesn't preclude murder, by a long shot).

[Serendipitous1]

S1, in dealing with people who are fairly interested in the case, I've been surprised how few of the details are known. They need to be restated.

The reason that the coverage has drifted to "intentional" is that there is at least some circumstantial evidence of RFG planning not to be there at least for a while. It points to some voluntary action on his part (which doesn't preclude murder, by a long shot).But you are obviously speaking from a more privileged position than the rest of us (sun rising in the west, for example). I sense PB had a lot more to say, but left the building without doing so. Fine...but do not expect anyone else to make the leap to where you seem to be without his "facts".

[Politigal]

But you are obviously speaking from a more privileged position than the rest of us (sun rising in the west, for example). I sense PB had a lot more to say, but left the building without doing so. Fine...but do not expect anyone else to make the leap to where you seem to be without his "facts".

We don't really know if Pete has been privy to any more info than the rest of us. And I know in some instances, he was only projecting his opinions. He & JJ seem to strike an accord there. But that doesn't make it so.


imo

[J. J. in Phila]

But you are obviously speaking from a more privileged position than the rest of us (sun rising in the west, for example). I sense PB had a lot more to say, but left the building without doing so. Fine...but do not expect anyone else to make the leap to where you seem to be without his "facts".


S1, please do not assume:

1. That PB and I agree on everything.

2. That I only talk with PB.

3. That I have formed an opinion on what happened to RFG; I have not.

[Serendipitous1]

S1, please do not assume:

1. That PB and I agree on everything.

2. That I only talk with PB.

3. That I have formed an opinion on what happened to RFG; I have not.I try not to assume anything...or ignore anything. There is a bit of sauntering spirit in all of us.

[J. J. in Phila]

I try not to assume anything...or ignore anything. There is a bit of sauntering spirit in all of us.

You do, unfortunately. There have been some details that have come out in the last several weeks, not to mention some things that we all (including me) missed.

In reality, except for PB, TG and LE, most of the posters here that are regular readers probably are more expert in the case than the general public.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ there is also another board currently resurrected from the pits that bestow it. They too have been around since day 1. :)

[UndertheRadar]

If RG was potentially distraught because of some situation coming to a head with a "close friend/relative/co-worker," is it also potentially possible that whoever that close friend/relative/co-worker might have been was also showing some signs of distress, distraction, pressure, whatever in the weeks prior to RG's disappearance?

So few in-depth interviews have apparently been done; only two polygraphs have been given. I wonder if LE has looked into behavior patterns of those associated with RG in the weeks prior to the disappearance in any kind of in-depth way.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, my understanding is that there were "stones left unturned." It is one of the reasons I've been calling for a grand jury, where people can be compelled to testify and their activities verified.

I think your question comes under the heading of the "right question."

[gstickley]

If RG was potentially distraught because of some situation coming to a head with a "close friend/relative/co-worker," is it also potentially possible that whoever that close friend/relative/co-worker might have been was also showing some signs of distress, distraction, pressure, whatever in the weeks prior to RG's disappearance?

So few in-depth interviews have apparently been done; only two polygraphs have been given. I wonder if LE has looked into behavior patterns of those associated with RG in the weeks prior to the disappearance in any kind of in-depth way.

I agree with you, Radar. All the close friends & co-workers should have been interviewed in depth, if for no other reason than to try to determine RG's demeanor during the days & week(s) prior to his disappearance. Also, the whereabouts of the close friends/co-workers should have been checked out. And I feel certain the behavior patterns of those associated with RG were never "looked into" by LE. After all, apparently LE had it's theory locked down from the beginning, and doing the above "would only lead to another theory". (I think that sentence by a member of LE infuriates me more than the other "mistakements" made, including the "no rock has been left unturned".)

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[UndertheRadar]

After all, apparently LE had it's theory locked down from the beginning, and doing the above "would only lead to another theory". (I think that sentence by a member of LE infuriates me more than the other "mistakements" made, including the "no rock has been left unturned".)

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Personally, I've never understood the "would only lead to another theory" reasoning. IMHO, it represents the kind of tunnel vision that can keep a case spinning its wheels instead of moving forward.

I understand in the earliest days that it was necessary to search the river for a possible suicide. I also understand checking out witness reports and contemplating the possibility of walkaway.

But it does not seem to me that anything the public might have learned recently reflects anything that LE didn't know much earlier in the investigation. Another theory and looking for some other rocks to overturn may be just what this case needs.

My humble opinion, to which I am also entitled.

[gstickley]

I think it may be possible there could be "real" witnesses out there who may have pertinent information relating to RG and/or his disappearance. However, with "suicide" & "walkaway" theories being bandied about by LE and the press, I can see that some would not come forward, believing their information might not be important or would be disbelieved. If LE & the press would seriously concentrate on "foul play", it might be possible these "real" witnesses or even one "real" witness might come forward. When a person like Ms. Fenton, who knew & worked with RG, wasn't believed, why would an ordinary citizen think he/she'd be believed? As long as the press & LE continue to press the "walkaway" theory, I doubt any pertinent information will be forthcoming.

I don't understand the "secret squirrel" mentality in keeping whatever LE has learned during their "investigation" from the public. Who knows what small item might trigger a memory in someone's mind? And, again, I don't understand why close friends/co-workers have not been interviewed in depth or why all courthouse employees have not been interviewed. It's a pretty well-known fact that gossip abounds in courthouse settings, and even gossip, no matter how insignificant it may seem, should be checked.

Somebody knows something about the disappearance of Ray Gricar. Four years have gone by, and it's about time for SOMETHING to be done, questions should be asked & answered. The man deserves this much.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[J. J. in Phila]

Do you mean folks like Fenton, Grine and the cop in Wilkes-Barre, GS[/sarcasm]?

[UndertheRadar]

Fenton's sighting was dismissed because of unconfirmed sightings in Lewisburg, which somehow were supposed to provide an RG timeline that Fenton's sighting didn't "fit." Go figure.

Grine's sighting was dismissed because it paralleled Fenton's (same "timeline" issue) and because it had the added problem of the Thursday/Friday question.

Difficult to say whether either of those was a valid sighting, but both start from the position of someone who knew RG personally, a far stronger position from which to start than any of the Lewisburg witnesses.

The Lewisburg and Wilkes-Barre sightings both start from the "empathy" position, increasing the chances they are invalid.

I can't speak for GS, but it's likely she means valid witnesses--someone who likely saw RG before the disappearance was announced, before LE said, in essence, "Hey, we got a guy who disappeared from Lewisburg. Anyone see him around here? And we think he might have walked away from his life. Anyone see him anywhere else?"

[gstickley]

Fenton's sighting was dismissed because of unconfirmed sightings in Lewisburg, which somehow were supposed to provide an RG timeline that Fenton's sighting didn't "fit." Go figure.

Grine's sighting was dismissed because it paralleled Fenton's (same "timeline" issue) and because it had the added problem of the Thursday/Friday question.

Difficult to say whether either of those was a valid sighting, but both start from the position of someone who knew RG personally, a far stronger position from which to start than any of the Lewisburg witnesses.

The Lewisburg and Wilkes-Barre sightings both start from the "empathy" position, increasing the chances they are invalid.

I can't speak for GS, but it's likely she means valid witnesses--someone who likely saw RG before the disappearance was announced, before LE said, in essence, "Hey, we got a guy who disappeared from Lewisburg. Anyone see him around here? And we think he might have walked away from his life. Anyone see him anywhere else?"

Speak for me anytime you wish, Radar.

Who knows who else may have seen RG in Bellefonte on 04/15, or even in the area of the courthouse at the time Fenton & Grine say they saw him? After all, it wasn't important enough for LE to even interview courthouse employees because 'it might lead to another theory'. It wasn't important enough for LE to interview neighbors or probably anyone else in Bellefonte because it didn't fit "their" time line & their "Lewisburg, Lewisburg, Lewisburg". The fact that both Fenton & Grine both knew RG didn't even enter into the equation; but so-called witnesses in "Lewisburg, Lewisburg, Lewisburg", who did not know RG & "thought" they saw someone who might fit his description (after it was given to them by LE), are expected to be believed. Incredible!!!
The same goes for the cop in the WB bar; seems he waited for a day or so after seeing news reports of RG's disappearance before contacting LE. Wonder when the reward was announced?????
For that matter, the "sighting" in Michigan came after the "WB sighting"; seems there were several news releases by LE that the "Michigan sighting" was the most credible sighting they'd had.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, there was no "empathy" with the bartender, who didn't know RFG was missing.

I have very serious questions if the the Fenton sighting didn't actually fit the time line; frankly, it seems to. Yes, I know something I'm not saying yet.

[UndertheRadar]

Speak for me anytime you wish, Radar.

Who knows who else may have seen RG in Bellefonte on 04/15, or even in the area of the courthouse at the time Fenton & Grine say they saw him? After all, it wasn't important enough for LE to even interview courthouse employees because 'it might lead to another theory'. It wasn't important enough for LE to interview neighbors or probably anyone else in Bellefonte because it didn't fit "their" time line & their "Lewisburg, Lewisburg, Lewisburg". The fact that both Fenton & Grine both knew RG didn't even enter into the equation; but so-called witnesses in "Lewisburg, Lewisburg, Lewisburg", who did not know RG & "thought" they saw someone who might fit his description (after it was given to them by LE), are expected to be believed. Incredible!!!
The same goes for the cop in the WB bar; seems he waited for a day or so after seeing news reports of RG's disappearance before contacting LE. Wonder when the reward was announced?????
For that matter, the "sighting" in Michigan came after the "WB sighting"; seems there were several news releases by LE that the "Michigan sighting" was the most credible sighting they'd had.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

That's what I'm saying, GS. The emphasis on Lewisburg, Lewisburg, Lewisburg kept this case mired in the mud, IMHO, perhaps exactly as someone who might have staged the Lewisburg scene wanted it to be.

And IIRC, it was four days the cop in the WB bar waited after seeing news reports before he contacted LE!

People can talk about witness reports of RG in Lewisburg all they want, but the simple fact is that witness sightings in missing persons' cases have a dismal track record for accuracy. Clint Van Zandt, former FBI profiler, was talking once about how "notoriously bad" such sightings are and described a time he put his own photo from FBI credentials down in front of a witness. Nope, never saw that guy, said the witness (as Van Zandt was standing right there with him).

As far as whatever it is we don't yet know but isn't being said, I'll reserve a small amount of judgment for the Great Reveal. But frankly, nothing of that sort in the past that's eventually been revealed has amounted to very much. Much ado about nothing in most cases, like the Great Reveal that one witness in WB was LE.

And as far as the bartender in WB, of course empathy would factor in. LE sought the guy out. If the witness didn't know he was helping to look for a missing person, he at least knew LE had a "wanted" person, wanted for some reason. Empathy can extend to helping out LE. It's part of what produces invalid identifications in criminal witness ID's.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, Wilkes-Barre and Bellefonte are not Lewisburg, yet two of the three recent "revelations" were not about Lewisburg.

The police officer is not an "empathy" witness and neither is the bartender. The police found him.

More of the "All the witnesses are wrong," line. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

So Gil Alba and Cliff Van Zandt don't have any credibility, I guess.

Go figure.

[J. J. in Phila]

No, UTR, you don't have any credibility, especially since van Zandt said he did it with one witness. Look, if we were talking about one witness, or even two, I'd be inclined to not give it too much weight. We are dealing with more than one witness. And we are dealing with trained observers, not the typical man on the street. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

Actually, JJ, Cliff Van Zandt said witness sightings in missing persons' cases in general were notoriously bad. He simply used the absurdity of someone not recognizing his photo on his FBI credentials to demonstrate how poor witness observation and recall call be.

Alba, with all his experience, has called valid identifications in missing persons' cases rare.

And the FBI requires documentation and corroboration (obviously beyond multiple witnesses at any given place--see Sund/Pelosso) to confirm witness sightings.

One of the top researchers in memory and eyewitness identification has empirical data demonstrating that trained observers have no better memory or accuracy in identification than anyone else.

In short, multiple witnesses in Lewisburg or WB, and a "trained observer" in WB, do nothing to strengthen the case that any of these sightings were accurate identifications of Ray Gricar.

Why the push to assume the sightings were accurate when this was most likely not the case?

With little precedent to guide them, local investigators who tracked Ted Bundy and the Green River Killer in the '70s and '80s honed their skills by trial and error. Day by day and body by body, they learned what police were doing right and what they were doing wrong.

"We just started working missing-persons cases like they were dead," said Detective Tom Jensen, a longtime Green River Task Force member. "The only thing we didn't have was the body. If you wait until a body turns up, you're six, eight months behind in your investigation."

By working missing cases aggressively from the start, detectives gained critical information about victims and their last days while the trail and memories were still fresh.

They learned that police agencies were declining to take reports, failing to investigate them and neglecting to remove closed files from computer databases, costing investigators valuable time looking for people no longer "lost."

They also saw that detectives often were overly eager to close cases on rumor or hearsay without confirming whether a missing person was really alive and well.

Four women believed to be victims of the Green River Killer -- Gail Mathews, Andrea Childers, Mary Bello and Tammy Liles -- had been reported missing to various police departments. Yet their cases had been closed on the basis of unconfirmed sightings or rumors that they were alive. Investigators later learned the reports could not have been true -- the women had long been dead.

. . .

"Police departments hate missing-persons reports because they tend to be a pain in the butt," Jensen explained. "Detectives will look for ways to dump cases so they don't have to do the follow-up work."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/108579_missingday17.shtml

[gstickley]

IF 'trained observers' are the only witnesses to be deemed credible, what about the Michigan sighting???

According to Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on 06/25/05,
"Police say only one sighting of missing DA is 'credible'". According to Chief Dixon, RG had been reportedly seen in several other states all over the east coast, BUT IN ALL BUT ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES, MICHIGAN, POLICE WERE ABLE TO PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT THAT THE MAN PEOPLE SAW WAS NOT RG. (Kinda leave out the WB sighting, IMO.)

The sighting police were unable to rule out as of 06/25/05 was the one in Michigan. A retired Detroit police officer, who also worked as a composite artist, reportedly saw a man looking familiar to him at a restaurant on 05/27/05 in Southfield, Mich.

As soon as the picture popped up, he said, 'That's the person I'm talking about,' " said Bellefonte police Chief Duane Dixon. The Detroit officer later picked Gricar's picture out of a photo lineup.

According to Chief Dixon, it was a credible sighting. Was he 100% sure? No. He further stated there were a lot of people out there who look just like other people.

This retired Detroit police officer was a sketch artist.

IF the WB cop is supposed to be believed, why not a retired police sketch artist.

Police sketch artist is to regular cop like a real detective is to a beat cop. (If you get my drift . . .)

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[UndertheRadar]

Police sketch artist is to regular cop like a real detective is to a beat cop. (If you get my drift . . .)


I get your drift, GS, and you make a good point. The training of a sketch artist--and the years of experience doing the job--would make that particular witness more attuned to finer details of facial features like noses, ears, chins, eyes, eyebrows, etc. than any typical police officer would be. Not sure if that would make the memory any better than any average person, but it would give a leg up on initial observations.

[Politigal]

respectfully snipped

Why the push to assume the sightings were accurate when this was most likely not the case?



It definitely seems like a *push* ....like it's being *forced*.....like it goes *against* the grain.....like it *defies* common sense and logical analysis.

But hey, he's a Maaaaaverick....lol

and for S1...averickmay...

[Serendipitous1]

What is it about this "Great Reveal" (post #68) which might lend credence to one or more of the let's 'beat-around-the-bush' Lewisburg sightings? More importantly, why would LE withhold it from the public? Something which more confidently places RG in Lewisburg would not necessarily negate any of the 3 theories. But it might have saved PF from a lot of grief.

I think it must be something LE is withholding...not from the public or family, per se...but from a person, or persons, unknown.

GS, I had a 70-something woman in mind in regard to the Michigan sighting...someone of means and who would have been well known by RG. When the sighting was first reported, DZ said police were working on a composite picture of the woman (gee, I wonder who produced that). Anyway, I would like to have seen that composite...just for comparison.

[gstickley]

What is it about this "Great Reveal" (post #68) which might lend credence to one or more of the let's 'beat-around-the-bush' Lewisburg sightings? More importantly, why would LE withhold it from the public? Something which more confidently places RG in Lewisburg would not necessarily negate any of the 3 theories. But it might have saved PF from a lot of grief.

I think it must be something LE is withholding...not from the public or family, per se...but from a person, or persons, unknown.

GS, I had a 70-something woman in mind in regard to the Michigan sighting...someone of means and who would have been well known by RG. When the sighting was first reported, DZ said police were working on a composite picture of the woman (gee, I wonder who produced that). Anyway, I would like to have seen that composite...just for comparison.

Why would LE deliberately withhold information that possibly could aid in their investigation (REAL witnesses might remember something) for almost four (4) years??? Do you think LE may have a suspect or suspects in mind??? If so, four (4) years is a long time to let the family & PF wonder what actually happened to RG.

Tell me more, tell me more, tell me everything about the 70-something woman!!!!!!!
(Please tell me she was a 'looker' on top of being "of means.") :wink:


JMO

[Serendipitous1]

Declined, GS (sadly) for want of information/cooperation from LE! Besides...like conducting interviews of Sloane, Walker and a bevy of county workers..."It may be worthwhile, it may not be. But I really don't have an answer to that. It could be a lot of time to lead us nowhere. It could provide us a real lead. But it more likely would just lead us toward a theory" (DZ, 2006), lo(sad)lol!

LE apparently has the composite of the Michigan woman...but, for whatever reason, has withheld it from the public, just like so much else in this supposedly straight-up, confounding, missing-person case. Go figure. Too bad for for RG.

[J. J. in Phila]

What is it about this "Great Reveal" (post #68) which might lend credence to one or more of the let's 'beat-around-the-bush' Lewisburg sightings? More importantly, why would LE withhold it from the public? Something which more confidently places RG in Lewisburg would not necessarily negate any of the 3 theories. But it might have saved PF from a lot of grief.


There have been some revelations in the blogs; some of that has been just taking a closer look at the evidence.


I think it must be something LE is withholding...not from the public or family, per se...but from a person, or persons, unknown.


Bluntly, LE has been withholding information, as can be seen with the Fenton sighting, McKnight's witness, the cop in Wilkes-Barre, and at least one other point (not a witness). All of these things point to RFG being alive well after 4/15/05.


GS, I had a 70-something woman in mind in regard to the Michigan sighting...someone of means and who would have been well known by RG. When the sighting was first reported, DZ said police were working on a composite picture of the woman (gee, I wonder who produced that). Anyway, I would like to have seen that composite...just for comparison.

I'd love to know the "woman in mind." :) You are free to keep secrets from me. :)

[Serendipitous1]

Thanks for the platitude, J.J. I shall take your advice for now. Meanwhile, see what you can do to get the Michigan composite, the Lewisburg "Great Reveal", and anything else you can think of into the record (and not just in blogland). Then, maybe, we can talk.

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks for the platitude, J.J. I shall take your advice for now. Meanwhile, see what you can do to get the Michigan composite, the Lewisburg "Great Reveal", and anything else you can think of into the record (and not just in blogland). Then, maybe, we can talk.


I can do nothing other than in "blogland," except attempt to ask the right question. I won't even attempt to try Michigan, Lake or State. The Susquehanna has a bit more interest at the present, not the west bank, but the east.

[Serendipitous1]

I can do nothing other than in "blogland," except attempt to ask the right question. I won't even attempt to try Michigan, Lake or State. The Susquehanna has a bit more interest at the present, not the west bank, but the east.Edited for clarity? Well at least you know where the sun rises now! I guess that cryptic post makes us even on the night. Sleep well y'all.

[J. J. in Phila]

Edited for clarity? Well at least you know where the sun rises now! I guess that cryptic post makes us even on the night. Sleep well y'all.

I just you be sure that I was referring the bank where the sun not rises, not where the son sets.

[UndertheRadar]

I think it must be something LE is withholding...not from the public or family, per se...but from a person, or persons, unknown.


I have no doubt that this could be true. But that would indicate LE focused on a suspect in RG's disappearance, not LE thinking RG left of his own accord, correct?

[J. J. in Phila]

Not necessarily, UTR. They might not want to say, "The reason RFG is missing is _____," for civil reasons. Remember that PB pointed out that the county/borough could sue to recover funds spent on the search, if RFG did, in fact, walk away. Making that claim could prejudice a claim for that.

[UndertheRadar]

I don't know about that reasoning. In the Runaway Bride case, it was made public right away that she lied to investigators, forming the basis for the claim against her. Granted, she'd been found. But I'm not seeing how releasing anything that could confirm RG's presence in Lewisburg could jeopardize a civil case against him should he be found eventually.

I think it's more like this: how much experience has the BPD had in dealing with missing persons' cases with unusual circumstances (versus the occasional runaway teenager or misplaced elderly person)? DZ was out there doing a lot of witness questioning, a beat cop, not even a detective.

[J. J. in Phila]

The "runaway bride" was found. In this case, the defendants could, hypothetically, claim that LE didn't do enough, that there was a "rush to judgment" that RFG departed voluntarily.

The police's silence on a few things does not necessarily point to a "person of interest" in a murder case.

[UndertheRadar]

A rush to judgment after a nearly four year investigation? I don't think that argument would fly, especially when the investigation included extensive searches for a suicide in the river and nearly four years of official statements saying "suicide, walkaway, foul play."

The money spent investigating RG's disappearance is gone whether RG is dead (suicide or murder) or whether he voluntarily walked away. If he's dead, no one is going to sue his family to recover the money if he committed suicide; no one is going to sue a perpetrator if he was murdered. If he voluntarily walked away, it might be difficult to recover funds from him--he didn't lie to authorities the way the Runaway Bride did.

There would be no criminal case to bring against RG. At most, there might be a civil claim for restitution. If LE has compelling evidence that RG left voluntarily, do you honestly think that would be withheld because of some rinky-dink civil claim for restitution? IIRC, restitution is all authorities got from Jennifer Wilbanks, and she deliberately created a kidnapping hoax and lied to authorities about it. If RG left voluntarily, which I don't believe, all he did was what any adult American citizen is free to do.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, your last comment just displayed your naivete.

Of course they would. LE has never, ever, indicated that the was a suspect or a "person of interest." This might not be a question criminality, but of liability.

[UndertheRadar]

I'm naive? I'm not the one claiming that multiple witnesses and a witness who was a trained observer equal confirmation that sightings were valid. That's a naive opinion stacked up against empirical fact to the contrary.

As to holding something back from the public so that a civil claim for restitution can be sought, let's not forget in the Wilbanks case, she was indicted on one felony and one misdemeanor count, both for false reports to authorities. It appears the restitution charges followed as a consequence to those charges. RG did nothing of the sort to cause authorities to search for him, assuming he left voluntarily.

Let's also not forget that LE's primary job is to find out what happened to RG, either to clear the case by finding out he left voluntarily or committed suicide, or to pursue a perpetrator if he was murdered. If LE honestly believes he left voluntarily, the general protocol would be a) having an LE officer confirm he is alive (i.e., not using another party's sighting as confirmation); b) ascertaining whether or not he wants to be "found"; and if he doesn't want to be "found," c) informing the family that he is alive but doesn't want contact.

Restitution and charges would be up to the county and the DA's office, not LE, if they would even be possible in this case. I doubt they would without some evidence that RG committed a crime that caused the search to cost the county money.

[J. J. in Phila]

You mean the zero empirical evidence to the contrary.

I have not forgotten the Wilbanks case, but they didn't make those facts public until Jennifer Wilbanks was found.

You've made an assumption that if LE is keeping something secret, it is suspect. I am pointing out that this is not necessarily the case. Are they telling us everything they know, no. I don't blame them for some of it. It might not be an assumed suspect.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll add another point. A lot of the evidence points to a voluntary act on RFG's part, suicide or walkaway. Much of it could also to a "short walk," i.e., RFG was planning to get away for a few days, but return. Something happened, possibly murder.

I would not to pronounce this "walkaway" unless I was sure that this didn't happen.

[Cloudbuster]

Digging thru the crypticness hmm east of Susquehanna. I think I get that. Then they just don't know how it ended like a possible jilt. :sneaky:

[J. J. in Phila]

Digging thru the crypticness hmm east of Susquehanna. I think I get that. Then they just don't know how it ended like a possible jilt. :sneaky:

I think you are channeling me again. Maybe not a jilter, but a helper. I honestly don't know. Let's just say, a red flag has been raised.

:patriot:

[UndertheRadar]

I must say, I do have to wonder how the top two leading scholars in the United States in the field of memory and eyewitness testimony would feel about the "zero empirical evidence" claim.

Sad, their entire lives' work wiped out by a message board poster/blogger's opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I'm not discounting their life's work, only your twisting of it. :lol: But keep spinning.

Van Zandt used an example of one witness; if it was of five witnesses in succession, you'd have a good point. It wasn't.

The problem isn't that a single can be wrong; he/she can. The problem is, there has to a whole bunch of witnesses wrong on exactly the same points and in exactly the same way.

[UndertheRadar]

Van Zandt said eyewitness identifications in missing persons' cases were notoriously bad. He didn't base that on one example. I've already pointed that out.

And besides, Van Zandt isn't one of the leading scholars/researchers I'm referring to. I'm sure Van Zandt has collected plenty of anecdotal data over the years. I'm talking about leading researchers who have collected empirical data.

And what their empirical data shows is that "a whole bunch of witnesses" can be wrong "on the same points" and "in the same ways."

That's not my opinion, or even their opinion. It's fact.

[UndertheRadar]

A must-read article from May 2005. While its focus is eyewitness ID of criminal suspects, not ID of missing persons, it is quite specific as to the attitudes and practices of Pennsylvania police departments regarding eyewitness protocol in spring 2005.

Some highlights:

In not knowing about the [U.S. Department of Justice] guidelines and not wanting to follow them, Hawfield was typical of most police chiefs in the region surveyed and interviewed by the Innocence Institute of Point Park University, a joint venture with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette where students investigate allegations of wrongful convictions.
***

Mullen and Zappala, however, are two of only a handful of police officials and prosecutors in Pennsylvania who will even consider the eyewitness reforms.

From the leader of the state district attorneys' group to officials who train and accredit police officers, there was little belief among the state's law enforcement officials that false eyewitness identification is a major problem.

But a growing body of case law says otherwise. It proves eyewitnesses have falsely identified and helped convict innocent people, while letting the guilty go free.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05129/501389.stm

[Cloudbuster]

I think you are channeling me again. Maybe not a jilter, but a helper. I honestly don't know. Let's just say, a red flag has been raised.

:patriot:

Thanks JJ! I thought I might be zoning in :). It's pretty much a red flag. I think the red flagger was told a good story, bought it hook line and sinker but thats just me zoning. Some things are getting weirder in my zoning. I think I found a possibility of what Huntingdon was about. Actually there are 2 possibilities, one you might agree with and the other I don't think you will. Let's just say !-18-2005 was a education date.

[Politigal]

On witness sightings in missing persons cases, I was reading of a 9yr old boy who disappeared in 1993. Years later, police still receive calls from people who think they *recently* saw this little boy.....and the sightings are of a child.....

Obviously if the boy was still alive.....he wouldn't still be 9 years old.

But, people have the description of this child as a missing person and the power of suggestion on what to look for and voila...they've seen him...

On another note...here's an informational piece on missing persons...scroll to section 3.17 (approx mid-page 32) on sightings.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/missing_persons_2005_24x02x05.pdf

People will contact the police with sightings of missing persons. For various reasons, however, they are often mistaken

Empathy sightings are common in high profile cases.

[J. J. in Phila]

Do they all make the same, at the same place. at the same time? That is the element you are consistently missing.

[UndertheRadar]

Empathy sightings are common in high profile cases.

Centre Daily Times | 04/24/2005 | Gricar family clings to hope

... "It's almost like nine years ago," said Chris Gricar's brother Tony, referring to their father's suicide in May 1996. Roy Gricar's body was pulled out of the river in Dayton, Ohio, about five days after he disappeared.

"We're a little jaded, my brother and I," Tony Gricar said, "because there were all these reported sightings of my father that, after he'd been found, we learned would have been impossible..."

[UndertheRadar]

I haven't "consistently missed" anything, JJ. I'm well aware of a large body of research demonstrating that multiple witnesses can indeed make the same errors at the same place at the same time. In fact, I've long since already posted regarding such. Perhaps you missed it.

[gstickley]

I haven't "consistently missed" anything, JJ. I'm well aware of a large body of research demonstrating that multiple witnesses can indeed make the same errors at the same place at the same time. In fact, I've long since already posted regarding such. Perhaps you missed it.

Remember those famous words of OOB a long time ago. :wink:

[UndertheRadar]

I remember somebody on the board, can't remember who (probably UndertheRadar), explaining the rationale behind undertaking such a Sisyphean task.

Too bad it's necessary.

It's also too bad that there isn't some way - an acronym, a pithy little phrase, a picture, I don't know - to respond without having to constantly roll that big rock up that big hill (or is it more akin to Hercules's fifth labor?).

Excellent idea, OOB. Simply shouting "Hercules' fifth labor!" might work.

If not, there's always South Park: "I declare shenanigans!"

(I'm kind of partial to the shenanigans declaration. . . .)

[J. J. in Phila]

At this point, no make that a long time ago, it almost seems like argument for argument's sake.

Either that, or an inability or unwillingness, for whatever reason, to read and understand the written English word.

Thanks for this thread.

Oh, and by the way, the ignore feature is kind of nice. I know the arguments against it, but it's still kind of nice.

OOBrett, you are free to ignore, but you will sink in ignorance.

The problem with UTR's increasingly poor arguments are simply, the more we find out about RFG's disappearance, the more evidence surfaces putting RFG in Lewisburg and alive after noon on 4/15/05. That doesn't sit well with UTR's theory, so she increasingly comes up with more and more implausible explanations for why it isn't so.

I'm not the one creating the evidence, merely reporting it. Everything that has been reported, LE knew years before. They knew it prior to UTR's, your, or my appearance.

[gstickley]

I seem to have missed all the latest LE press conferences where they laid out all their evidence surfacing lately putting RG in Lewisburg. Could somebody please advise me where to find this information?

[J. J. in Phila]

I seem to have missed all the latest LE press conferences where they laid out all their evidence surfacing lately putting RG in Lewisburg. Could somebody please advise me where to find this information?

It has been trickling out. I just looked tonight. In late April 2005, it was three. By October it was a minimum of eight. More came out last summer. Steel yourself. ;)

[UndertheRadar]

I seem to have missed all the latest LE press conferences where they laid out all their evidence surfacing lately putting RG in Lewisburg. Could somebody please advise me where to find this information?

I honestly don't think anyone's is going to show us new evidence developed by LE putting RG in Lewisburg (and suggesting that he walked away.) My guess is that all these dramatic hints refer to things long known by LE, who so far have continued to stand by the three theories position.

Why we're supposed to steel ourselves regarding the supposed growing number of witnesses to RG's presence in Lewisburg is beyond me. Let's assume for a minute that numbers of witnesses meant something (even though that's totally disputable). Most, though not necessarily all, of us are here because we care about what happened to RG. If we were truly given concrete evidence of what's become of him, regardless of what that was, I have no doubt we'd welcome that concrete evidence.

Few of us here would put a theory above the truth. It's the truth we want. And that's why we object when non-truths are put forward as truth and used to build claims about what happened to RG. On this thread we see just one of the many times this has been done. If I'm faced with a couple hundred studies by a leading researcher using a couple hundred thousand subjects where the empirical data shows multiple witnesses can easily make the same errors at the same time in the same place vs. a blogger/message board poster who claims that is unlikely, who am I to believe?

[gstickley]

I seem to have missed all the latest LE press conferences where they laid out all their evidence surfacing lately putting RG in Lewisburg. Could somebody please advise me where to find this information?

It's been 14 hrs. & I still don't have an answer. S1, you're pretty good with finding all kinds of stuff in many different newspapers. Could you please check back, at least for the last year, & tell me the latest LE press conferences where they laid out all their evidence surfacing lately putting RG in Lewisburg?

[gstickley]

Shenanigans is good, but I'd like to think that we're original enough that we don't have to just lift something from South Park (especially since it's been lifted by so many others in so many other places).

But if you're partial to shenanigans, shenanigans it shall be for me. You're the one doing most of the work.

I vote for shenanigans too. Back in the olden times when I first started here, I wondered about possible "courthouse shananigans" that might have caused RG to appear distraught the week he disappeared. (Apparently there were some "shenanigans" going on while he was there; perhaps he found out about them.) Who knows whether there were other "shenanigans" going on in the courthouse or others even in his own office that might have been causing him some distress . . .

[Politigal]

IMO, many of Zaccagni's comments on the RG case certainly fall under the term "shenanigans."

[UndertheRadar]

I guess if you really stop to think about it, there are potential shenanigans all over this danged case. I was originally thinking only about certain board shenanigans related to OOB's comments, but we could probably "declare shenanigans" in any number of possible areas. Suddenly disappearing fingerprints, suddenly appearing books on desks, etc. . . .

[J. J. in Phila]

Gee, how strange, a law book on an attorney's desk. I actually doubt that the book was placed there by RFG.

The fingerprints are the classic mistakement.

[Serendipitous1]

I guess if you really stop to think about it, there are potential shenanigans all over this danged case. I was originally thinking only about certain board shenanigans related to OOB's comments, but we could probably "declare shenanigans" in any number of possible areas. Suddenly disappearing fingerprints, suddenly appearing books on desks, etc. . . .Unfortunately, the orbit of oob is still well above earth's atmosphere. There is a possible reentry window on Tuesday. But I am not holding my breath.