Wed., 03/18/09

[gstickley]

Only 26 days until 4 years will have passed since Ray Gricar was last seen & positively identified. That's a long time.

There were apparently a good deal of news releases ref. the disappearance of Ray Gricar outside Centre Co., contrary to some accounts. These are but a few:

04/16/05, Associated Press: "Police Search for Pennsylvania Prosecutor Missing Since Friday"
04/17/05, AP Wire, Times Ledger: "Police Find Car But No Sign of Missing Central Pennsylvania Prosecutor"
04/17/05, Centre Daily Times: "The Search for Ray Gricar"
04/17/05, The Deseret News: "Missing Prosecutor Has Police On Search"
04/18/05, USA Today: "Information Sought in Missing Pennsylvania District Attorney Case"
04/18/05, USA Today: "Missing Prosecutor Fails To Show Up For Work"
04/18/05, Boston Globe: "Clues Sought Over Missing Prosecutor"
04/18/05, AP, Officer.com: "Police Investigate Missing Pennsylvania District Attorney"
04/18/05, AP, National Desk, New York Sun: Clues Sought In Prosecutor's Disappearance"
04/20/05, Centre Daily Times: "Gricar Search Goes On [Centre County, PA, District Attorney Case]"
04/21/05, AP, SignOnSanDiego,The Union Tribune: Missing District Attorney: "Did He Commit Suicide Like His Brother Before Him?"
04/21/05, The Plain Dealer: "Missing Man Has Close Ties To Cleveland" The "famous trip to the Cleveland Indians baseball game" is mentioned in this article.

According to another poster, a reward was announced on 04/20-21/05.

On 04/18/05, the W-B "witness" supposedly "saw & spoke to Ray Gricar in a bar.
On 04/22/05, the W-B "witness" reportedly contacted LE ref. the "supposed "sighting".

Why the wait?


This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[UndertheRadar]

On 04/18/05, the W-B "witness" supposedly "saw & spoke to Ray Gricar in a bar.
On 04/22/05, the W-B "witness" reportedly contacted LE ref. the "supposed "sighting".

Why the wait?


According to today's entry on "The Blog," the WB LE witness didn't think anything about the encounter with the suited man in the bar until seeing RG's photo in the media several days later.

This sequence suggests the potential for a factor typical in mistaken eyewitness identification, and that's information acquired after the sighting "infecting" the memory.

I know it has been argued that we're to make something of the notion that the witness is a ranking LE officer. However, multiple studies show that being a "trained observer" does not improve memory or accuracy of identification.

Given the way that information acquired after a sighting can distort the memory, the fact that RG's photo in the media triggered the report to the police creates reason to question how valid this identification really was.

That this witness was "100%" certain it was RG isn't persuasive, either. There's no correlation between witness certainty and a valid identification.

Can anyone list missing persons cases in which multiple witnesses made valid identifications? It is so easy to rattle off all the cases in which multiple witnesses were dead wrong.

[Politigal]

And it's important not to forget that many of the witnesses were shown photos of Gricar and IIRC, some were even shown the courthouse surveillance video....

A *STRONG* power of suggestion IMO.

[UndertheRadar]

And it's important not to forget that many of the witnesses were shown photos of Gricar and IIRC, some were even shown the courthouse surveillance video....

A *STRONG* power of suggestion IMO.

A good reminder, Pgal.

In fact, I'd like to know more details about exactly who questioned the witnesses and what procedures were used. I'd like to know how much experience BPD had with MP cases with unusual circumstances prior to RG's disappearance (and questioning eyewitnesses in such cases).

Probably the most important thing that's come out of the research into eyewitness testimony and memory is how many errors in ID could be reduced/eliminated by improving police procedures and educating police, courts, and juries.

So depressing to know that PA is one of two states refusing experts in the court room and to know that in 2005, few if any police jurisdictions in PA were familiar with/using the DOJ guidelines.

Maybe the BPD were cutting edge where all these things were concerned. If they were, I'd like to know that. If they weren't, I'd like to know that, too.

JMO.

[UndertheRadar]

Speaking of police procedures, something else occurred to me that other day that I wanted to mention.

I don't know what to make of the Carolyn Fenton sighting, except that CF knew RG, and in my mind that has always put her a step ahead of witnesses elsewhere. It has never made her sighting necessarily a valid identification in my mind. We've all had experiences where we thought we saw someone we knew well, only to realize a moment later it was not who we thought it was. (I had this happen just the other day in the grocery store.)

That said, one thing I've learned about witness confidence in an identification is that it can be increased by subtle (or not so subtle) feedback from LE. In other words, a witness who at first isn't particularly confident about an identifying a suspect in a criminal case might be very confident by the time that witness hits the courtroom.

I remember TG talking once about how CF's confidence in her identification seemed to lessen over time. And I started wondering if the phenomenon I described above might work in reverse. CF's report of seeing RG was immediately dismissed, IIRC, as not fitting the "Lewisburg timeline."

If CF approached LE confident in her identification, might her confidence have been lessened by their dismissal? Just wondering.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, we already have a citation. On the morning of 4/17/05, Sunday, the story was not on television in Lewisburg, in the newspaper nor on their web sites. That is not unusual.

I'm sorry, the "power of suggestion" doesn't work either. They were not all "hypnotized" by the media. Further, until the witness realized that the man he saw was missing, why would he report it or think anything about it? :rolleyes:

If I had seen RFG on 4/18/05, I wouldn't know he was missing until there was a media report. I would not recognize him from his name.

Actually, I think TG said the opposite; it was weaker first (though you should be aware that studies don't show a correspondence between accuracy and confidence). From what I can tell, it does fit the time line, unless there are a lot more Lewisburg 4/15/05 witnesses.

[UndertheRadar]

That this witness was "100%" certain it was RG isn't persuasive, either. There's no correlation between witness certainty and a valid identification.


Obviously I'm aware there's no correspondence between accuracy and confidence. That's why I mentioned it in post #2 of this thread in relation to the WB witness' 100% confidence in identification.

Compare the sequence of events in WB vs. the sequence of events in Texas.

In Texas, the woman who saw the RG lookalike saw media reports/photos of RG prior to the sighting. In the restaurant, she saw a man she believed resembled the man she had previously seen in those media reports. Her memory and identification, therefore, we not infected or distorted after the sighting by viewing media reports or photos. Her identification was still invalid, but it was not tainted by media.

In WB, the police officer talked with the suited man in the bar and by your own words, JJ, thought nothing of it until, a few days later, he viewed media reports and photos of RG. His identification, therefore, had the opportunity to be infected or distorted by these reports/photos.

It's immaterial that the officer didn't know RG was missing at the time. The only material fact is that his identification could have been tainted. Information acquired from various sources, including media reports, is an important influence causing invalid eyewitness identifications, especially in MP cases.

My memory re CF is that TG said CF's confidence grew weaker as time went on. I think it's quite possible being told her sighting didn't fit the timeline may have caused that weakening confidence.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the witness might not have seen a photo of RFG for a few days. It wasn't until after that, obviously, that he recognized it as RFG. The bartender didn't even see it in the media.

You make an assumption that everybody on the planet, well at least in PA, suddenly realized that RFG was missing, when the police had the press conference, or when the story first appeared on the Internet. They didn't.

Bennett, et al., didn't look at the man and say, "Oh, that's the guy that's missing," because he didn't know that RFG was missing. A guy in SE PA generally isn't going to be looking at Centre County stories, unless he has a link to Centre County.

[UndertheRadar]

You appear to be missing the point, JJ, so let me try again.


It's immaterial that the officer didn't know RG was missing at the time. The only material fact is that his identification could have been tainted [by seeing media reports].

The sequence is what matters. Sighting first. Seeing media reports/photos after sighting.

That sequence makes the media reports/photos after-acquired information. After-acquired information can easily taint witness memory and identification validity, and it includes not only media reports/photos, but also any information the witness acquires after the sighting and before the identification is recorded. (If we're talking about ID in a criminal case, it can include any information acquired before a witness testifies in court.)

Let's look only at the cop in WB for a moment and ask some questions. We know for a fact he viewed media reports with photos of RG as a trigger for the ID, and photos and video footage when speaking to the authorities about his identification.

1) What information, specifically, was contained in those media reports and video footage?

We don't know that for certain. But those reports could have contained information that tainted the witness' memory of the conversation he had with the suited gentleman in the bar in WB. Study after study has proven that witness memory for events can be entirely distorted by after-acquired information.

2) Did the witness research any reports on RG other than the "trigger" media?

The sighting was April 18. The "trigger" media report was a few days later. After the trigger event, did the witness go on-line and research any other information about RG that may have tainted his memory and identification? We don't know.

3) With whom did he speak before he called authorities to report the sightings?

Did he talk with his wife, neighbors, friends, other family members, other LE folks before reporting the sighting? If so, did anything they had to say play any role in memory distortion?

4) What specific police procedures were used in dealing with this witness (and others)?

We don't know.

****

Witnesses generally don't recognize that their memories have been distorted or tainted by information acquired after the sighting. We can't even begin to assess that one factor alone in the WB sighting without answers to questions like the above, and IMHO, there is no way we'll ever have most of those answers.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yet something did trigger that, and there was no reported connection between W-B and RFG. The cop wasn't in Lewisburg and he was the first connection with RFG in W-B. There was no "power of suggestion" which has reached mythic proportions with some posters.

Certainly, two points that were reported could not have been suggested by the reporting, the smoking and the suit. His was the first report.

The only real question is, if this sighting is correct, where did RFG get the means to leave Lewisburg and get to Wilkes-Barre.

[J. J. in Phila]

I just checked varies archives, DC, Post Gazette, CDT copied an online, Nancy Grace, and Gretta van Susteren transcripts. There was no mention of the scent of cigarette smoke until after the witness reported seeing him smoking in Wilkes-Barre. The earliest I saw was 4/30/05.

The witnesses credibility just went up a notch.

[Serendipitous1]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/16/ng.01.html) And after I looked at a variety of photographs in different forms of dress, it makes me relatively sure that he was here around noon time on Saturday.

[J. J. in Phila]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/16/ng.01.html) And after I looked at a variety of photographs in different forms of dress, it makes me relatively sure that he was here around noon time on Saturday.

Not sure of the relevance to Wilkes Barre, if any.

[sherrijean981]

And it's important not to forget that many of the witnesses were shown photos of Gricar and IIRC, some were even shown the courthouse surveillance video....

A *STRONG* power of suggestion IMO.


I have never seen anything about the courthouse surveillance video being shown to witnesses. Where is the link to that info?

[UndertheRadar]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/16/ng.01.html) And after I looked at a variety of photographs in different forms of dress, it makes me relatively sure that he was here around noon time on Saturday.

What this suggests to me is that at least with Bennett (I assume Bennett is "Unidentified Male") one technique used by LE was to show him multiple photos of RG dressed in different clothing.

From the Boston Task Force on Eyewitness Evidence: "Viewing repeated images has a tendency to blur the witness' memory of the actual perpetrator's face."

If viewing repeated images tends to blur a witness' memory of a perpetrator's face, it stands to reason it would blue a witness' memory of a person sighted in an MP case.

[J. J. in Phila]

I have never seen anything about the courthouse surveillance video being shown to witnesses. Where is the link to that info?


I've heard about some out of town witnesses seeing video, but not a specific video. There was almost definitely news video of RFG.

I know that Fenton saw the Courthouse video.

[J. J. in Phila]

For now, Bennett is not the witness I'm focusing on.

[UndertheRadar]

This may not be what S1 intended, but the relevance of S1's quote to WB, as I see it, is that in both Lewisburg and in WB, witnesses were shown repeated images of RG.

Bennett and the WB witnesses may both have had their identifications tainted by similiar LE procedures.

This may be true for ALL the witnesses.

[J. J. in Phila]

The LE witness identified something else, that he didn't get from the media. Cigarette smoking. The smoke and ash were not reported when he talked to LE.

And remember, UTR, he recogned RFG before seeing any police photos.

[J. J. in Phila]

I just found a truly bizarre quote from 2006. It regarded RFG's law license being placed on inactive status:

"If you're not around, you can't do your continuing education," Goodall said Tuesday evening. "When he gets back, he's going to have to get caught up."

Note the "when." And it's followed by this:



Goodall said Lara Gricar still has hope that her father will eventually be found alive.

"Absolutely," he said. "Lara has never given up hope."

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=122775&threadid=737159

[UndertheRadar]

No one has ever identified RG as the smoker who left the ashes or the smoke smell in the Mini Cooper. If anything has been reported in the media about smoking and RG, it is that he disliked cigarette smoking and would not permit anyone to smoke in the Mini.

Identifying that a suited man sat in a bar with a cigarette in his hand is not a particularly difficult thing!

If RG had been a smoker, and THAT fact had been unreported, it would have lent more credence to the identification. Hard to see how someone reporting a man smoking in a bar as RG when RG was a non-smoker ups the ante on credibility. That and the kind of beer the suited man was drinking were two reasons the family tended to think the WB sightings were not RG.

Yes, the cop in WB decided he recognized RG before viewing whatever photos investigators showed him. But AFTER seeing photos in media reports. That doesn't change a thing. Repeated images shown by investigators would only amount to further after-acquired information.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, no one reported smoking on 4/22/05. There is evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg in the Mini, and evidence of someone was smoking in the car. There is a witness report of RFG smoking later. The witness didn't know anything about that evidence.

That is one heck of a coincidence. Too much of a coincidence.

The cop remembered the man, and upon seeing the story, which had no relation to the location or circumstances, identified the face.

[gstickley]

The smell of cigarette smoke & the ashes in the Mini apparently surprised PF; apparently, RG didn't allow anyone to smoke in the vehicle. If RG & PF were as "close" as has been reported, I seriously doubt if RG were a "closet smoker", as any none smoker like PF would have easily recognized the smell on him and/or his clothing. There has been no report of RG ever smoking in the past.

Are we now saying RG took up smoking to 'throw off' people after his grand escape? I suppose RG going into a bar & smoking was part of his "YITMAMPWT". Maybe he found a secret place to stay on 04/16-17 just to practice the smoking habit to 'throw off' everyone, then hightailed it to a bar in Wilkes-Barre to be seen smoking by a cop. Naturally, he would talk about the Cleveland Indians, since everyone back home knew what a fan he was, but it would 'throw off' people into thinking it really wasn't him.

That "YITMAMPWT" ought to go down in history as the "greatest escape plan" ever thought up; of course, that's probably what RG was wanting, hoping that books would be written, movies would be made, & he would ever live in infamy! After all, he had hung around Lewisburg a day & a half or two to make sure he'd be seen by all those "witnesses"; the "sighting" by a cop in Wilkes-Barre, who could/would never make a mistake, was just the icing on the cake.

Also, it's possible that RG walked to Wilkes-Barre, while wearing a 3-piece suit underneath the blue fleece & jeans, therefore not needing a vehicle to make his great escape. Or maybe he had hidden a mini-bike or bicycle in the trees at the SOS; wonder if anyone ever checked on sales of those? :tonguewag:

[UndertheRadar]

Are we now saying RG took up smoking to 'throw off' people after his grand escape? I suppose RG going into a bar & smoking was part of his "YITMAMPWT". Maybe he found a secret place to stay on 04/16-17 just to practice the smoking habit to 'throw off' everyone, then hightailed it to a bar in Wilkes-Barre to be seen smoking by a cop. Naturally, he would talk about the Cleveland Indians, since everyone back home knew what a fan he was, but it would 'throw off' people into thinking it really wasn't him.


That's what we're saying, well some of us, at any rate. And part of that plan includes smoking as disguise, because apparently you can hide your face by smoking a cigarette. (Seriously, have you ever not recognized a smoker because he/she raised a cigarette to his/her mouth?)

Meanwhile, you're dressed like an attorney and talking about the Cleveland Indians.

Not very clever if that's a disguise.

[gstickley]

That's what we're saying, well some of us, at any rate. And part of that plan includes smoking as disguise, because apparently you can hide your face by smoking a cigarette. (Seriously, have you ever not recognized a smoker because he/she raised a cigarette to his/her mouth?)

Meanwhile, you're dressed like an attorney and talking about the Cleveland Indians.

Not very clever if that's a disguise.

It's all part of the "YITMAMPWT"; probably called a disguise within a disguise within a disguise. (I especially like the "hide your face by smoking a cigarette"; see it happen all the time.)

[Serendipitous1]

Wilkes-Barre sighting: (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496950.stm) They spoke for only about five minutes, but the man made enough of an impression that the person he'd spoken to realized four days later that he'd talked to missing Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar...After police began investigating the man's claims, they found another witness from the same place who corroborated the sighting...[DD] said both witnesses, after viewing photographs and video of Gricar, were 100 percent sure that's who they saw.

Michigan sighting: (http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3783.html) The male witness was e-mailed eight photos from Bellefonte police in the last week which included a picture of Gricar as well as several other similar-looking men. The witness picked out Gricar's picture, Zaccagni said. But, according to Bellefonte Detective Tom Thal, both witnesses had been researching Gricar's disappearance on the Internet and had looked at several photos of Gricar before looking at the photo lineup sent by Bellefonte police.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure that video was the Courthouse video.

[UndertheRadar]

Wilkes-Barre sighting: (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496950.stm) They spoke for only about five minutes, but the man made enough of an impression that the person he'd spoken to realized four days later that he'd talked to missing Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar...After police began investigating the man's claims, they found another witness from the same place who corroborated the sighting...[DD] said both witnesses, after viewing photographs and video of Gricar, were 100 percent sure that's who they saw.

Michigan sighting: (http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3783.html) The male witness was e-mailed eight photos from Bellefonte police in the last week which included a picture of Gricar as well as several other similar-looking men. The witness picked out Gricar's picture, Zaccagni said. But, according to Bellefonte Detective Tom Thal, both witnesses had been researching Gricar's disappearance on the Internet and had looked at several photos of Gricar before looking at the photo lineup sent by Bellefonte police.

Bolding mine.

Thank you, S1. Confirmation of some of the police procedures used (as well as other after-acquired information in the Michigan sighting).

Repeating here the idea that eyewitness memory is like other trace evidence and can be lost, degraded, destroyed, etc.--therefore needs to be handled carefully and in specific ways to be valid and useful. A scientific approach in the collection and analysis of that evidence is necessary.

Procedures above are not in line with recommendations made by the DOJ and various police task force studies based on that scientific approach.

[Politigal]

Wilkes-Barre sighting: (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496950.stm) They spoke for only about five minutes, but the man made enough of an impression that the person he'd spoken to realized four days later that he'd talked to missing Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar...After police began investigating the man's claims, they found another witness from the same place who corroborated the sighting...[DD] said both witnesses, after viewing photographs and video of Gricar, were 100 percent sure that's who they saw.

Michigan sighting: (http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3783.html) The male witness was e-mailed eight photos from Bellefonte police in the last week which included a picture of Gricar as well as several other similar-looking men. The witness picked out Gricar's picture, Zaccagni said. But, according to Bellefonte Detective Tom Thal, both witnesses had been researching Gricar's disappearance on the Internet and had looked at several photos of Gricar before looking at the photo lineup sent by Bellefonte police.

I knew I recalled they were shown *video* of Gricar...and it stands to reason that it was probably the courthouse surveillance video with the exact outfit that Gricar was reported missing in.

[J. J. in Phila]

I knew I recalled they were shown *video* of Gricar...and it stands to reason that it was probably the courthouse surveillance video with the exact outfit that Gricar was reported missing in.

No it doesn't. Mr. Gricar was a public figure and had appeared in news stories for two decades. They may have used multiple tapes, including those with his voice.

[UndertheRadar]

Multiple tapes would just be another example of viewing repeated images and blurring witness memory.

[Serendipitous1]

Central Pa. prosecutor reported missing (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/16/import/14361514.txt), published by The Times Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005
checked hospitals and roads possibly traveled; driving red and white Mini Cooper; last seen wearing a blue fleece-type jacket, jeans and sneakers.

Police search by land and air for missing Central Pa. prosecutor (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/16/import/14362351.txt), By Mark Scolforo, AP Writer; published by The Times-Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005
officials checking whether Gricar took off, spur of the moment, to go to a Cleveland Indians game, as he did a few years before; Indians game at home on Saturday.

Some more details on the RG-SS friendship. (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/21/import/14393085.txt)

[Politigal]

I wonder why no mention of Sloane's wife being in the mix....

:glare:

[UndertheRadar]

Central Pa. prosecutor reported missing (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/16/import/14361514.txt), published by The Times Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005
checked hospitals and roads possibly traveled; driving red and white Mini Cooper; last seen wearing a blue fleece-type jacket, jeans and sneakers.

Police search by land and air for missing Central Pa. prosecutor (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/16/import/14362351.txt), By Mark Scolforo, AP Writer; published by The Times-Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005
officials checking whether Gricar took off, spur of the moment, to go to a Cleveland Indians game, as he did a few years before; Indians game at home on Saturday.

Some more details on the RG-SS friendship. (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/21/import/14393085.txt)

Bolding mine.

Thank you, S1.

I asked earlier on this thread, "After the trigger event, did the witness go on-line and research any other information about RG that may have tainted his memory and identification? We don't know."

For all we know, the cop (and/or the bartender) could have seen or heard this report after the sighting, and it could have infected the memory of the encounter. For all we know, the suited man in the bar wasn't even an Indians' fan but a fan of some other team.

Just keep in mind the Sund/Pelosso case where at least three witnesses swore sighting encounters had references to Argentina and to one of the girls not being the older woman's daughter but a visiting friend from Argentina. Infected memory!

[Serendipitous1]

My point was the date and the media market...but in fact, the AP news articles were picked up all over PA. I wonder how likely it is that any of the "witnesses" in this case had not read or heard about the missing DA...even seeing a media photo of RG...before talking to LE.

[gstickley]

Central Pa. prosecutor reported missing (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/16/import/14361514.txt), published by The Times Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005
(snip)

Police search by land and air for missing Central Pa. prosecutor (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2005/04/16/import/14362351.txt), By Mark Scolforo, AP Writer; published by The Times-Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005
(snip)


Scranton? Scranton??? Are you sure, S1? I didn't think there was any weekend news in the area. I'm sure I've read that . . . over & over & over again! :tonguewag:

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the cop obviously didn't see the report on 4/18, because he was on the road. He could have heard RFG's name, but unless the the man in the suit had a name tag that said, "Hi, I'm Ray Gricar," there was no way to make that connection.

Scranton, S1, isn't Lewisburg. It is fairly distant.

[Serendipitous1]

UTR, the cop obviously didn't see the report on 4/18, because he was on the road. He could have heard RFG's name, but unless the the man in the suit had a name tag that said, "Hi, I'm Ray Gricar," there was no way to make that connection.

Scranton, S1, isn't Lewisburg. It is fairly distant.Wilkes-Barre is not Lewisburg either. The first news story went out Saturday, 4/16, most likely right after the late-afternoon press conference in Bellefonte (the car had not yet been reported found). The AP picked the story up and it spread all over...from Saturday on. I would not want to bet that any of the Lewisburg/Wilkes-Barre/SEPA "witnesses" had not seen or heard the story before being interviewed by LE.

And 19 months later, what did SW think of the sightings? Police have pursued a plethora of reported Gricar sightings, all discounted. (http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3801.html)

[J. J. in Phila]

Wilkes-Barre is not Lewisburg either. The first news story went out Saturday, 4/16, most likely right after the late-afternoon press conference in Bellefonte (the car had not yet been reported found). The AP picked the story up and it spread all over...from Saturday on. I would not want to bet that any of the Lewisburg/Wilkes-Barre/SEPA "witnesses" had not seen or heard the story before being interviewed by LE.

And 19 months later, what did SW think of the sightings? Police have pursued a plethora of reported Gricar sightings, all discounted. (http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3801.html)

S1, the same guy how said of RFG, "We can definitely put him here [Lewisburg] Saturday, too."

As cited, as of Sunday, 4/17/05, it hadn't spread to Lewisburg.

What hadn't spread anyplace was RFG in the parking lot across from the SoS, moving the car, RFG across from the Packwood Museum, moving the car, cigarette smoke and ash now associated with the case, and finally, the time line. Those were unknown at the time, yet the witnesses agree.

[UndertheRadar]

A Websleuths poster from Lewisburg had read an article about RG's disappearance by the evening of 4/17, so it had spread to Lewisburg by then.

Lewisburg has a population of just over 5,000 people, minus Bucknell University. A very small town.

What one person didn't read, another person might easily mention.

[J. J. in Phila]

I think very few of those 5,000 are going to be looking at an out of town newspaper on a Sunday morning. I also looked at the articles quoted; all were the CDT.

I also thing that most of the details were not published at that time. Nobody said anything about the time RFG was seen, for example. The Packwood Museum was not mentioned. No moving of the car.

The bulk of the early news story focused, early on, on Bennett's Saturday sighting. (I expect, if there was this mass hypnosis/contamination, you'd see it for Saturday, not Friday.)

Where did you see the first time line on witnesses? On these boards, last year, late summer, IIRC. Do you know when I got the time/location on McKnight's witness? Within the last 30 days.

[UndertheRadar]

How many people start their weekend mornings with coffee or tea and a trip through news sites on the internet, especially in a university community? I wouldn't be so quick to "doubt" that Union County people caught mention of a missing DA from a nearby county--who disappeared in UNION county.

And don't discount how little it takes to move information in a town the size of Lewisburg, especially on a spring weekend.

By Saturday evening, the poster on Freerepublic knew state police and other LE were gathered at the SOS and that there was a red and white Mini Cooper at the police barracks. He was on the FR site talking about the RG disappearance Sunday morning. Think other FR members were the only people he talked to about it? Nah. Doubtful. And how many other people saw the gathering at the SOS? How many checked out the CDT or other papers after asking friends or neighbors or family just what was going on down at the SOS??

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, circular reasoning. They can't "know" RFG disappeared in Union County until they read about it. I couldn't "know" RFG disappeared until I saw it on the news.

Oh, I know, the local paper put out a newspaper and a troop of newsboys stood on street corners all over Lewisburg yelling, "Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Centre DA missing!" The town crier of Lewisburg walked through the streets of Lewisburg ringing his bell. They sent out sound trucks!

Then everybody got together at the Courthouse and swapped stories.

That scenario, granted exaggerated, is what you want us to believe. I've lived in small towns, much smaller than Lewisburg, and no, the inhabitants don't sit around and swap stories at the general store. (Not to mention that one of the witnesses didn't actually live there.)

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you've asked why we're "stuck" in Lewisburg. You last post is your answer. As you can tell, I've moved on.

The earliest reference I found to the Packwood Museum sighting was 4/29/05.

[UndertheRadar]

Not circular reasoning at all, JJ. I'm suggesting that people are browsing the web and catch a mention of something that happened in their county, the same way the poster at Websleuths found it on Sunday morning. Browsing the web and finding a mention on Sunday morning.

And yes, word gets around small towns all the time. Maybe you lacked the network others have when you lived in a small town, but I see it happen all the time. Some teenager can't get arrested for speeding or some drunk picked up on the back road without word spreading--much less a gathering of state cops in a parking lot on a Saturday night. It's not Philadelphia.

But look, the bottom line on all this, because there's really no sense in nitpicking every last detail to death:

Yes, all of the witnesses in Lewisburg and both of the witnesses in WB could be wrong. In fact, it's more likely than not that they are. I'm already seeing things in the reports S1 has posted that demonstrate PA's failure to keep up with the science of handling eyewitness memory effectively (not surprising given the 2005 study of PA jurisdictions).

There are simply no compelling reasons to believe these witnesses are the rare witnesses in a MP case which are miraculously mostly or entirely right.

[J. J. in Phila]

Unless they are in the immediate area of the SoS, they won't see the state police. and they won't all be running out to exchange stories. The FRepper happened to be driving past and didn't know what it was until the next day.

"Word" gets around, but not details. And the first things to come out were not about Friday, but Saturday.

I asked a bit ago: "For those folks that say he wasn’t there on that day, I say produce some counter evidence that he was someplace else or that he could not have been there. Not speculation, actual counter evidence." That is still lacking. I'm not talking about a 1 in 1000 shot that they might be wrong, but something solid.

The only reason we are "stuck" in Lewisburg is because of posts like your last one.