Thurs., Mar. 19, 2009

[gstickley]

Only 25 days until 4 years will have passed since Ray Gricar was last seen & positively identified. That's a long time.

It occurred to me that maybe RG is still in the area. He might never have left in the first place since the "means of escape" is the only missing link. He might be walking around in his 3-piece suit, smoking a cigarette so you can't see his face, & talking to everyone he knows about the Indians. He's probably been seen numerous times by numerous people who haven't recognized him in disguise. The "YITMAMPWT" is working!

Check out the different "Missing In Pennsylvania" websites. RG isn't listed in a couple. Why is that?

[UndertheRadar]

Today in cyberspace we read an argument which goes in something like this: the Lewisburg witnesses as a whole are solid in part because they could not have had contact with each other. The argument cites the Brownlee case (overturned because the judge severely limited what evidence an expert in eyewitness testimony was allowed to bring to the courtroom) in which police procedures allowed several witnesses to meet each other. Then the argument moves to the RG case and posits that the witnesses in Lewisburg would only have had contact if they a) worked together or b) got together in a room someplace.

I'd like to deal with that argument here, because it's a small part of the argument we've seen on this board again and again, the claim that all of the Lewisburg witnesses can't be wrong.

Like so many aspects of eyewitness testimony, the issue of whether witness identification is truly independent of other witnesses has been studied, and those studies have found that direct contact is not the only way identification by one witness can influence identification by other witnesses. (And we're talking about identification here as the critical issue, not additional details such as the MW.)

Even on the direct contact issue, the current cyberspace argument seems short-sighted. Work contact or getting together in a room somewhere would not be the only way witnesses in the case could possibly have contact with each other. Lewisburg is a small town Pennsylvania, and as is clear from some of the posts on Freerepublic and elsewhere, by Saturday night/Sunday morning, residents of Lewisburg knew something was afoot having to do with a missing district attorney from Centre County.

That certain witnesses did not work together is ultimately meaningless in a small town. What's to say Witness A's spouse didn't work with the spouse of Witness B, or that Witness C didn't live down the street from Witness D, or that children of certain witnesses didn't attend the same schools, or that certain witnesses didn't attend the same church, or have children on the same Little League team, or in the same 4-H program . . . or . . . or . . . . There are literally dozens and dozens of ways that people in small towns in Pennsylvania can be connected to each other. They don't need to work together or get together in the same room to have contact.

And as the studies on this issue have shown, their identifications can be influenced without their knowledge simply by the way in which investigators handle the witnesses. If Witness B has even the smallest inkling that Witness A identified his/her sighting as "RG," that smallest inkling alone can influence the identification of Witness B. Guidelines suggest that a "blind" investigator administer such questioning, IOW someone who himself/herself does not know the identity of the person the witnesses are trying to identify.

Were the witnesses questioned by someone who could identify RG from a photo, or by someone who did not himself/herself recognize RG? If the former, the opportunity for one witness' identification to influence the identification of another witness existed.

[Chump#7]

Clear as a bell, UtR.:thumbsup:

Heh... Having little skepticism of eyewitnesses identifying a person in a car, from chest up, possibly wearing sunglasses!, whilst moving! Windows up?

Yeah, I'd take that ID to the bank. Rock solid stuff, that.

I couldn't honestly trust my own identification of a driver from 5 ft. 20/20 here.

[UndertheRadar]

Clear as a bell, UtR.:thumbsup:

Heh... Having little skepticism of eyewitnesses identifying a person in a car, from chest up, possibly wearing sunglasses!, whilst moving! Windows up?

Yeah, I'd take that ID to the bank. Rock solid stuff, that.

I couldn't honestly trust my own identification of a driver from 5 ft. 20/20 here.

Thanks, Chump.

Good to see you around these parts.

Wait. Is that you behind those Foster Grants? :unsure:

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you still don't understand. Each group witnesses didn't know that the other group existed when they were questioned. One of them was driving through Lewisburg.

Alvey didn't know about RFG moving the car in the lot or the Packwood Museum sighting. Nobody knew about McKnight's witness.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, with all due respect, it is you who does not understand.

Each witness could be hermetically sealed, and witness identification could still be infected.

Witness contact is not the only way identification by one witness can influence identification by other witnesses.

[gstickley]

I didn't want this lost in case the 03/18 thread gets locked.

It appears there actually IS news published on weekends in Pennsylvania, contrary to what we've heard time & time again!!!! :tonguewag:

Thank, S1.


Central Pa. prosecutor reported missing, published by The Times Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005

Police search by land and air for missing Central Pa. prosecutor, By Mark Scolforo, AP Writer; published by The Times-Tribune (Scranton), Saturday, April 16, 2005

[J. J. in Phila]

You do realize that Scranton is actually further away from Lewisburg than Bellefonte, don't you GS?

You do realize that the cop wasn't from the Scranton area, don't you GS?

[gstickley]

Whoa, it seems the information on RG's earlier trip to the Cleveland Indians ballgame had made the news prior to 04/18/05, according to Chief Dixon.

Reported Sighting Raises Hopes (Gricar - Missing DA)
Centre Daily Times (website) ^ | Sat, Apr. 30, 2005 | Erin L. Nissley

BELLEFONTE -- A man who told police he saw missing District Attorney Ray Gricar in Wilkes-Barre on April 18 said they talked briefly about baseball while watching a game on television.

Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon provided a few details at a news conference Friday of the possible sighting of Gricar at a business in the Highland Park Boulevard area of Wilkes-Barre three days after the prosecutor disappeared.

"Right now, we're taking it as a credible report," Dixon said. "Am I 100 percent sure it is? No, I am not."
(snip)

The man who said he talked to Gricar in Wilkes-Barre said Gricar wore a suit and did not appear to be with anyone.

"He said the man talked about how much he liked the Cleveland Indians and that was where he was from," Dixon said. The police chief refused to identify in what business the conversation took place, saying he doesn't want to create a media frenzy there.

There was no information on whether the man had seen earlier news reports about Gricar's disappearance that made mention of a theory that Gricar had taken an impromptu trip to a Cleveland Indians game. The possibility was mentioned the day after Gricar's disappearance by friends who said he had gone to an Indians game several years ago, without telling anyone where he was going.
(snip)

[J. J. in Phila]

That still isn't enough. The person seen could have been 5' 5" inches, 225 pounds, and completely bald, but he wasn't. The man looked like Ray Gricar.

[puzzled]

Last year I went into a jewelry shop that I had never been in before. The sales lady talked to me as if she knew me. She asked me questions that did not mean anything to me...like how is so and so. After a few minutes I told her that I had never been in that store before and that I had never met her before. She looked at me so strangely and then she had to sit down. She acted really strangely and she said mam you have been in here many times and your name is Brenda! I said no...I am new to the area and I have never once been in this store! She was shocked! She turned white! I really don't think she believed me! Clearly I have a look alike in the area! She said that Brenda could be my identical twin!! However I am not a twin! I think it just shows that often times there are people who look alot alike! :biggrin:

[J. J. in Phila]

But were you driving "Brenda's" car and talking about the same things as "Brenda?"

Yes, I've been mistaken for other people (and sometimes it is cross racial misidentification). Never by two (or more) people at the same time. Never did anyone say that I drove the same car as the person they thought I was. Never did they say we talked about my favorite subjects.

[Politigal]

Gawd....it seems we're back to Jane Curtin and Dan Akroyd again.

Point/Counterpoint

IMO, it's a simple fact - lots of people look just like other people.

In this case, *NO ONE* made an absoluite/positive/100% ID of Ray Gricar....no one.

There is nothing absolute after the Thursday night courthouse surveillance video...nothing.

[J. J. in Phila]

P'gal, in terms of what the witnesses said, at lest two did, in Wilkes-Barre.

100% is not "reasonable doubt."

Today, I said this, "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."

Well, where is it?

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, if I'm not mistaken (and I'm not), you're the one who twice yesterday saw me mention that there's no correlation between witness certainty and validity of identification--then turned around and told me I should be aware there was no correlation.

If you truly understand that concept, why are you touting the WB witnesses' 100% certainty as not reasonable doubt?

There's plenty of reasonable doubt since, as you told me I should be aware, there's no correlation between witness certainty and validity of identification.

We know there was potential exposure to the detail regarding RG's love of the Cleveland Indians. Doesn't matter if that exposure happened before the sighting. After-acquired information is potent. The "memory" of discussing the Cleveland Indians could be a factor of that exposure (the same way people remember seeing buildings that weren't there, mustaches that weren't there, curly hair that was straight, etc., all because of after-acquired information). And yes, it could have happened to both witnesses, since that's what the studies showed, many people claiming they had seen things they actually hadn't because of post-sighting information.

We also know that both witnesses viewed multiple photos and video footage, opening the door for blurring of witness memory.

And we don't have any information, either in Lewisburg or in WB, about lighting conditions and position of the light source, angle of view, whether witnesses deliberately studied the face, the last time each witness had his/her eyes checked, and a host of factors concerning investigative techniques.

Way too presumptuous to assume any of these witness sightings could even potentially be valid based on what we do, and do not, know about them.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I was answering P'gal's question. Two witnesses made an "an absolute/positive/100% ID of Ray Gricar." The question isn't if the witnesses are sure; the question if they are accurate. They are sure.

[Cloudbuster]

I have been accused of being Monica Lewinsky, lol and no Im not kidding. My So and I was in Eat-n-park when 2 little old ladies approached me and asked me if I was Monica. I thought I was about to be hit with purses. I told them no Im not her. Ignorantly as if they was implying a compliment -at which I felt insulted -they went on about you look exactly like her. :( yea I agree sometimes we all have a twin look alike out there. I would think about the possiblity (if this is foul play) that a perptrator or helper of a killer might resemble Ray. That might be a big clue if this turns out foul play. Even if walk away the possibilty is a helper might resemble RG.
Maybe when RG decides to except his pension and his medicare ect. and he comes out of the no place to hide society (the society of survillance craze), we might then have our answer. If he is out there then I'd say he is living off the land in the backwoods, perhaps amishly.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm honestly not sure if his pension, or some of the money from it, isn't being paid out.

[UndertheRadar]

So that would make, what, Lara part of a conspiracy to cover up a walkaway? :rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Not necessarily, UTR. In theory, at least, she could apply for the pension, or at least some money from it. I have not looked at RFG's finances at least in regard to pension benefits. Have you?

I cannot say for sure that she has not applied or has access to it. That information is unreleased.