Sat. & Sun. 03/21/09, 3/22

[gstickley]

Psychic's Leads Investigated
(snip)
Bellefonte, (PRWEB) June 5, 2005 --
(snip)
Reports of Gricar sightings in Wilkes-Barre also have not panned out. Zaccagni said the most recent sighting of Gricar comes out of Michigan, and like other leads, officers are following up, even though there is a strong likelihood it will turn out to be yet another red herring.
(snip)

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/6/prweb247770.php

(Bolding above is mine.) This site also mentions the vehicle seen following following RG and "a short list of suspects".

[UndertheRadar]

Reports of Gricar sightings in Wilkes-Barre also have not panned out. Zaccagni said the most recent sighting of Gricar comes out of Michigan, and like other leads, officers are following up, even though there is a strong likelihood it will turn out to be yet another red herring.


Thanks for this find, GS. It's interesting in light of the fact that we've been told DZ confirmed 7 witnesses in Lewisburg and in light of the push to add credibility to the WB sightings. DZ's level of certainty seems to waffle depending on whom he's talking to, since in this report he says, ""There's absolutely no evidence," of Gricar's vanishing.

And yet we've been told again and again that there is evidence, with statements like this: "There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that sometime a [sic] 11:30 AM on 4/15/05 and 5:30 PM on 4/15/05, RFG got to Lewisburg. That evidence is both the physical traces, scent and prints, and witness accounts, from Lewisburg. We should be concentrating on what happened after he got to Lewisburg. That is about facing the reality of the evidence" (JJ, 11-13-2006, 03:23 AM).

And we've been told on a locked thread in the last day or so that it's essentially time to move beyond Lewisburg, presumably to WB.

When I asked, "Why are we stuck in Lewisburg?", however, I didn't mean "Why can't we move beyond Lewisburg?" I meant "Why are we sure RG was ever there in the first place?"

I'm not ready to move beyond Lewisburg until we can be sure we get to Lewisburg. And for what it's worth, I've always been interested in the tan car mentioned in this article. Not the one Baron has seen in her visions, but the one reported to Milton police:

State police reports of witness accounts also note a similar scene, Zaccagni said. They describe someone leaning in to talk to the driver before the car pulls away abruptly.

The very earliest reports of this were that it occurred on Route 80. I read it, and IIRC, Logic read it as well. Then those reports disappeared.

[UndertheRadar]

I am most interested in the occurrences that were seen but there has been no further mention of it.

At that time, and at this time, I see nothing there that proves RG was the driver of the vehicle. I continue to believe that if someone saw something that day, on April 15th, that they did not see RG being pursued. They saw someone trying to determine how to get the car where it was found parked, and the person leaning in was directing the driver, who I continue to believe was not RG.
JMO

If what you sense is correct, it would be in line with a potential theory I've been playing with.

I continue to believe there is no objective, hard evidence that RG was ever in Lewisburg. I remain open to the possibility that he may have been, but I am concerned that the scene was staged by someone who knew him well in an effort to divert police attention.

Relative to the witnesses in Lewisburg: the Innocence Project says of eyewitness identifications

Inaccurate eyewitness identifications can confound investigations from the earliest stages. Critical time is lost while police are distracted from the real perpetrator, focusing instead on building the case against an innocent person.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/165.php

Rewritten to apply to a missing persons' case, the RG case in particular, that might well read

Inaccurate eyewitness identifications can confound investigations from the earliest stages. Critical time is lost while police are distracted from investigating potential foul play, focusing instead on suicide and voluntary walkaway theories.

[Serendipitous1]

Just a friendly reminder for all to consider what the "PR" in PRWeb actually means, the root source of the information (including quotes), and the overall gist of the "article". This also applies to ArriveNET.

In the "article" cited above (and at least one other still floating around), consider whether the purported statements and quotes sound like things DZ might say, or if they appear to be made up. Hints: these are labeled as press releases under the respective entertainment section...and you do not have to be "psychic" to realize the truth. Here are a few examples:

- "The little things have come back to be verified".
- "There's absolutely no evidence" of Gricar's vanishing.
- "We'll check it out". [But the Michigan sighting (like the W-B and other sightings)] will likely be yet another red herring.

- "We know they're out there doing it at the direction of Carla and the family" [CB's volunteer, cadaver-dog search group].
- Since the search is not a police investigation, any evidence discovered is not vulernable to the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine" [regarding illegal searches and seizures].

[UndertheRadar]

Just a friendly reminder for all to consider what the "PR" in PRWeb actually means, the root source of the information (including quotes), and the overall gist of the "article". This also applies to ArriveNET.

In the "article" cited above (and at least one other still floating around), consider whether the purported statements and quotes sound like things DZ might say, or if they appear to be made up. Hints: these are labeled as press releases under the respective entertainment section...and you do not have to be "psychic" to realize the truth. Here are a few examples:

- "The little things have come back to be verified".
- "There's absolutely no evidence" of Gricar's vanishing.
- "We'll check it out". [But the Michigan sighting (like the W-B and other sightings)] will likely be yet another red herring.

- "We know they're out there doing it at the direction of Carla and the family" [CB's volunteer, cadaver-dog search group].
- Since the search is not a police investigation, any evidence discovered is not vulernable to the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine" [regarding illegal searches and seizures].

Reminder noted. Perhaps a good explanation for what I mentioned above, DZ's level of certainty changing depending on whom he's talking to. Renner's breathless DZ does not sound at all like this DZ. Meanwhile, I'm sure most of us have heard the "real" DZ interviewed on local news video.

[Serendipitous1]

Reminder noted. Perhaps a good explanation for what I mentioned above, DZ's level of certainty changing depending on whom he's talking to. Renner's breathless DZ does not sound at all like this DZ. Meanwhile, I'm sure most of us have heard the "real" DZ interviewed on local news video.I never liked Renner's piece. But DZ did say the darndest things sometimes. Example: He thought it unlikely RG just left and "is living off a sugar momma" (http://www.centredaily.com/138/story/3785.html).

This same article is the only one I remember mentioning an interstate and brown sedan sighting. But IIRC, logicworks once said this was not the one she remembered seeing.

[UndertheRadar]

I never liked Renner's piece. But DZ did say the darndest things sometimes. Example: He thought it unlikely RG just left and "is living off a sugar momma" (http://www.centredaily.com/138/story/3785.html).

This same article is the only one I remember mentioning an interstate and brown sedan sighting. But IIRC, logicworks once said this was not the one she remembered seeing.

I think my personal DZ favorite from that particular piece is the one about how PF will deal later with what RG is doing to her. (What? No room for the possibility that something was done to RG? That always bothered me.)

Like Logic, I remember reading about an interstate and a tan sedan sighting somewhere other than this article, but whatever I read disappeared early on. Can't remember more than that, unfortunately.

[gstickley]

(snip)
I'm not ready to move beyond Lewisburg until we can be sure we get to Lewisburg. And for what it's worth, I've always been interested in the tan car mentioned in this article. Not the one Baron has seen in her visions, but the one reported to Milton police:

State police reports of witness accounts also note a similar scene, Zaccagni said. They describe someone leaning in to talk to the driver before the car pulls away abruptly.

The very earliest reports of this were that it occurred on Route 80. I read it, and IIRC, Logic read it as well. Then those reports disappeared.

I also remember reading about the Rt. 80 sighting with the construction worker leaning in the Mini, but I didn't know where Rt. 80 was. Don't know if I read it in a news report or on our board or one of the others; just know I read it. I gave this sighting a lot of credence because it was reported by SP in Milton & I trusted the SP.

I don't know which came first but I remember it as later, the sighting with the construction worker leaning in the Mini occurring on the SOS parking lot came about. After that, nothing was ever mentioned about the Rt. 80 sighting except by message board posters.

Could never understand what happened to Rt. 80 sighting, just like I could never understand the Raystown Dam sighting (mentioned by DZ) or the Shikellemy Park sighting (mentioned by Thal): mentioned by LE once, then never heard about again.

Could the reason these sightings were never mentioned again be because they didn't occur in Lewisburg . . . & everything HAD to have occurred in Lewisburg???

[gstickley]

I am most interested in the occurrences that were seen but there has been no further mention of it.

At that time, and at this time, I see nothing there that proves RG was the driver of the vehicle. I continue to believe that if someone saw something that day, on April 15th, that they did not see RG being pursued. They saw someone trying to determine how to get the car where it was found parked, and the person leaning in was directing the driver, who I continue to believe was not RG.
JMO

Found in "Crimeshots"
Associated Press, Genaro C. Armos
06/13/05
Centre Daily Times
"Use of Psychics Rare Among Police, But Many Are Open To Idea"

"Some of her descriptions have matched some unpublished witness accounts from police reports, Zaccagni said. Among them: reports that Gricar was seen getting in another car in Lewisburg, and the type of vehicle; and the fact that a trace amount of cigarette ash was found on the floor of Gricar's Mini Cooper when it was found. Gricar was not a smoker."

(Bolding is mine. gs)

[UndertheRadar]

Could the reason these sightings were never mentioned again be because they didn't occur in Lewisburg . . . & everything HAD to have occurred in Lewisburg???

Let's add the CF sighting, not revealed for a year or so. Dismissed immediately because it didn't fit the Lewisburg scenario. IMHO, keeping everything in Lewisburg may very well have played into "someone's" hands. If so, figuring out who that someone is, that's the key.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not interested so much in what was was said by the police, but what was not been said by the police.

I'm going to say this, and it be the subject of a future blog:

Putting RFG in another car on 4/15/05, or putting him in Wilkes-Barre on 4/18/05, does not necessarily mean that RFG walked away. That would not rule out murder.

UTR, in regard to your last post on the closed thread, I believe that that I mentioned that the police do have a sample of my handwriting.

[Serendipitous1]

Let's add the CF sighting, not revealed for a year or so. Dismissed immediately because it didn't fit the Lewisburg scenario. IMHO, keeping everything in Lewisburg may very well have played into "someone's" hands. If so, figuring out who that someone is, that's the key....and do not forget the "psychic". For gs (and anyone else interested in today's topics), posts 42 through 49 in particular (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=324603&page=2)...but I got a kick out of rereading the whole page.

[Serendipitous1]

Let's add the CF sighting, not revealed for a year or so. Dismissed immediately because it didn't fit the Lewisburg scenario. IMHO, keeping everything in Lewisburg may very well have played into "someone's" hands. If so, figuring out who that someone is, that's the key....and my personal favorites, Mr. Laptop, Ms. Hard Drive and the anonymous, needles-in-the-haystack (supposedly), lucky-finder duos.

[Serendipitous1]

'Someday I'll tell you all why I found it so amusing that she was upset by the existence of BillyWahoo, overall credibility, and why I wonder how much she pulled from LE for her visions.'

By this statement in your link, are we then to assume that much of what was put out in the news was not as much a vision as it was based on fact and presented as a reflection, a 'vision' of what had already been reported? The brown sedan, the construction worker leaning in smoking a cigarette, RG being lured into another car, may be actual sightings, you think?
JMONot at all...and just the opposite in regard to CB's (and in this forum, profilergirl's) participation in this case...in total. I rejected all of that long ago.

[Serendipitous1]

I am waiting on one or a few things this year: someone who knew Gricar to engage/re-engage...the election of a DA who understands the importance of Ray Gricar's disappearance in terms other than future political expediency, and/or an authoritative book on why this case has not been solved...naming names. The pissed are not restricted to my street address.

[Serendipitous1]

I am disgusted by the thorough gutting of YouTube. But I did find an appropriate ditty for Ray Gricar (token stay-on-topic post...for CW) and all by-the-low-hill dwellers.

This goes out to the Centre County District Attorney hopefuls tonight...may you soon distinguish yourselves. Here it is...Pete Seeger, Little boxes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN3rN59GlWw).

Shameless tags: Stacy Parks Miller, Tony De Boef, Tony DeBoef, J. Karen Arnold, Michael Madeira.

[Serendipitous1]

I am disgusted by the thorough gutting of YouTube. But I did find an appropriate ditty for Ray Gricar (token stay-on-topic post...for CW) and all by-the-low-hill dwellers.

This goes out to the Centre County District Attorney hopefuls tonight...may you soon distinguish yourselves. Here it is...Pete Seeger, Little boxes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN3rN59GlWw).

Shameless tags: Stacy Parks Miller, Tony De Boef, Tony DeBoef, J. Karen Arnold, Michael Madeira.The slience...speaks volumes. Thanks for that! y'all!

[UndertheRadar]

Re post #15: "the" closed thread, JJ? Nearly every thread here is closed. Do you mean yesterday's closed thread? If so, what does a sample of your handwriting have to do with your ubiquitous car purchase theory? A letter to BPD suggesting that they look into this? If you've already suggested this, then they've either looked into it, or they've rejected the suggestion, no?

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, UTR, the most recently closed thread.

I am pointing something, that you don't seem to be grasping.

LE has said that they have checked certain things, not necessarily tied to walkaway. They have released data and said that they have been ruled out. They have specifically said that they checked to see if RFG rented a car or used public transportation. They have never said they checked car purchases or rentals in the area, or purchases or rentals of those associated with RFG. I'm interested in what hasn't been released.

[gstickley]

Only 23 more days until 4 years will have passed since the last time there is actual proof Ray Gricar was alive.

[UndertheRadar]

I do understand all that, JJ.

What I'm trying to be sure I understand is your oblique reference to a handwriting sample.

Please be less oblique.

Eschew obfuscation.

When this thread is locked, please carry the answer over to the Sunday thread.

[J. J. in Phila]

At this point, I would settle for a release of information.

[UndertheRadar]

Moving this over for JJ's response:

I do understand all that [post #26 on the Saturday thread], JJ.

What I'm trying to be sure I understand is your oblique reference to a handwriting sample.

Please be less oblique.

Eschew obfuscation.

When this thread is locked, please carry the answer over to the Sunday thread.

Adding here:

Do you acknowledge that if LE does not find a record of a car purchase, it tells us (and more importantly, LE) absolutely nothing except that there is no record of RG purchasing a car?

[Serendipitous1]

More details on the Michigan sighting and how LE handled it differently than the W-B sighting: 'The Abrams Report' for June 9, 2005 - Special Edition (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8171216/)

[UndertheRadar]

Thanks, S1.

But Logic, for me it muddies the waters rather than clears things up.

I'll start with this.

ZACCAGNI: Well when we did the Wilkes-Barre sighting—and we haven‘t totally ruled Wilkes-Barre out as a valid sighting also—we used a procedure where they identified the individual from what they‘d seen on TV and then we showed them a single photograph of Ray for further identification and they readily identified that individual or that picture as being Ray.

How does that and what follows about the procedure used in Michigan square with the reports that the WB witnesses were shown both still photos and videotape footage of RG?

Or, for that matter, with reports that that the procedure used in Bennett's case was a series of photos of RG in various forms of dress?

Does this department have a consistent policy or were they simply flying by the seat of their pants?

Wait. Don't answer.

[UndertheRadar]

More:

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

Precisely one of the kinds of procedures warned against because by its very nature it tends to produce witness misidentifications--unless these were presented to the Michigan witness sequentially. That did not seem to be the case in another description of how the identification was handled, and it's not apparent here.

[UndertheRadar]

Both here and elsewhere in cyberspace but on the same issue of witness sightings, I've been accused recently 1) of not posting science regarding witness misidentification; 2) of being "the only one who seems to know about" the thirty-five years of peer-reviewed science investigating causes of eyewitness ID errors; and 3) of having an agenda where the witnesses in the RG case are concerned.

It's been a tag team effort between the creator of the only game in town and his sidekick (HarryTPotter, wearing an inadequate invisibility cloak).

Since witness accuracy is a major issue of discussion here, and since the master of blogland is a prolific poster here, I'd like to address that issue a bit on this site, where there's a level playing field and where In Session readers will be sure to see the discussion. And where I'm not boxed into 1,000 characters or less for a response.

Initially I said I was surprised that neither of these two was familiar with these studies, since they form the basis for a major push that's been happening in law enforcement circles and in the courts for the last decade or so. I was familiar with the Innocence Project probably a decade or more before Ray Gricar ever vanished off the face of the earth, so I've known for more than 15 years that errors in witness ID were a huge problem in the criminal courts.

So "surprised" is probably too mild a word. I'm more shocked than surprised that those with such a vested interest in witness identification and such strong sentiments on the issue (the "not all of the Lewisburg witnesses can be wrong" mantra heard from both) would be completely unfamiliar with the DOJ guidelines produced as a result of those 35 years of peer-reviewed science, with the efforts to introduce expert testimony to educate juries about this science, and with the efforts to have law enforcement communities change protocols to reduce the number of wrongful convictions based on error in eyewitness identification. I'm shocked that a "mini-series" on witnesses in the RG case would be produced for public consumption without at least a rudimentary understanding of this research. And I'm shocked that efforts to add a level of understanding to that public discussion would be met not with an effort to become educated (at best) or healthy debate (at least) but by the admonition in a comment to ignore all future postings by UTR and by skepticism by the blog writer indicating that UTR seems to be the "only one" familiar with these scientific studies.

Now of course, the latter is not true. I doubt the DOJ created guidelines specifically because of studies that only UTR was familiar with. And I doubt that changes have been instituted in courts and law enforcement circles in 48 states based on some fantasy I alone am familiar with.

There has been a continued effort in blogland to push the notion that cross-racial misidentification is the major cause of witness ID error.

If anyone is still unclear on that issue, I'd like to clarify. When a witness is of one race and the person being identified is of another race, yes, errors can occur because of cross-racial identification. However, MOST identifications DO NOT involve witnesses of one race and a person of another race being identified. Cross-racial misidentification is not the leading cause of witness ID error. It is but one cause.

Causes are frequently divided into two categories, estimator variables (things like age of witness, lighting, distance, race, etc., IOW, things that can be estimated but not controlled) and system variables (things within the system of justice that can be modified to reduce errors in witness identifications).

System variables may be of particular interest in the RG case, it seems.

The leading scholar in the nation on eyewitness testimony cautions that it is a fallacy to believe multiple identifications creates a greater likelihood for an accurate identification. He points out that what causes one identification to be inaccurate may well be responsible for other identifications being inaccurate. I think we need to know more about how each witness was handled, and by whom. We already have some reasonable evidence to show the protocols went against the best suggested practices. And that is not surprising, given how poor a showing Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies had in 2005 with regard to their cooperation with DOJ guidelines for improving protocol to reduce eyewitness identification errors.

Well, there. That's out of my system.

[Cloudbuster]

LW in your Poe Paddy photo's the one with the dirt road is creepin me out. I had a dream long ago about a dirt road and the mountainous hill I climbed down was on my left, then Im standing on the dirt road and it is flat to my right just like that photo. It jumped right out at me. I need to go there to see it in person. Ray knew Poe Paddy cause I remember a photo about it and Lara. Isn't that area near the seven mountains where the boy scout camp is? Someone with a van comes to mind about that area.

[Cloudbuster]

LW that was my Indian dream. Do you know if there is any Indian history there or any Indian activities there?