Mon., 03/23/09 thru 27th

[gstickley]

Only 22 more days until 4 years will have passed since the last time Ray Gricar was positively known to be alive.

It seems to me that in the past 4 years there has been an extraordinary amount of time & effort expended on the "Walkaway Theory" and the "Witnesses" (the number of whom range from 8-10, possibly more, down to 2, 4, 6, depending on the day). There seems to be a concerted effort, through this forum and the Blobs, to "push" the "RG walked away" & the "multiple witnesses cannot be mistaken" mantra a bit too much.

It is my opinion that, if the Blobbers were really interested in finding out what happened to RG, they might have "pushed" for a new independent LE investigation, might have stood behind BB & TM in their quest for answers, might have actually asked questions, instead of parroting the "Walkaway, Walkaway, Walkaway" like birds in a cage.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[gstickley]

Correction: The "Title" to the previous post should read Mon.,
03/23/09. (Couldn't correct it.)

[J. J. in Phila]

First, it is clear that LE has not released some things; they have trickled out over the last two years.

Second, I'm to the point of asking why they have not released this information.

[UndertheRadar]

Just a few of the problems I see include------
the car being moved and opened prior to the dog's arrival.
the car being returned too quickly.
possibly no trailing dog present.
witnesses being shown photos of RG.
no sketch artist present for witnesses.
PSP or force higher than the locals not in full control of the case.
and I am certain the list could go on and on.


Great list, Logic. A few comments:

Completely agree that the car being opened and moved prior to the dogs' arrival was a problem, since those actions would skew the reading of the dogs. I do believe at least one dog would have been a trailing dog, though. IIRC, at least one Bloodhound and two others were brought to the scene, and it would be an unusual Bloodhound who wasn't a trailer.

On the witnesses, I really want to drive home how important the system variables may have been in the RG case. I've posted this link previously, but it's such an important one, I want to post it again, since I'm having trouble getting a feel with our new set up how often things might be missed due to threads being locked every morning.

This article describes a study of police departments in western PA in 2005 and gives an overview of police departments in PA in general with regard to their compliance (or lack thereof) with DOJ guidelines for improving protocols for witness identification:

http://pointparkinnocenceinstitute.pointparkjournalism.co m/?p=40#more-40

Pennsylvania as a whole in 2005 was clearly resistant to implementing the DOJ guidelines. (And it remains one of two states refusing any form of expert testimony to educate juries on eyewitness science.)

We've already seen in multiple examples that BPD was not following DOJ guidelines with regard to the witnesses in the RG case.

And we've seen what would appear to be complete contradiction from the BPD with regard to the witnesses' validity and weight in the investigation: DZ on Dan Abrams saying nearly all the witnesses have been completely discounted vs. DZ in the Renner interview in the Cleveland Free Times article:

DZ: “Friday night, people remember the car sitting in the parking lot. It’s a very distinct car. Two people in the antique mall are positive they saw him in there. One man is positive he saw Gricar talking to a female on several occasions. I asked him, Were they together? He said, ‘Well, in my mind they were together, but they weren’t holding hands; they weren’t lovey-dovey or anything.’
“We have three or four good witnesses from down there who are definitely IDing him in the park. They saw him sitting in his car. They watched him driving his Mini Cooper back and forth on Friday.
“We can definitely put him there on Saturday, too."

I have no idea how we can reconcile "completely discounted" with "definitely ID'ing" and "definitely put him there." I do know that kind of contradiction has compounded confusion in the minds of the public. Unfortunately, the "definitely ID'ing" idea seems to have gotten the most airplay, so to speak.

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, though you obviously don't recall it, there is a standing argument for calling a grand jury.

http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6631

[UndertheRadar]

Logic--

The minute I saw "camo" in your post above, the very first thought I had was "the dream about the guy in camouflage!"

How spooky.

[UndertheRadar]

I am putting this under Monday's thread because it is still open and in response to comment.



And Tuesday's thread is already locked. I'm so confused.

Route 45 could easily have been accessed depending on where the call from 192 was made, assuming the 192 report as accurate. Having traveled those roads, I know it's possible at a number of junctures to drop down from 192 onto 45.

On another topic, I was doing more reading about eyewitnesses yesterday. Yes, I'm obsessive-compulsive. One legal opinion had a meta-analysis of some recent studies, and one reference was of particular interest to me in light of what we've recently learned about how BPD handled witnesses in the RG case.

This particular reference was to research demonstrating how showing witnesses pictures of someone described as a suspect [insert "missing person" here] tainted later identifications by those witnesses. Nearly half of the witnesses in the study selected the "photograph" man as the suspect after seeing the photos, even though the "photograph" man had not even been in the crime scene they'd witnessed.

If witnesses like Bennett were exposed to multiple photographs of RG in various forms of dress and the WB witnesses were exposed to still photos and video footage, how much "taint" to their identifications occurred from that one variable alone, much less all the other variables that can affect witness identification validity?

[gstickley]

The following article is dated Sunday, 04/17/05. It would seem that the employees of the SOS had already been interviewed and, as of that date, apparently they'd seen nothing unusual & had offered no clues. Why would they have been interviewed if they hadn't been given information on the missing person or the Mini by LE? Yet, no one mentioned a "clue" as to when the Mini was seen there, nor of the man standing as though he were waiting, nor of the man seen with the MW.

The Search for Ray Gricar
CDT, 04/17/05
BELLEFONTE — Authorities investigating the disappearance of Centre County’s top prosecutor sought new leads in the case today after police said a search of the missing man’s car failed to yield signs of foul play or clues into his whereabouts.
(snip)
State police searched the river in the area for an hour by helicopter but found nothing, Dixon said. He added that interviews with workers at the Street of Shops market also yielded no clues.
(snip)
Workers there didn’t report seeing anything unusual either Friday or Saturday. “It was business as usual,” said the market’s manager, Susan Sawyer.
(snip)

[UndertheRadar]

Very interesting, GS. The "master list" of so-called witnesses from blogland says this of Saturday sightings:

"11:00 AM to Noon: Two employees, Mr. Bennett see Mr. Gricar in Street of Shops."

It's difficult to tell from the syntax how many people exactly are being specified in that listing, but we know Mr. Bennett is an owner, so "employee" wouldn't pertain to Bennett.

I also know from previous research about when the Mini was first seen in the lot that it was clear Bennett, specifically, had been interviewed by Sunday morning.

How do we go from interviews with workers yielding no clues and "nothing unusual" Friday or Saturday to SOS employee(s) (other than Bennett) reporting sightings for Saturday?

[gstickley]

By Wed., 04/20/05, 3 days later, the CDT reported the following. Now, we have the description of a man standing as though waiting, several other witnesses with a "visual", and the Mini in the parking lot. Thus, "the Timeline" is established.

Gricar Search Goes On [Centre Co., PA, Dist. Atty. disappears]
04/20/05, CDT
Lewisburg

LEWISBURG --
(snip)
Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time.

The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

Bellefonte police detectives Tom Thal and Darrell Zaccagni, working from their car in a parking lot across the street, said the reports of Bennett and others appeared to establish a "visual on Ray" at the noon hour Saturday, called the Street of Shops.

Bennett said some mall employees have told police they saw Gricar's car, a red and white Mini Cooper, in the parking lot between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday. The Saturday "visual" would be the most recent point in a time line reported so far in authorities' efforts to track Gricar. (snip)

[UndertheRadar]

Being completely even-handed here, early reporting on any case is often a mish-mash with some confused details to be expected. It's also possible that on Sunday when the 4/17 CDT story went to press, not all employees at the SOS had been interviewed, though I wouldn't expect Dixon to comment on interviews with the workers as yielding no clues if the interview process had been minimal.

That said, I've got to wonder: how many photos of RG were employees establishing "a visual" shown between 4/17 and 4/20 when the next CDT story reports the change of tune? How many media reports had they seen with photos and video footage of RG? How much did that after-acquired information shape their memories?

[J. J. in Phila]

A number were not interviewed on 4/17. However the details of what they saw was not in the press for months, if not years, later.

[gstickley]

One would think Lara Gricar, above all others, would have been made aware of whatever information LE had attained.

Fox News
Can the Missing DA Case Be Solved?
Thursday, May 05, 2005

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: At this hour, a desperate search is still under way for a missing Pennsylvania prosecutor. Ray Gricar (search) has not been heard from since he went for a drive on April 15. Where is he and was he the victim of foul play? Joining us from Seattle is Ray Gricar’s daughter, Laura Gricar. Laura, I suppose that the police have not given you any sort of information or update to suggest that they’re closer to solving this. Is that right?

LAURA GRICAR, MISSING DA’s DAUGHTER: That’s correct. There’s no new information at this point.
(snip)
VAN SUSTEREN: Have there been any — I know that that Saturday, there was a sighting in the mall. Have there been any other sightings?

GRICAR: Not to my knowledge, nothing that we’re, you know, taking very seriously, I don’t think.
(snip)

[Cinderella]

I found another site to post on missing people. Just wanted to let you know to check it out. Not much has been posted on Ray yet.

http://briansprediction.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=75&sid=e61bd1e9ba5731de09abbf8470220110

[UndertheRadar]

If sightings from Friday and/or Saturday didn't have witnesses interviewed until after Sunday 4/17, I certainly hope someone is taking the Ebbinghaus curve into account when placing weight on any witness memory of details.

By two days after the sighting, accuracy of recall would be at a dramatically reduced level. And that's without figuring in the effect of any tainting which may have occurred.

GS, I agree with you that LG would have had a sense of what information LE had gathered, if not directly from LE then from TG as family contact with LE. Couple her observation that there was nothing "we" [presumably the family] were taking very seriously with a Feb. 2008 observation TG made about one individual who was "prone to claims steeped in nothing more than wanting to look more on top of things than reality now indicates," and it's hard not to wonder if any number of issues weren't perhaps overblown. TG's observation related to the fingerprint issue, but when one considers, say, the Renner article and claims made there about witnesses . . . well . . .

Bottom line, I'm not persuaded by an argument which says some witnesses supposedly came up with peripheral details that weren't released in the press until later. Identification/misidentification--that's the critical factor.

Besides, I can't think of a single detail released to the press "months or a year later" that could form the basis for a positive ID of Ray Gricar. Now, if one of the witnesses reported to LE that he/she saw RG wearing a white, hand-painted T-shirt that said, "I LOVE PICKLES" on it complete with a large green gherkin, AND if it were later revealed that RG owned a one-of-a-kind, hand-painted T-shirt exactly like that AND that PF discovered the shirt missing two weeks after giving the intitial clothing description to LE, THEN we might be talking about useful peripheral detail.

Right now I'm not seeing it. It's surely not a middle-aged guy near a red and white Mini when three Minis were in town that weekend along with plenty of middle-aged guys, and it's surely not a middle-aged guy talking to an attractive, tall brunette.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, first, I will repeat. There was no reporting on what the bulk of the 4/15 witnesses saw in the first week after 4/18; the some exception was Alvey.

GS, the Wilkes-Barre sightings were known on by the time of LG's interviews, but the nature of it was kept a strict secret, by the BPD.

[UndertheRadar]

Carrying this over from late night/early morning posts on yesterday's locked thread:

Post #19 asserts (again) that certain "details" the 4/15 witnesses reported were not in the media the week of 4/18; post #15 in fact claims these details were not released in the media until months or more later.

I ask again that these vague allusions to "details" be clarified and ask that we are provided with a list of specific details. I want to see which details supposedly form the basis of any or all witnesses' ability to confirm an identification of Ray Gricar. Confirmed identification is the key, and not peripheral detail.

I wonder why the poster of #'s 15 and 19 on the other thread has not taken into account that these witnesses questioned after 4/17 would have reached the point where their memories for the event would have flattened out. This would also be true for the cop in WB who waited four days to report his sighting and the bartender questioned thereafter. Surely that is a factor which at least deserves consideration in the grand scheme of assessing witnesses not questioned immediately after the car was discovered in the lot.

[UndertheRadar]

On a somewhat related point, I'd like to raise for discussion an issue we've seen here and elsewhere in cyberspace any number of times. It's a supposed "explanation" for why some of us here at In Session resist the YITMAMPWT.

I'm only going to repeat part of the arm-chair psychological explanation here, since parts of it are so far off the mark that they don't really merit discussion. But essentially, this is the line of thinking. Those of us who don't buy into the YITMAMPWT refuse to do so because

1) we have RG on some kind of undeserved pedestal. We see him as some kind of Superman figure incapable of any human error in his personal life choices and therefore reject the YITMAMPWT; and/or

2) we "want" RG to have been murdered.

Does anyone here truly believe that posters at In Session who reject the YITMAMPWT are so naive as to base that rejection on the theory in #1 or so pathological as to "want" RG to have been murdered?

[Politigal]

On a somewhat related point, I'd like to raise for discussion an issue we've seen here and elsewhere in cyberspace any number of times. It's a supposed "explanation" for why some of us here at In Session resist the YITMAMPWT.

I'm only going to repeat part of the arm-chair psychological explanation here, since parts of it are so far off the mark that they don't really merit discussion. But essentially, this is the line of thinking. Those of us who don't buy into the YITMAMPWT refuse to do so because

1) we have RG on some kind of undeserved pedestal. We see him as some kind of Superman figure incapable of any human error in his personal life choices and therefore reject the YITMAMPWT; and/or

2) we "want" RG to have been murdered.

Does anyone here truly believe that posters at In Session who reject the YITMAMPWT are so naive as to base that rejection on the theory in #1 or so pathological as to "want" RG to have been murdered?

Darn UTR....you busted me...

I *wanted* him to be murdered...dadgummit. :ohmy:

Seriously, *of course* I did not want RG to be a murder victim...and of course I don't believe he's Spider Man, Superman, or Luke Skywalker.

The bottom line is, none of the facts about Gricar and/or his history fit the walkaway theory. And there is simply no evidence he existed past that fateful Thursday night. That's why I believe foul play was definitely the case.

[Cloudbuster]

I believe this case is foul play but admit there are things that make it look like a walk away. I don't think JJ is saying 100% that it is walk away. I think he just wants things checked out to rule it in or out.

My own theory with my own strange experiences leads me to believe that this is foul play. I also believe the car CF saw him in is with him. I wish I knew who had the equipment available at the time. Somewhere in 2005 there was heavy duty equipment being used somewhere, aproject type possibly. One equipment (paranormally) sounds like a wrecking ball and the other piece of equipment sounds like a digging machine type. I would love to see what happened to the other 38 missing vechicles that was reported in the Ungard case. I don't believe that RG rented any car or bought one. My own thoughts are for them to check into projects going on at the time such as road work or park work, or even junkyards with such equipment. also building projects that include demolition type.

JMOO

[Cloudbuster]

I saw this article and found it interesting. Im wondering why they can't use ground penetrating radar?

Years of combing the several acres of rough terrain in Duffy's Cut had so far yielded about 2,000 artifacts, including pipes, buttons and forks. Then on Friday, researchers using ground-penetrating radar unearthed pieces of two skulls along with dozens of other bone fragments and teeth. The findings were announced Tuesday.
http://news.aol.com/article/irish-immigrants-grave/394944?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle %2Firish-immigrants-grave%2F394944

[UndertheRadar]

Darn UTR....you busted me...

I *wanted* him to be murdered...dadgummit. :ohmy:


:D

Seriously, though, I agree with your bottom line. The history and evidence don't fit.

I spent probably a year and a half or more after the disappearance trying to find any way possible to put together evidence that RG was still alive. I still try that theory on from time to time. It just doesn't seem to work no matter how you piece things together.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the first pieces of evidence that RFG was alive after 4/15/05 came out in late April 2005. Now, we can't change that.

Some evidence as CB noted does point exclusively to walkaway (in various forms),

The evidence all can be categorized as pointing to:

A. Walkaway.

B. Walkaway or suicide.

C. Walkaway, suicide, or murder. (Not a lot of help there.)

D. Walkaway or murder.

E. Murder or suicide.

F. Not related, coincidence. (The true unknown)

So far, there is only one piece that falls into category E, depending on how the financial situation is handled. I'm saving that for before the anniversary.

[UndertheRadar]

I want clarification of discussion that's taken place here, at In Session, JJ.

Here, at In Session, you asserted that witnesses questioned after 4/17 reported "details" that weren't released until months or more later.

I'm asking a third time for a list of those details which would have confirmed the identity of Ray Gricar as the person spotted in Lewisburg.

I'm not interested in peripheral detail or categories or whatever. Just an answer to that one simple question.

[gstickley]

It's been a long day & maybe I'm seein' things.

Is "CB" still Carla Baron, the Psychic?

I wasn't aware of any "evidence" pertaining to RG that Carla Baron had provided. And all I've seen & heard from LE about "evidence" after the end of April pertains to the laptop & the hard drive being located.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, they have been listed. The press reports were linked. You are free to check the links. You have had problems posting links; mine are included in the blog.

CB is Cloudburster, the poster to whom I was referring. She is correct. I have not even said 50% anything.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you asked what keeps us "stuck" in Lewisburg. Your last post is the prime example of why some people are "stuck" in Lewisburg.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ:

1) I have never had any problems posting links. I have explained to you (on this board) why I no longer provide you with links, but I've saved you the embarrassment of explaining that on your blog. If you wish me to explain there, I shall.

2) Checking links you've posted elsewhere won't answer a question that has arisen from a statement you have made here. In the last day or two, you've made an assertion on these threads about details witnesses questioned after 4/17 provided. I've asked you to clarify what details those witnesses provided that would confirm an identification of Ray Gricar. Apparently you are unable or unwilling to do so.

3) For the second time now, you made an obviously incorrect accusation about the "Stuck in Lewisburg" thread.

It was never intended to imply, as you do, "Why can't we move beyond Lewisburg now that we have all this 'evidence' that Gricar was there?"

Its intent was to ask why the investigation (both LE's and ours) has used unconfirmed witness sightings as any kind of basis for assuming RG was ever in Lewisburg.

Why can't you simply tell the board members and other readers here what details the witnesses questioned after 4/17 offered to LE which confirmed a valid identification of Ray Gricar in your mind? If you are going to make that assertion here, you ought to be able to tell us what you mean by it.

[gstickley]

I have never seen a media report that Ray Gricar was ever positively identified as being seen any time after 04/14/05 by anyone other than PF. If there is such a media report, I too would like to see a link to it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is where some are listed in the blog:

The Lewisburg Witnesses, April 15, 2005

Posted 3/12/2009 4:30 AM EDT on Centre Daily Times

As for your links UTR, well I guess you've yet to link to your own imagination.

GS, as noted at the time, the Wilkes-Barre witnesses were "100% positive."

[UndertheRadar]

I have never seen a media report that Ray Gricar was ever positively identified as being seen any time after 04/14/05 by anyone other than PF. If there is such a media report, I too would like to see a link to it.

A media report would work, but I wasn't even asking for that specifically, GS. It was JJ's assertion that I wanted backed up by JJ. You know, just tell us what you mean when you say that witnesses gave certain details. What were those details????

[J. J. in Phila]

The detail, as noted in the blog cited and on the witness list, was RFG moving his car across from the Packwood Museum. It was reported by Mike Joseph in late April 2005; that was the first report.

[UndertheRadar]

I'm going to ask you, civilly, to stop the accusations, JJ.

Thirty-five years of peer-reviewed science is not my imagination, and the DOJ and the NIJ have not acted on my imagination.

[J. J. in Phila]

Show it then. You have been asked repeatedly, by me, by others, and you've never done it. It doesn't jibe with what I've read, and linked to. So produce it, from some place other than your own mind.

[UndertheRadar]

The car across from the Packwood Museum. Well, finally we have a detail.

But if you noticed, I pointed out in the post on yesterday's thread that the car would be of little value in confirming RG's identity.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the details of the Sund/Pelosso witnesses in the "Stuck in Lewisburg" thread. Witnesses "identified" the three missing women in a red 1999 Pontiac, which happened to be the make, model, and color of their rental car. They were, of course, dead at the time of the alleged identification. Then there's the Culberson case, with at least five identifications of CC in her car.

[UndertheRadar]

Produce "it", JJ? I've got literally hundreds of links and hard copy sources collected over several years of study. I explained this to you before. I've been doing you the favor of summarizing several years of study.

Everything I have summarized is absolutely consistent with the research.

Everyone on this board knows what a stickler for detail and accuracy I am. I've never had a reputation for making things up or for reading source material and reporting it incorrectly. I certainly wouldn't discredit myself by starting now.

And I certainly have no need to. Reporting the facts of the research is more than fine with me, since I am in a search for the truth.

[Serendipitous1]

The top-10 things I am certain of in regard to this case...generally (that is to say only with the relative certainty and without the specificity needed to verify accuracy, given my "recreational poster" status), after nearly 4 years of "recreational" study:

Number 1 - The BPD should never have been allowed to conduct this investigation.

Number 2 - There has been absolutely no indisputable evidence presented by which to conclude that RG existed beyond the Thursday evening video which (reportedly) showed him leaving the courthouse under his own power.

Number 3 - There is only anecdotal “evidence” to suggest that RG ever made it to Lewisburg...or beyond.

Number 4 - The news media sucks the big weenie when it comes to reporting facts in this case, let alone doing anything resembling investigative reporting. (This includes the vaunted CDT, though I am thoroughly indebted to EN, PB and MJ for several oustanding articles).

Number 5 - The family made some bad decisions...although, under similar circumstances, I probably would have done the same...right down the line.

Number 6 - Numbers 1-5 helped fuel the speculation...which has not diminished over the past (nearly) 4 years. This includes several situations...here and abroad...literally and figuratively.

Number 7 - I am completely devastated...that I could spot a rolled-up twenty in the middle of a stone parking lot, but somehow missed that hard drive in a few inches of water. Go figure!

Number 8 - There is hope that Ray Gricar's plight will become known...but not under the present regime (state or county). The state and county are in desperate need of new LE management...people who know how to get things done (other than in their own best interests). Replace Madeira this year and vote Corbett in as Governor next year (an office where he cannot do squat...just ask 'Uncle Eddie').

Number 9 - Someone should slap CW up the side of the head. JK CW...I love you like a sister (the one I used to beat up on as a kid).

Number 10 - I am thankful for a place to be able to vent...and to read other people's ventings. And with all due respect to C...while I am sure brianspredictions gets a big (lubricated) thumbs-up in certain circle-jerks, I am pretty sure of the thumb's intended destination.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, UTR, here is a stuudy from the Wisconson DOJ that discusses error rate: http://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1150823205.44/Article-Intl%20J.%20L.%20Psy.-Accuracy%20of%20eyewitness%20memory...Morgan.pdf

You will note that on page 272, they list the "false positive" rates for various methods; all are below 40% in low stress situations (as these would be). That is just for "a" witness. Eyewitnesses are not perfect, but I never said they were.

Like I said, what I've read doesn't jibe with what you are saying.

[J. J. in Phila]

S1, you use the term "indisputable evidence." Prove that RFG was in Bellefonte after 5:00 PM on 4/14. The video could have been an earlier loop and we only have "anecdotal" evidence, i.e. eyewitness evidence from PEF and VW that RFG was in the park.

If you really want use the standard of "indisputable evidence" RFG could have left before 5:00 PM on Thursday. (I think it's highly improbable, but it is "disputable.")

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, did you note that the link you provided reported on only 509 subjects divided into four studies, and that all were narrowly selected (active military personnel enrolled in survival training)?

If what I've reported to you doesn't jibe with what you've read here, it's because I've summarized for you aggregate data from approximately 50 laboratory studies involving far greater numbers of subjects than studied here. I then compared the analysis of that data to field studies and other real world case reviews and showed you how the numbers would be affected by the results from those.

When more extensive research exists, it would be short-sighted to rely on narrow studies with narrow populations as a guide, except, of course, for the particular inquiry of the study. In the case of your link, that focus was on the accuracy of eyewitness memory under highly intense stress. That focus is not in any way relevant to what we have in Lewisburg.

[UndertheRadar]

The top-10 things I am certain of in regard to this case...generally (that is to say only with the relative certainty and without the specificity needed to verify accuracy, given my "recreational poster" status), after nearly 4 years of "recreational" study:

Number 1 - The BPD should never have been allowed to conduct this investigation.

Number 2 - There has been absolutely no indisputable evidence presented by which to conclude that RG existed beyond the Thursday evening video which (reportedly) showed him leaving the courthouse under his own power.

Number 3 - There is only anecdotal “evidence” to suggest that RG ever made it to Lewisburg...or beyond.

Number 4 - The news media sucks the big weenie when it comes to reporting facts in this case, let alone doing anything resembling investigative reporting. (This includes the vaunted CDT, though I am thoroughly indebted to EN, PB and MJ for several oustanding articles).

Number 5 - The family made some bad decisions...although, under similar circumstances, I probably would have done the same...right down the line.

Number 6 - Numbers 1-5 helped fuel the speculation...which has not diminished over the past (nearly) 4 years. This includes several situations...here and abroad...literally and figuratively.

Number 7 - I am completely devastated...that I could spot a rolled-up twenty in the middle of a stone parking lot, but somehow missed that hard drive in a few inches of water. Go figure!

Number 8 - There is hope that Ray Gricar's plight will become known...but not under the present regime (state or county). The state and county are in desperate need of new LE management...people who know how to get things done (other than in their own best interests). Replace Madeira this year and vote Corbett in as Governor next year (an office where he cannot do squat...just ask 'Uncle Eddie').

Number 9 - Someone should slap CW up the side of the head. JK CW...I love you like a sister (the one I used to beat up on as a kid).

Number 10 - I am thankful for a place to be able to vent...and to read other people's ventings. And with all due respect to C...while I am sure brianspredictions gets a big (lubricated) thumbs-up in certain circle-jerks, I am pretty sure of the thumb's intended destination.

Absolutely wonderful post, S1. I enjoyed reading it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry, I thought the site was the Wisconsin DoJ, but it's actually the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Sorry for my error.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, we now have a study which does look at specifically "low stress" situations and gives an error rate for eyewitness identification of witnesses. It lists that rate, with whatever type of identification method used, at below 40%.

First he had the claim of studies, now we you claim that you are using an aggregate of some other studies. We've seen someone else who look at an aggregate, Professor Dorf, who came up with an error rate still below 50%. (He might, in the context of his article be referring to high stress situations.)

So, why do you think he is wrong and you are right? You've claim that there are studies that support your claim, yet what I've found, and linked to, don't agree with you. You've claimed now that you are using an aggregate, but we've seen someone else using an aggregate that doesn't agree with your statements.


You are free to link to these studies.

[J. J. in Phila]

BTW. UTR, if you want to know why you are "stuck" in Lewisburg, look at your post #26.

[gstickley]

Absolutely wonderful post, S1. I enjoyed reading it.

Me too! Me too!

[Serendipitous1]

S1, you use the term "indisputable evidence." Prove that RFG was in Bellefonte after 5:00 PM on 4/14. The video could have been an earlier loop and we only have "anecdotal" evidence, i.e. eyewitness evidence from PEF and VW that RFG was in the park.

If you really want use the standard of "indisputable evidence" RFG could have left before 5:00 PM on Thursday. (I think it's highly improbable, but it is "disputable.")J.J., with all due respect to you and your chief protagonist, I do not have to prove anything. Your blog is...well, rather "bloggish". I realize you have nowhere to go with it if you cannot show that RG "absitively, posolutely" was in Lewisburg. Welcome to the world of purists (even though I am not one, though I do stand by my statements).

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J., with all due respect to you and your chief protagonist, I do not have to prove anything. Your blog is...well, rather "bloggish". I realize you have nowhere to go with it if you cannot show that RG "absitively, posolutely" was in Lewisburg. Welcome to the world of purists (even though I am not one, though I do stand by my statements).


You are asking for a level of proof, but one that, in the world of human events, is impossible to prove. I've used the standard that is the higher legal one, "beyond reasonable doubt."

Barring any evidence to the contrary, if 8 or more people see a person in Lewisburg, the timing of when they see him does not conflict, they independently report these things, they see him at different points doing different things, I have to call that proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." That doesn't mean "no doubt". It does strongly suggest that there better be some evidence or a reasonable explanation of the alternative.

[UndertheRadar]

Dorf is a constitutional lawyer who spent less than six lines summarizing research about eyewitnesses before making a legal argument. Not my cup of tea when it comes to doing scientific research.

[UndertheRadar]

Re #33, JJ, what you consistently do not seem to understand is that you are suffering from the same kind of misconception many jurors have about eyewitness testimony.

It is precisely this kind of misconception which has led the DOJ to push for reform in LE protocol and in the courtroom--and that push has come as a result of the science you claim is in my imagination.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you still have not posted any information about what the DoJ thinks a problem could or how likely any problem could be.

Now, we are to the point where looking at studies, looking at what experts say is the error rate, and looking at what expects say can cause the error, we end up with an error rate of below 50% per witness.

You are going have to find something, other than your own opinion, to change that. I'm still willing to look.

It is not question of the evidence, or science, but of you not wanting to believe the evidence and the science. That is what is keeping you "stuck" in Lewisburg. I'm much more interested in what happened to RFG after Lewisburg. I believe that there is still a very good chance (above 40%) that RFG was murdered after that point.

[UndertheRadar]

Here's the thing.

I understand the science of scent theory and of eyewitness memory.

That's precisely why I don't believe there's enough evidence to support any claim of "beyond a reasonable doubt" conclusion that Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15 (or 4/16 for that matter).

I've always said it is possible he may have been, but reasoning that he was there beyond a reasonable doubt is simply not supported by the science or the evidence.

You are free to believe whatever you want, even if you are wrong. You are not free to continue bullying me, calling hard science my "imagination" and my "opinion." There's a link I have provided twice in recent days to an article about the sorry state of affairs among Pennsylvania police departments with regard to their compliance with the DOJ guidelines. It makes reference to the same science I have, and it refers to the same DOJ guidelines I have referred to a gazillion times.

We've seen very specific references in media reports regarding how the witnesses were handled in the RG case demonstrating that the BPD did not follow the guidelines suggested by the DOJ. If you do not believe that to be relevant to the Gricar case, I cannot imagine what would convince you.

[Serendipitous1]

You are asking for a level of proof, but one that, in the world of human events, is impossible to prove. I've used the standard that is the higher legal one, "beyond reasonable doubt."

Barring any evidence to the contrary, if 8 or more people see a person in Lewisburg, the timing of when they see him does not conflict, they independently report these things, they see him at different points doing different things, I have to call that proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." That doesn't mean "no doubt". It does strongly suggest that there better be some evidence or a reasonable explanation of the alternative.I do not agree, because it assumes facts not in evidence. You have assumed a standard below what even I (as a "recreational poster" and without UtR's vast knowledge) require to justify "reasonable confidence".

You are perfectly entitled to do so, of course, regardless of how it looks. But you may want to consider the source of your "apparent entitlement"...as the rest of the world (small world here) considers the source of your "apparent entitlement". That is all I am saying.

You warned me that I was about to look foolish. Believe me when I say, that is the least of my worries. Just ask my SO! Even when I am right, I am wrong. Go figure.

[UndertheRadar]

I do not agree, because it assumes facts not in evidence. You have assumed a standard below what even I (as a "recreational poster" and without UtR's vast knowledge) require to justify "reasonable confidence".

You are perfectly entitled to do so, of course, regardless of how it looks. But you may want to consider the source of your "apparent entitlement"...as the rest of the world (small world here) considers the source of your "apparent entitlement". That is all I am saying.

You warned me that I was about to look foolish. Believe me when I say, that is the least of my worries. Just ask my SO! Even when I am right, I am wrong. Go figure.

"Vast knowledge" such as it is only in a couple of selected areas, S1. If you've noticed, there are plenty of topics discussed here where I generally just read and soak in what's said, because I have nothing to add to what greater minds have to say. It just so happens that the "beyond reasonable doubt" theory rests on a couple areas I've got some understanding of. And being the stickler for accuracy that I am, and the obsessive-compulsive that I am, well . . .

Now, about that SO of yours. You need to encourage a more even-handed approach with regard to the right/wrong issue! No place for who's right and wrong in a relationship. Just my two cents, FWIW.

[J. J. in Phila]

LW, I disagree that there were "quite a few" red Mini's with middle age men wearing a blue fleece in Lewisburg that day. There were even fewer that ended up in the parking lot across from the SoS.

One problem with the case, however, is that we have no idea what else LE has looked at. Did they check car purchases and rentals? Did they look at those by the "inner circle?" If the answer is "Yes, and we didn't find anything" that would greatly change the equation. The "higher" authorities know the answer.

[UndertheRadar]

Three red and white Mini Coopers in a town of about 5,500, minus university students, is significant for a distinctive car. The woman at WS who parked next to RG's Mini in the SOS lot parked near another one of the Mini Coopers the next day and initially mistook it for RG's. She did, however, notice the Maryland plate on the Sunday Mini Cooper, distinguishing it ultimately from RG's.

Blue jeans and blue fleece? Every male I know in Central PA, young, middle-aged, and old, owns that outfit. A lot of girls and women as well, FWIW.

But what some middle-aged man was actually wearing is less relevant than what witnesses think they remember some middle-aged man wearing.

[J. J. in Phila]

Please UTR, three is not a lot.

The MD plate, which interestingly she noticed, was several days later.

Sorry, the odds that this wasn't RFG pass well below the reasonable doubt level.

What evidence (physical, eyewitness) do you have that RFG was:

1. In Bellefonte after noon on 4/15/05, and driving his Mini?

2. That he was dead before noon on 4/15/05?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, just provide actual evidence.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, no one can prove that Ray Gricar was anywhere at the time you specify, and your alleged eyewitness identifications without documentation and/or corroboration are not evidence that he was in Lewisburg.

I suppose if you had been following the Sund/Pelosso case in 1999, you would have spent a month after the women's disappearance arguing that they must be alive based on eyewitness identification. In one sighting alone in that case, at a tourist bureau, LE had witnesses who said


their identification was 100% certain

the women were driving a red 1999 Pontiac (their car)

the older woman referred to one girl as her daughter, the other as a visiting friend from Argentina.


That's just one sighting. What sighting in Lewisburg comes close to being that "definitive" an identification of RG? Not a single one. And yet the FBI did not confirm this sighting of the Sund/Pelosso women because it did not meet their documentation/corroboration standards.

You want to confer "beyond a reasonable doubt" status on eyewitness identification that doesn't necessarily meet those criteria.

Why are you so anxious to place RG in Lewisburg (and beyond) when he may never have made it there? What if something happened to RG before arrival in Lewisburg, and his car made it there but he did not?

Most of us have been perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that RG may have been in Lewisburg. Why are you unable to entertain the possibility that he may not have been?

Is there a reason you do not want that possibility fully investigated?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, first, I did not ask for proof. I asked for evidence. You provided none.

Second, this is one sighting, a singular witness sighting; there is more than a sigular citing in th RFG case. In the RFG case, we have a one witness sighting, Fenton on 4/15/05, at 3:00 PM, and I say that does not reach reasonable doubt.

In the Sund/Pelosso case, the car seems to been destroyed indicating that the witness report was to correct. In RFG's case the witnesses saw him with his car in the parking lot where the car was found.

These are not comparable. Also to you have a link to these witnesses in the Sund/Pelosso case?

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, if there is no proof, as I said, there is no evidence. Of course I offered none. There is none. No one has to offer evidence that RG was somewhere other than Lewisburg for it to be true that witness sightings in Lewisburg do not equal evidence that RG was in Lewisburg.

You are incorrect about the Sund/Pelosso example I just gave you. I said "LE had witnesses," plural, at one sighting--both employees at the same visitors' center. (And that was not the only multiple witness sighting.)

Those identifications of the Sund/Pelosso party are more fully detailed in the opening post of the "Stuck in Lewisburg" thread and elsewhere in that thread.

The women's car was not found until a little over a month after their disappearance. Witness reports were made long before the car was found, and long before any direction of travel for the car was established.

Yet the witness reports appeared to establish that the women had traveled the very route between their motel in El Portal and Long Barn, around the area where the car was ultimately found a month after the disappearance.

Cary Stayner's arrest four months after the car was found, and his subsequent confession, established that the women never drove that route. They had, in fact, been dead previous to the times established by ANY of the reported witness sightings.

Please re-read that thread carefully and try to understand what that thread is REALLY about. It is NOT about the inability to move beyond Lewisburg, as you keep implying. It is about the potential dangers of accepting what appear to be very convincing witness reports in the absence of documentation and corroboration.

[UndertheRadar]

I would like to know WHAT percentage of all of these cases, still missing and found but not identified, combined were believed to be 'walkaway'. I know a couple of people who have talked of loved ones who disappeared years ago, and they still believe the person walked away.

After observing this case for nearly four years, it appears to me that there is no set criteria that needs met in order for some to reach such a conclusion. If the RG case is an example of how these cases are handled in PA, time for some lessons from some other states . This case is a fine example of a case gone south---------
JMO

You're on the pretty much the same wavelength I was on when I started the thread comparing the Wiley case, the Nicholas Francisco case, and the RG case.

Wiley seems to have some pretty solid evidence for walkaway (but with some wiggle room to it, since there's no proof he was the one who actually typed the letters found on the typewriter ribbon). Poor Nick Francisco--a lot of evidence piling up suggesting that he might have had reason to want to walk away from his life, but King County keeps his case open and considers him a missing person, not a walkaway. What's the standard in Pennsylvania, or in Centre County, or for the BPD? At what point, and on what basis, will this drive toward walkaway in the RG case result in RG being declared voluntarily missing with no further investigation into his whereabouts?

[UndertheRadar]

That is why I listed the car sighting separate from the fleece jacket, blue jean guy sighting. I have not seen any witness report that places the two together other than that first one said to have occurred not at the lot where the car was found, but on the street at the park area, noon-ish. I would like to hear more about that sighting. Was the car facing the SOS direction as in coming in off route 45? Finding the car in the lot later doesn't mean much if there are no witnesses of both the car and RG being there at the same time, in the same time frame.

Who are the witnesses who saw RG outside of the car, in the lot who can positively identify RG as having been there? Where are the two of them identified together, with the man outside of the car where the person could actually see the height, the build?

Certainly TM's lead cannot have seen him outside the vehicle, therefore cannot address what he was wearing, his height, weight, build, etc. so who did? It is time for LE to release some info on this case unless of course, they are going to make a quantum 'four year leap' and solve the case.
JMO

As S1 has pointed out, it's been extremely difficult to pin down the reporting on witnesses in this case.

I would trust Mike Joseph's report of the woman who reported seeing a red and white Mini Cooper near the Packwood Museum around noon that Friday. She reported that her attention was on the car, because it brought to mind the movie The Italian Job, which featured a Mini Cooper. MJ described her report of a man near the car as "possibly fitting" the description of RG. It sounds as if she was able to say there was a red and white Mini Cooper, not necessarily RG's red and white Mini Cooper there, and a middle-aged man she likely couldn't exclude as having been RG. Unless MJ's reporting is way off, I don't see a positive ID of RG's car and RG in that particular sighting.

The "RG moving the car around" near the park sightings I've seen detailed only in the Free Times article, where DZ is running down a list of allegedly "definite" ID's. I'd certainly like to know what made them so "definite" in his mind and whether that claim had any basis in documentation or corroboration that would fit FBI parameters.

The "RG moving the car around the SOS lot" seems to have surfaced only in recent months and only in blogland, with one exception in a news article, written by a blog writer. I'd like to see attribution for this one, and I'd likewise want to know about documentation and corroboration if it is deemed a "definite" anywhere other than in blogland.

The TM sighting MM claims was checked out. Hard to say what "checked out" means, whether checked and accepted or checked and rejected. Either which way, it does not seem to have moved the investigation forward one iota.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, unlike you, I actually follow the evidence. The evidence, not my opinion, points to RFG being in Lewisburg on 4/15/05. There is no evidence that points to him not being able to be in Lewisburg.

As to the same employees, we had that in Lewisburg, the Saturday, 4/16/05 witnesses. What did I say about those? Not good enough because of cross contamination.

[UndertheRadar]

Logic, I believe this old post from TG which I have saved responds to that very question. It's a question I had as well, which is why I went searching for any information I could find on the issue:

TG:02-21-2008 09:35 PM Given what I've observed in Lewisburg on such weekends, and that most weren't "locals", I'm not surprised at all. It's the same reason that most current PSU students I've talked to have no idea who RFG is. The locals do, the "transient" population does not. That weekend in Lewisburg, was definitely a highly transient group.

It should be noted that none of the witnesses were of that out-of-towner group. They had other things going on, which likely didn't include being holed up in their hotel/dorm rooms watching the local news. The others only came forward through canvassing or contacting LE, which even if the parents in town saw him, they may never have heard of the investigation.

Fwiw, I think all of the Lewisburg "witnesses" came about due to LE canvassing.

How were these canvassing efforts handled, and did they conform to guidelines suggested by the DOJ for dealing with witnesses? We already have evidence that some of the witnesses were handled with methods in conflict with the suggested protocols. IIRC, DZ did some of the questioning, which would automatically exclude blind administration, and that's been cited by the leading scholar in this area as the single most important change in protocol LE can make to improve identifications.

So much emphasis in blogland has been placed on witness identification as "evidence." It concerns me that the distinction between witnesses to a crime and witnesses when a person goes missing has been blurred.

Say, for instance, a number of people witness someone shoot a man on a city street, with the shooter running off before apprehension. In that case, we've got a bleeding person on the sidewalk as evidence that there really was a shooter in the area, and the question becomes whether witnesses can identify who that shooter was.

But in a missing person's case, there is rarely a guarantee the person being sought was in the area to begin with. Unless there is corroborative hard evidence to use as a determining factor, such as the photo snapped in Texas that underwent FBI analysis, witnesses in a missing person's case start on much more tenuous ground: the person being sought may have been there or may not have been there.

In criminal cases, averaging lab studies with field studies puts correct witness identification in the low 40% range, with an estimate of 44% as the very best rate possible for real world correct identifications by witnesses. That's when it's clear a suspect exists, as in the "shooter" example above.

What happens in a missing person's case, as with RG? LE can't just show up in Lewisburg and say, "Have you seen a person?" or "Have you seen a man?" or even "Have you seen a middle-aged man?"

I don't think it's difficult to understand why correct identifications in missing persons' cases are described as "rare" and "notoriously bad" by those with expertise in such cases.

And if there's a case where multiple sightings of a missing person were valid at a Point Last Seen, I'd surely be interested in reading about it.

[Politigal]

lovin it Brett

:laugh:

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, you have posted nothing that refutes what I have been saying.

On eyewitness accuracy, you have posted

a) a link to a legal article about a case which was overturned because the judge limited what an expert on eyewitness testimony was allowed to present. The article contained the list of limited material the expert had been allowed to testify regarding. You tried to use that very narrow, limited list as a context to discuss the RG case, saying that none of the things therein applied to the RG witnesses, hence (in your mind) there were no problems with the witnesses in the RG case.

b) a link to a legal article written by a constitutional lawyer in which the author spends all of six lines summarizing the research in eyewitness testimony. His reference to "some studies" which show "error rates as high as 50%" you have tried to turn into some huge discrepancy with the data I've provided which shows an overall accuracy rate from a large number of studies at 47%. You apparently miss the point that if one of those many studies showed an error rate of 50%, it would be averaged into the raw data and create no discrepancy.

Additionally, you tried to imply that the six-line summary in that article spoke of a 50% error rate per witness, which it did not, and to create some unfounded mathematical formula at your blog to determine witness accuracy rate in the RG case based on that faulty implication.

c) a link to a limited study of only 509 military individuals where the primary focus was to investigate witness accuracy under highly intense stress. As I pointed out when you posted this link, data from nearly 50 studies trumps one small study with a focus that's irrelevant to Gricar. And in your efforts to discredit what I have been reporting, perhaps you missed this sentence in your own link:

There are several limitations to the present study. First, the present subjects represent military subjects who have participated in rigorous selection programs; therefore, the actual rates of suspect recognition
reported in this study may be higher than those found within the general population.

Despite all that, you tried to make the case that there must be something "fishy" about what I was reporting because my figures did not jibe with what you "were finding."

This is what you have done with your own links: you have misrepresented what the links actually say. And unfortunately, it is your M.O., whether deliberate or not. It is what you have continually done with the many, many links I have offered you in the past, especially regarding scent theory and dog tracking issues. I no longer do so because it sets off several pages worth of having to correct the misrepresentations, like the time you claimed the FBI link I provided you with said that scent was not easily transferable.

You have claimed superior Google skills again and again, so much so that your signature line is an allusion to those self-proclaimed skills. I have left a gazillion breadcrumbs in my posts so that anyone with minimal Google skills should be able to find corroboration for the information I've been posting. None of it is my "imagination," as you keep claiming, and all of it is, as OOB has noted, peer-reviewed, mainstream science.

[UndertheRadar]

If the witnesses were all found as a result of canvassing with photos, PLUS any of the witnesses were told or talked to each other stating that someone else in that vicinity had identified RG as having been there, I can see how the 'masses' would join in to assist. Just about guarantees the creation of 'multiple witnesses', without ever proving he was there.

I always thought that the flow of the stories from Friday to Saturday between Bennett and Alvey were a fine example of just that. Everyone is saying early on, no one saw anything, business as usual, etc., until Bennett joins in. THEN the story changes to match Bennett.

Seems to me that not only would there be the desire to be of 'help' in a case such as this, but there may possibly be another dynamic at work that with enough prompting, more and more witnesses in the same place may then believe they 'recall' something their friend or boss claims to have seen.

It has always sounded to me like the majority of the witnesses originated at the SOS, but only after being 'prompted'.
JMO

I think this is a huge part of the problem, Logic, and you've described it very clearly.

And I think we can likely add another layer, that would be contributions made by the way in which the witnesses were handled.

What we have with the alleged multiple witnesses is probably what we can expect to find when LE swoops into a small town and in essence lets the people it is canvassing know they believe a missing person was last seen in that area. The good folks of Lewisburg rose to the occasion and helped LE out by "remembering" they had seen Ray Gricar.

Compare that situation with two valid sightings of missing people we're aware of: Elizabeth Smart and Shasta Groene. No one expected Elizabeth to be walking on that particular street on that particular day (in fact, by that point most of the nation had sadly accepted she was probably dead; only her father held out real hope she was still alive). No one expected Shasta to be in that restaurant when she was spotted. The witnesses hadn't been approached by LE canvassing for information. In both cases, they saw the girls in a place and at a time no one would have anticipated, had an "aha" moment based on prior reports of the missing girls, and reported their suspicions to LE. Very different situation than the unconfirmed sightings in the RG case.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you have posted a great deal, but provided absolutely no data, just your opinion.

I, on the other hand, cited a study on the error rate of witnesses, cited an aggregate of studies by a law professor, and cited some actual points on the potential causes of witness misidentification, from an expert and then went on to note that this cause could explain the 4/16/05 witnesses. All of those things were with links. :rolleyes:

Now, sorry, but you saying so is not good enough. That is why folks are looking at your posts and asking about your agenda. It isn't because I'm implying anything about you; it is because of what you are posting.

[UndertheRadar]

No one here has "asked about" my alleged agenda, JJ. My track record for researching stuff and posting it accurately speaks for itself.

On the other hand . . .