Ray Gricar Easter Wkend 4/09 thru 4/12

[Politigal]

For all the missing, here's hoping that this weekend brings some tip, some clue, some evidence, or someone found ....and closure for some family.

DA Ray Gricar has been missing since last seen on surveillance video Thurs 4/14/05.

Here's a clip of one of the first press conferences where his girlfriend Patty Fornicola flanked by his nephews and his daughter plead for him to come home:

http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/ViewAsset.action?viewAsset=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fpages%2Fbrowseaction%2FsearchResults.jsp&cnnId=03660753&searchResultsActionBeanClass=com.cnn.imagesource.a ction.search.BrowseActionBean&damId=3660753

[Serendipitous1]

Thanks Seren...I mean, Politigal. :punch:

[Politigal]

Gricar family website

http://raygricar.com/

Site with news links/info

http://politigal.googlepages.com/

Site by his colleague J. Karen Arnold (who is currently running for Dem/DA in Centre County)

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/

[Politigal]

Thanks Seren...I mean, Politigal. :punch:

I had the clip saved too, but thanks for resurrecting it on Crimelibrary...

:)

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, P'gal, I seem to have been right, according to you, when I said that the police were monitoring the boards. :)

[Politigal]

Would you like a happy-face sticker or a star?

We were told long ago that police read the forum.....remember? when they wanted to know your name?

[J. J. in Phila]

Would you like a happy-face sticker or a star?

We were told long ago that police read the forum.....remember? when they wanted to know your name?


We were told they stopped by a few, which was inaccurate.

They know my name, and a few other things. ;)

[J. J. in Phila]

My guess is that LE is one step away from a solution or at least a probable solution. My only question is, did they take that final step yet?

[2-B]

I don't know about anybody else, but MR's response to Politigal did not sound to me as if LE was one step away from a solution.

[J. J. in Phila]

B-2, I never said that e-mail was; I said that I'd guess they were one step away from a "step away from a solution or at least a probable solution."

[2-B]

Just trying to clarify here, JJ. MR apparently told Politigal he was, among other things, doing the following:


following up on tips;
visiting inmates at the State Prison, hoping to get information on the case;
walking the banks of the river and looking for missed clues;
reading these message boards;
sending out flyers to police departments and shelters across the United States;
asking financial experts for analysis;
working with the FBI and the PSP on various leads.


This strikes me as a varied list of activities that could point to the investigation still going in a number of directions.

If what MR says is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it is not), how is it that you have come to believe investigators are one step away from a solution? On what basis have you reached that conclusion?

[Cloudbuster]

visiting inmates at a state prision is interesting to me. It kinda makes me think about a particular person showing up unexpectly:wink:
I also feel there is a piece of evidence not mentioned publiclly, perhaps the watch. Time will tell maybe. I just get a feeling there is something they found that's not mentioned. Thanks Pgal for the heads up!!

[Serendipitous1]

I don't know about anybody else, but MR's response to Politigal did not sound to me as if LE was one step away from a solution.I think this post (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=12980183&postcount=15) may offer a clue. The implication is that LE has gone or will go into "Wiley mode"...expressing a best guess as to what happened to RG, while not officially closing the case.

MR supposedly telling Politigal that the release of more information to the public could cause problems down the line (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=12986174&postcount=48) is a far cry from saying it might hinder a potential prosecution...down the line. What has been released in recent years...predictably...has dealt only with the theory or theories which are not criminal in nature. And if LE was to release more information, even under a new DA, it is unlikely this pattern would change.

One might believe that position has itself created problems...for RG's family and friends. Certainly it has fueled nearly 4 years of non-stop, argumentative speculation on message boards such as this. But to me, it has never been about knowing every investigative detail...but rather, knowing that the investigation is/was thorough and in the best hands possible.

For 3+ years MM has said just that. And the next DA might very well conclude the same, after investigating the investigation. But if there is a reason for the next DA to formally request a state investigation, that (the request if not the reason for the request) should be made public. In that event, any refusal or failure to act by the state AG would also become public.

[Politigal]

visiting inmates at a state prision is interesting to me. It kinda makes me think about a particular person showing up unexpectly:wink:
I also feel there is a piece of evidence not mentioned publiclly, perhaps the watch. Time will tell maybe. I just get a feeling there is something they found that's not mentioned. Thanks Pgal for the heads up!!

I wouldn't put a lot of hope into the inmates aspect...

MR said it was inmates trying to help themselves out, and they really didn't have any info or anything to help on the case at all...but that he has to follow up with them just the same.

[Politigal]

I think this post (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=12980183&postcount=15) may offer a clue. The implication is that LE has gone or will go into "Wiley mode"...expressing a best guess as to what happened to RG, while not officially closing the case.

MR supposedly telling Politigal that the release of more information to the public could cause problems down the line (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=12986174&postcount=48) is a far cry from saying it might hinder a potential prosecution...down the line. What has been released in recent years...predictably...has dealt only with the theory or theories which are not criminal in nature. And if LE was to release more information, even under a new DA, it is unlikely this pattern would change.

One might believe that position has itself created problems...for RG's family and friends. Certainly it has fueled nearly 4 years of non-stop, argumentative speculation on message boards such as this. But to me, it has never been about knowing every investigative detail...but rather, knowing that the investigation is/was thorough and in the best hands possible.

For 3+ years MM has said just that. And the next DA might very well conclude the same, after investigating the investigation. But if there is a reason for the next DA to formally request a state investigation, that (the request if not the reason for the request) should be made public. In that event, any refusal or failure to act by the state AG would also become public.

Obviously, I did not include everything MR said in his email/word for word. But here's one portion -- "it is really necessary for the integrity of this investigation."

[2-B]

I think this post (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=12980183&postcount=15) may offer a clue. The implication is that LE has gone or will go into "Wiley mode"...expressing a best guess as to what happened to RG, while not officially closing the case.


Some hints around in the last day or two that we may be moving beyond the simple "Wiley mode" push that's existed for a while now, the added layer being that "they" somehow perhaps already know Gricar took off voluntarily and will announce that once they can pinpoint a present location.

IMO, such a theory appears inconsistent with some of the activities MR reeled off in his email to Politigal, but that is only my opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

Some hints around in the last day or two that we may be moving beyond the simple "Wiley mode" push that's existed for a while now, the added layer being that "they" somehow perhaps already know Gricar took off voluntarily and will announce that once they can pinpoint a present location.

IMO, such a theory appears inconsistent with some of the activities MR reeled off in his email to Politigal, but that is only my opinion.

Possible, but there might be another explanation. I frankly cannot imagine MR not checking for a way out, but finding one might not lead to the conclusion that RFG walked away.

To different questions:

1. How did RFG get out of Lewisburg, if he did?

2. What happened to him after that if question #1 is answered?

[J. J. in Phila]

Just trying to clarify here, JJ. MR apparently told Politigal he was, among other things, doing the following:


following up on tips;
visiting inmates at the State Prison, hoping to get information on the case;
walking the banks of the river and looking for missed clues;
reading these message boards;
sending out flyers to police departments and shelters across the United States;
asking financial experts for analysis;
working with the FBI and the PSP on various leads.


This strikes me as a varied list of activities that could point to the investigation still going in a number of directions.

If what MR says is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it is not), how is it that you have come to believe investigators are one step away from a solution? On what basis have you reached that conclusion?

Notice what wasn't on the list. Looking, or ruling out, methods for RFG to have left Lewisburg. The dog that didn't bark.

[Politigal]

Have you tried emailing Matt Rickard?

mrickard@bellefonte.net

[Cinderella]

That is nice that LE is still trying to do all of those things, but what about re polygraphing some people or better yet, polygraphing some people that weren't done the first time. What about checking into Ray's bank account to see how much and if any activity has taken place.

I haven't been on the board for a while, and I know that elections are coming up. I live in Centre County and I want to know which new DA would best suited for the job and especially wanting to find RG.

I know that there is a lot of people for SPARKM. I was very impressed that she stood up for Ray against MM and others. I read some comments in the CDT, that she was abused where she was at before. I am thinking that anyone allowing themselves to be abused is not the person for this job.

I don't know about JKA, if all she had to say was in her magnificient masterpiece, what will she really do. I do feel especially bad that she was forced out of her job with only 1 year left to retire.

I have not been please with MM. The only way that I would vote for him is if he would come out and say, "I know where Ray is, he is alive and well." I also want proof.

T Debouf, I heard that he is a liberal and I am not so maybe someone can help me to decide.

[J. J. in Phila]

Have you tried emailing Matt Rickard?

mrickard@bellefonte.net

I have not e-mailed Detective Rickard.

[Serendipitous1]

Some hints around in the last day or two that we may be moving beyond the simple "Wiley mode" push that's existed for a while now, the added layer being that "they" somehow perhaps already know Gricar took off voluntarily and will announce that once they can pinpoint a present location.

IMO, such a theory appears inconsistent with some of the activities MR reeled off in his email to Politigal, but that is only my opinion.That would be something, if it was to be, 2-B! Although, like OOBrett, I must have missed the hints.

But if you are referring (or even if you are not) to LE being "one step away from a solution or at least a probable solution" and "did they take that final step yet?"...that has been around these parts longer than I have. That the dog don't bark, don't mean it can't. And that this dog won't bark on command proves (to me at least) that there is a God.

[Cloudbuster]

I wanted to wish all a Happy Easter!!! I dedicate this video to S1 and JJ. It is not off topic for it deals with down the rabbit hole.

http://www.whatthebleep.com/download/
Dr. Quantum in Flatland
6 minute clip from the extended What the Bleep!? -- Down the Rabbit Hole lol.

[J. J. in Phila]

That would be something, if it was to be, 2-B! Although, like OOBrett, I must have missed the hints.

But if you are referring (or even if you are not) to LE being "one step away from a solution or at least a probable solution" and "did they take that final step yet?"...that has been around these parts longer than I have. That the dog don't bark, don't mean it can't. And that this dog won't bark on command proves (to me at least) that there is a God.

I think 2-B was referring to another comment. However, the former poster, UTR, did not how logical it would be to ask the question.

I am merely wondering why it hasn't been answered.

[Serendipitous1]

Sorry Cloudbuster (and all). I forgot to mention...that to understand the 'dog barking' allegory, you must first visit blogland.

[2-B]

Notice what wasn't on the list. Looking, or ruling out, methods for RFG to have left Lewisburg. The dog that didn't bark.

Don't you agree that could easily fit under "working with the FBI and PSP on various leads"?

Obviously, MR was not going to tip his hand in an email to a concerned case follower and create a list of specific leads being followed.

[2-B]

That would be something, if it was to be, 2-B! Although, like OOBrett, I must have missed the hints.

But if you are referring (or even if you are not) to LE being "one step away from a solution or at least a probable solution" and "did they take that final step yet?"...that has been around these parts longer than I have. That the dog don't bark, don't mean it can't. And that this dog won't bark on command proves (to me at least) that there is a God.

As I see it, S1, it is nothing to get excited about, merely voices backing up the "one step away from a solution or a probable solution" mantra. It is nothing I put any faith in, at any rate. My opinion only, and I would assume yours (and OOB's) as well.

[J. J. in Phila]

Don't you agree that could easily fit under "working with the FBI and PSP on various leads"?

Obviously, MR was not going to tip his hand in an email to a concerned case follower and create a list of specific leads being followed.

It could be, but it should be fairly easy, and fairly inexpensive, to check some of the things (like car purchases/rentals).

In terms of the one step away I said, "one step away from a solution or a probable solution." They should have been able to rule out, or rule in, some things.

[gstickley]

Don't you agree that could easily fit under "working with the FBI and PSP on various leads"?

Obviously, MR was not going to tip his hand in an email to a concerned case follower and create a list of specific leads being followed.

Let's see . . . the BPD, PSP, FBI, various other LE agencies supposedly were involved in the investigation of RG's disappearance one way or another; Rickard supposedly reads the forum. Wouldn't you think that, some four years later, someone in LE wouldn't have thought about checking "car rentals/purchases" or "the way out"??? And, if Rickard or anybody else in LE do read the forum, surely one of them would have seen the mantra about a gazillion times. Do you think we all should email Rickard & ask him to check for that info. in case he didn't know to "check the car rentals/purchases" & "find the way out"??? :rolleyes:

[Serendipitous1]

Though not privy to the case files, the Democratic candidates have all surely heard the "bar" discussion (lawyer talk) concerning this case. I doubt the public will hear much more than promises to review the investigation and to take appropriate action. And MM can counter that he has already been there and done that.

But there may be some other talking points out there, just wanting the right question and a forum. There is such a forum (http://www.cbicc.org/press_room/hotTopics/HTInfo.aspx?secid=9&mid=5&smid=0&HTID=164), scheduled for April 29. All 4 candidates will be there. Questions/concerns are being solicited. I suppose they can be directed to one or more of the candidates, or to all of them.

It is only scheduled for 75 minutes and there are other important issues. So whatever questions/concerns are selected would have to be of general public interest. But here is at least one opportunity to get Gricar's case or a specific concern about any of the candidates (including MM) addressed.

ETA: no guarantee the CBICC will accept non-member questions/concerns.

[2-B]

Let's see . . . the BPD, PSP, FBI, various other LE agencies supposedly were involved in the investigation of RG's disappearance one way or another; Rickard supposedly reads the forum. Wouldn't you think that, some four years later, someone in LE wouldn't have thought about checking "car rentals/purchases" or "the way out"??? And, if Rickard or anybody else in LE do read the forum, surely one of them would have seen the mantra about a gazillion times. Do you think we all should email Rickard & ask him to check for that info. in case he didn't know to "check the car rentals/purchases" & "find the way out"??? :rolleyes:

Even if MR does only an occasional spot check of these boards, he couldn't possibly have missed the suggestion about car purchases and a way out of Lewisburg.

My guess: it's been done, and the BPD has found a) a car purchase traceable to RG or b) no car purchase traceable to RG.

If a) above, then why talk to prisoners, whom one would presume would be a source for possible foul play information? And if b), then it's back to square one, since there would still be other non-traceable ways out of Lewisburg, assuming Gricar was in Lewisburg to begin with. This, of course, is just my opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

Even if MR does only an occasional spot check of these boards, he couldn't possibly have missed the suggestion about car purchases and a way out of Lewisburg.

My guess: it's been done, and the BPD has found a) a car purchase traceable to RG or b) no car purchase traceable to RG.

If a) above, then why talk to prisoners, whom one would presume would be a source for possible foul play information? And if b), then it's back to square one, since there would still be other non-traceable ways out of Lewisburg, assuming Gricar was in Lewisburg to begin with. This, of course, is just my opinion.


I can assure you that was not "missed."

The problem with getting out of Lewisburg is that, in reality, there are minimal ways to do do it, all of which are traceable, if you know what you are looking for. Check those, find that none of them were used, and RFG didn't walk away. Check those and find something the probable answer could be walkaway or murder.

[2-B]

I can assure you that was not "missed."

No argument. Impossible to miss.

The problem with getting out of Lewisburg is that, in reality, there are minimal ways to do do it, all of which are traceable, if you know what you are looking for. Check those, find that none of them were used, and RFG didn't walk away. Check those and find something the probable answer could be walkaway or murder.

These points over-simplify, IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

No argument. Impossible to miss.



These points over-simplify, IMO.


On the first one, definitely impossible to miss in general. The details are as well.

On the second point, no. You have to ask two questions, if RFG got a car through a straw purchase.

1. Who would RFG trust enough to give money to to make a straw purchase?

2. Who would be loyal enough to RFG not to step forward to claim the reward? (I would have been signing like a canary!)

[Cinderella]

In answer to J.J.,

Who is the family spoke person who never took a lie detector test?

[2-B]

if RFG got a car through a straw purchase.


The focus on a car purchase is part of the over-simplification, IMO.

If Gricar was in Lewisburg, and used Lewisburg as the exit point to the start of a new life elsewhere, there's no doubt he could have found ways to exit Lewisburg using some non-traceable means if that's what he wanted to do.

Meanwhile, if you agree that MR has not missed the car suggestion, you must also agree that BPD has likely acted on it. As you have pointed out, it would take little time, effort, or money to follow up on checking DMV records.

What is unlikely at this point: LE revealing specific leads that have been acted upon (car records or otherwise) until and unless those leads provide some concrete information about or solution to the disappearance.

My opinion only.

[J. J. in Phila]

In answer to J.J.,

Who is the family spoke person who never took a lie detector test?


As far as I know only two polygraphs were given. For what I'm interested in, it would be unlikely that it would be any out of the area family member.

[J. J. in Phila]

The focus on a car purchase is part of the over-simplification, IMO.

If Gricar was in Lewisburg, and used Lewisburg as the exit point to the start of a new life elsewhere, there's no doubt he could have found ways to exit Lewisburg using some non-traceable means if that's what he wanted to do.


First, you are assuming something I'm not, that RFG left to start a new life. I am specifically not saying anything about starting a new life, just getting out of Lewisburg.

Second, some things would not be immediately traceable but would be with the passage of time.

Third, the evidence could show that someone got out of Lewisburg, but probably would not directly show that RFG left Lewisburg. It might show that Joe Smith left Lewisburg, and that Joe Smith never existed prior to 4/15/05, for example. Likewise, it could show that a friend rented a car around that time.

Fourth, purchases are only part of this, though the easiest to check at this point. It was impossible to check prior to 5/1/05 and probably impossible to rule out until 2006.



Meanwhile, if you agree that MR has not missed the car suggestion, you must also agree that BPD has likely acted on it. As you have pointed out, it would take little time, effort, or money to follow up on checking DMV records.

What is unlikely at this point: LE revealing specific leads that have been acted upon (car records or otherwise) until and unless those leads provide some concrete information about or solution to the disappearance.

My opinion only.

LE has however looked at other leads regarding the way out, and reported them to the public. They checked car rentals under RFG's name and public transportation and reported that those were negative.

The curtain that separates the public from the information on getting out of Lewisburg was raised in certain areas relating to a potential way out and kept firmly down in others.

[Serendipitous1]

I agree with 2-B's assessment. LE has to try to preserve evidence, as well as the investigative tools/strategies employed. The public is not entitled to know what all LE has done or not done, or what all LE has found or did not find.

Nothing relevant was likely missed if LE has read these threads. But I have always been fascinated (and not just in regard to J.J.'s perennially unanswered question...which is a good one BTW) that some amateur sleuths believe LE has not done this or that simply because it has never been reported, one way or the other.

Assuming RG was in Lewisburg (another only partially raised "curtain" IMO), there are several ways he could have left...with or without a vehicle, and therefore traceably (maybe) or untraceably (more likely). Only an affirmative discovery would be beneficial to LE. That would give LE another avenue to investigate...but it would not necessarily rule out any of the 3 main theories. Not finding a straw purchase/rental or whatever would mean nothing. It would not preclude any of the theories.

[2-B]

Assuming RG was in Lewisburg (another only partially raised "curtain" IMO), there are several ways he could have left...with or without a vehicle, and therefore traceably (maybe) or untraceably (more likely). Only an affirmative discovery would be beneficial to LE. That would give LE another avenue to investigate...but it would not necessarily rule out any of the 3 main theories. Not finding a straw purchase/rental or whatever would mean nothing. It would not preclude any of the theories.

This is how I have always seen the straw purchase issue, S1: useful as a potential lead if such a purchase is found; completely meaningless if no purchase is discovered.

[J. J. in Phila]

This is how I have always seen the straw purchase issue, S1: useful as a potential lead if such a purchase is found; completely meaningless if no purchase is discovered.

There is actually one thing you have not considered. The reward. A straw purchaser not loyal to RFG probably would come forward to claim the reward.

Hypothetically, let's say it was me (we'll also pretend I'm healthy enough to deliver the car). What would do when the reward was offered? Claim it. It was in excess of $15,000 and I think approaching $20 K.

If there was straw purchaser, he/she had to have some loyalty to RFG. That kind of loyalty eliminates a complete stranger. Likewise, would RFG had over money to a complete stranger in the hopes that the stranger would make the straw purchase.

S1, I've not said that I didn't believe LE checked; I've said I can't believe MR has not checked. I can believe he has.

[Serendipitous1]

There is actually one thing you have not considered. The reward. A straw purchaser not loyal to RFG probably would come forward to claim the reward.

Hypothetically, let's say it was me (we'll also pretend I'm healthy enough to deliver the car). What would do when the reward was offered? Claim it. It was in excess of $15,000 and I think approaching $20 K.

If there was straw purchaser, he/she had to have some loyalty to RFG. That kind of loyalty eliminates a complete stranger. Likewise, would RFG had over money to a complete stranger in the hopes that the stranger would make the straw purchase.

S1, I've not said that I didn't believe LE checked; I've said I can't believe MR has not checked. I can believe he has.You asked the question whether LE ever checked...which means you do not know if they did. I do not understand why LE would not just say yes, this was checked and no other information will be released at this time...unless LE never bothered to check. Your question is a good one. It is 'filed' along with a lot of other good ones.

I am sure there are many things I have not considered. But if I really wanted to disappear myself, it would be a complete, 'cold turkey' break...no one would know anything and nothing would be left to chance. There would be no drive in a flashy car, no phone call, no sightings, no 'pop-up later' laptop, no scent trail...no evidence period. And even if I was a devious, taunting type, there would still be no one who would know and nothing would be left to chance.

[gstickley]

Let me get this straight . . .

Ray Gricar, as a part of his "YITMAMPWT", decided to have a "straw purchaser" secretly obtain him a vehicle in which to escape the area undetected.

This "straw purchaser" may be a stranger, but RG still hands him an unknown amount of money to purchase said vehicle . . . Nah. The stranger "straw purchaser" could have kept the money & run away with it and, if RG were with him, someone might have recognized RG & the "YITMAMPWT" would have been blown.

Or, this "straw purchaser" is someone known to RG, but is not loyal to him & may try to collect the reward money, which now may be approaching $20,000 . . . but he apparently didn't and to this day has not mentioned a word about it & he allowed the reward money to expire . . . Kinda farfetched to me for someone not loyal to RG, but perhaps 'fugal' RG gave him the amount of the reward money to keep quiet; of course, this "straw purchaser" could have kept the "hush" money & still collected the reward money, because RG would have had to come back & raise cain about it! "YITMAMPWT" blown!

Or, this "straw purchaser" is someone with so much loyalty to RG that he purchases said vehicle & never tries to collect the reward money, which now may be approaching $20,000, & to this day has never breathed a word about it. This one may have possibilities . . . After all, it has been said RG did have a couple really close friends & then there's his housemate . . . And, maybe 'fugal' RG gave this "straw purchaser" the amount of the reward to keep quiet; this "straw purchaser" cannot apply for the reward money or the entire "YITMAMPWT" would be known.

Do I have this straight???

[J. J. in Phila]

Let me get this straight . . .

Ray Gricar, as a part of his "YITMAMPWT", decided to have a "straw purchaser" secretly obtain him a vehicle in which to escape the area undetected.

This "straw purchaser" may be a stranger, but RG still hands him an unknown amount of money to purchase said vehicle . . . Nah. The stranger "straw purchaser" could have kept the money & run away with it and, if RG were with him, someone might have recognized RG & the "YITMAMPWT" would have been blown.

Or, this "straw purchaser" is someone known to RG, but is not loyal to him & may try to collect the reward money, which now may be approaching $20,000 . . . but he apparently didn't and to this day has not mentioned a word about it & he allowed the reward money to expire . . . Kinda farfetched to me for someone not loyal to RG, but perhaps 'fugal' RG gave him the amount of the reward money to keep quiet; of course, this "straw purchaser" could have kept the "hush" money & still collected the reward money, because RG would have had to come back & raise cain about it! "YITMAMPWT" blown!

Or, this "straw purchaser" is someone with so much loyalty to RG that he purchases said vehicle & never tries to collect the reward money, which now may be approaching $20,000, & to this day has never breathed a word about it. This one may have possibilities . . . After all, it has been said RG did have a couple really close friends & then there's his housemate . . . And, maybe 'fugal' RG gave this "straw purchaser" the amount of the reward to keep quiet; this "straw purchaser" cannot apply for the reward money or the entire "YITMAMPWT" would be known.

Do I have this straight???

Of course you don't have it straight. I'm arguing that if there was a straw purchaser, it would not be a stranger that could:

1. Take the money and run.

2. Hear about the reward and claim it.

A stranger is possible, but unlikely.

If there was a straw purchaser, it was someone both whose honest and loyalty RFG could depend on, those very close to him. It would also have to be someone close enough to rent/buy the car.

That narrows down the who greatly. I'd say 25 or fewer people. Close friends, current or former SO's, current and former staff.

Of course, since RFG could not have known of the reward before it was offered, or to what it would grow to, he couldn't have matched it before the fact.

And right now, no reward is being offered.

[J. J. in Phila]

S1, I cannot believe this wouldn't have been checked, especially by MR. It would be important to at least debunk it as a defense argument if any suspect was prosecuted.

[Cinderella]

Ray Gricar did not commit a crime. If I wanted to leave behind my past life, I would have several people that I could count on to help me. Why do we have to make this so complicated?

A person stated that they had were packing a suitcase to go somewhere, I first thought that they had said Ohio, but now I can't find that. I have always wondered why decide to go to another state at the last minute just to have to be back at work by Monday. Was this person packing or was the suitcase already packed and then returned home after the trip. Packing a suitcase could have been a way to throw off others who may wonder if this person had anything to do with helping Ray. Was this person loyal enough to Ray to help him? Was this person's whereabouts checked from Thursday night through the time that Ray was just missing for a short time?

Just wondering. MOO

[gstickley]

Ray Gricar did not commit a crime. If I wanted to leave behind my past life, I would have several people that I could count on to help me. Why do we have to make this so complicated?

I don't know why it is so complicated, Cinderella. I believe I have a couple friends who would "help me bury the body" & certainly who would "help me escape the binds of whatever", as I would do for them. Isn't that what a true, loyal friend does? And IMO if you don't have such a friend, you probably ought to wonder why you don't.

Just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[Serendipitous1]

Serp1,

I don't mean to be ignorant, but what other important issues are there in a DA race? You want to elect a DA that's competent enough to prosecute what the cops bring him/her or that's at least competent enough to hire ADA's that can prosecute what the cops bring in, but other than that, what issues are DA's really running on?

"I'll be tough on crime."

"I'll be tough on child/elder/women abusers."

"I'll be tough on drugs."

"I'll let Penn State football players run amok if they're having a BCS-type season."

Seems like Gricar's fate is a special issue that should rise above the run-of-the-mill.You answered your own question. And I note that you are breaking your "weekend rule"...good for you!

[Serendipitous1]

Pardon the serial posting, but I'm trying to catch up.

2-B, I am fairly certain that whatever you assume my opinion to be is correct.2-B (or not 2-B)...I think we both agreed with your assessment that there is no "hint" of any resolution to this case looming large.

[Serendipitous1]

The world is full of a-holes. I try not to be one...but sometimes it feels like a losing battle.

I have yet to find any objective, corroborated evidence that RG existed beyond the Thursday (4/14/05) courthouse surveillance video (assuming that report is accurate).

I have yet to find any objective, corroborated evidence to refute PF's account of events.

There appears to be at least circumstantial evidence that RG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 and perhaps even on 4/16/05.

I am confident that nearly every piece of "evidence" has multiple possible connotations, and that no one has yet presented a cogent explanation for RG's disappearance (am I 'thick', or what?).

[Serendipitous1]

Good for me?

Terrible for me.

It means I'm dringkingking beireer in fortooprnto of ac compujterer sccdccreen instead of infroenttl of my chkijds and shoeingwing them how to drrindk and cuurerse likke a drunkien salirllor ons shore leaeeave.

The kids are at church for Easter. It's too cold for me to hit Penn-Roosevelt. I have a rare weekend of no coaching, no kids around (for the timebeing), and medium-speed internet service to allow me to act like a total jack(j)***, so I'm taking advantage of it.Welcome to the real world then...if only through this dial-up cyber connection.

[Serendipitous1]

However, on PF's account of events....there's really no way to account for her version...since it was only her word & her word alone.

And of course, RG isn't here to back up her version of events Thursday night into Friday.And that is your sole rationale for persecuting PF? Please tell us there is something more.

[J. J. in Phila]

The world is full of a-holes. I try not to be one...but sometimes it feels like a losing battle.

I have yet to find any objective, corroborated evidence that RG existed beyond the Thursday (4/14/05) courthouse surveillance video (assuming that report is accurate).

I have yet to find any objective, corroborated evidence to refute PF's account of events.

There appears to be at least circumstantial evidence that RG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 and perhaps even on 4/16/05.

I am confident that nearly every piece of "evidence" has multiple possible connotations, and that no one has yet presented a cogent explanation for RG's disappearance (am I 'thick', or what?).

Well, his scent was in are where people saw him, and the Mini was in the area where people saw him driving it (the lot), so that would be corroboration.

Some evidence can point to:

1. Walkaway, suicide or murder.

2. Walkaway or suicide.

3. Walkaway or murder.

4. Walkaway.

5. Suicide (basically a family history of depression points to that).

6. Murder or suicide (the pension).

But all of it could be unrelated.

[J. J. in Phila]

Questions here------------

On Saturday, IIRC, 2:30-ish mother and daughter saw the Mini in the SOS lot in front location.

Drawing on photo from TG shows vehicle in a different location than woman claimed the Mini was in.

Post office person says 'doesn't recall seeing the Mini there' when cassette tape was picked up. Not sure what time mail person goes through, but maybe 3-4?? pm, the car was found at 6 pm-ish.

Did LE check to see if the engine was still warm? What about oil, radiator water temps? Both hold heat for quite a while after a vehicle has been driven. If it was there at 2:30, not there afterward, then back in lot by 6-ish, was the car still warm from having been run recent to the time it was found?

Just curious-------
JMO

Very good question.

[J. J. in Phila]

However, on PF's account of events....there's really no way to account for her version...since it was only her word & her word alone.

And of course, RG isn't here to back up her version of events Thursday night into Friday.

There are, however, records. The call from the Brush Valley area was placed. From what phone PEF called RFG will be in his records. The are are also witnesses to where she was.

[Politigal]

there are *no* witnesses to Patty's whereabouts Thursday night til she got to work Friday.

Even Tony has confirmed that.

[Serendipitous1]

oh come on....I know you've read some of my previous posts
i.e. http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=325236I cannot eliminate foul play. And I cannot eliminate PF in the event of foul play. It is up to LE to figure it out. My gripe has always been that the BPD should never have been allowed to conduct this investigation. And that is not based on any knowledge of an actual conflict of interest...but on the singular premise that any potential conflict of interest is to be avoided.

MM has his head so far up TC's butt that he never recognized the difference. Time for a new DA. Stacy Parks Miller...She wins, WE win (http://www.parksmillerforda.org/). This is an unsolicited, shameless announcement.

[Serendipitous1]

To Politigal: Your heart is in the right place, even if your mind is not. You have addressed (http://blog.tonydeboefforda.com/2009/01/09/welcome.aspx#Comment) Tony De Boef's campaign, though no one else has bothered to do so. And you have endorsed (http://arnoldforda.org/3.html) (select 'Regular View') J. Karen Arnold's campaign, though no one else has bothered to do so.

Why don't you come on over to the right, light, winning side (http://parksmillerforda.org)? You could do so much better with Stacy Parks Miller. Give her a shout-out too...and a chance.

[2-B]

2-B (or not 2-B)...I think we both agreed with your assessment that there is no "hint" of any resolution to this case looming large.

Then there are at least three of us (and I suspect likely more) in that camp. Someone pass the s'mores until we get some real hope of a breakthrough?

[Cloudbuster]

RG knew all the safety tips, when Dana Bailey was killed he gave them. In the last post of the page you can see what he suggested to the students. I think he would of used them.
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t628.html

[Cloudbuster]

These 3 tips might help understand why Ray might have kept moving his car. It also might be why if he did go into the SOS.

• If you think you're being followed by someone on foot, change directions or head for a store or a group of people.

• If you are on foot and think you are being followed by someone in a car, change directions, cross to the opposite side of the street or head the opposite way on a one-way street.

• If a driver stops to ask for directions, do not get too close to the car and risk being pulled in.

[Cinderella]

I don't know why it is so complicated, Cinderella. I believe I have a couple friends who would "help me bury the body" & certainly who would "help me escape the binds of whatever", as I would do for them. Isn't that what a true, loyal friend does? And IMO if you don't have such a friend, you probably ought to wonder why you don't.

Just my opinion, to which I am entitled.



Right on gstickley.

[J. J. in Phila]

there are *no* witnesses to Patty's whereabouts Thursday night til she got to work Friday.

Even Tony has confirmed that.

But there is evidence of RFG being alive on Friday afternoon after PEF got to work.

[J. J. in Phila]

Ray Gricar did not commit a crime. If I wanted to leave behind my past life, I would have several people that I could count on to help me. Why do we have to make this so complicated?

A person stated that they had were packing a suitcase to go somewhere, I first thought that they had said Ohio, but now I can't find that. I have always wondered why decide to go to another state at the last minute just to have to be back at work by Monday. Was this person packing or was the suitcase already packed and then returned home after the trip. Packing a suitcase could have been a way to throw off others who may wonder if this person had anything to do with helping Ray. Was this person loyal enough to Ray to help him? Was this person's whereabouts checked from Thursday night through the time that Ray was just missing for a short time?

Just wondering. MOO

So far as I know, many of the people that could have helped RFG leave were not investigated, at least under DZ.

[gstickley]

To Politigal: Your heart is in the right place, even if your mind is not. You have addressed (http://blog.tonydeboefforda.com/2009/01/09/welcome.aspx#Comment) Tony De Boef's campaign, though no one else has bothered to do so. And you have endorsed (http://arnoldforda.org/3.html) (select 'Regular View') J. Karen Arnold's campaign, though no one else has bothered to do so.

Why don't you come on over to the right, light, winning side (http://parksmillerforda.org)? You could do so much better with Stacy Parks Miller. Give her a shout-out too...and a chance.

J. Karen Arnold was an ADA for 18 years, working alongside Ray Gricar. Neither of the other candidates can make that claim. Since Ms. Arnold was chosen by RG & remained in his office for 18 years, it is apparent RG felt she must have been 'doing her job'. Her eighteen (18) years of experience in the job alone would make her the best candidate for District Attorney.

Since this forum is about Ray Gricar, neither of the other candidates has the insight into Ray Gricar, the person, and Ray Gricar, the DA, I believe J. Karen Arnold would be the best candidate to further an investigation into his disappearance.

Below are just a few of the things that J. Karen Arnold had to say about Ray Gricar. ("Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury", Googlepages)

When I joined the DA’s Office in April, 1988, Ray asked me for a commitment of a year. There were many reasons I found working for him rewarding enough to stay for 18. But above all others was his commitment to making decisions basely solely on the facts and the conduct, not the socio-economic status of the person, who represented him/her or similar collateral factors.
(snip)

Ray was an intensely private person, a person who in general seemed uncomfortable expressing emotion. His devotion to his daughter was the exception.
(snip)

He maintained his professionalism and met his court commitments no matter what else might have been going on in his personal life, no matter what criticism was leveled at him for his decisions, no matter how many irons he had in the fire. I saw him try a jury case to conviction on a day he was clearly very ill. By ‘office legend’ when I joined the office, he was reported to have made it on time to a trial on a morning he came out to find all of his tires slashed. Ray was at work nights and weekends throughout the entire time I knew him, no less so when he was part-time than after the position was made full-time. He was the most organized, productive and methodical person I have ever known. He was also the most personally responsible, and the most predictable.

His ethical standards were ironclad. If something occurred during a trial that was arguably improper but had not been raised by defense counsel or the judge, there was no need to even ask him whether it should be brought up to both, as his answer was always yes, regardless of the effect on the case. He was firm in his commitment to keeping the media and public fully informed, whether it was answering questions on cases of public interest, explaining changes in the law or explaining the rationales behind his decisions, the last example of which was his letter to the CDT shortly before his disappearance answering their challenge as to why he had permitted a lesser plea in a domestic violence case originally charged as attempted homicide. Even after 20 years in office, he was keenly aware of his status as a public servant and the obligations that go with it.
(snip)

This is the man that I knew professionally for 19 years. The Ray Gricar who would choose not to appear for a hearing where he was an essential witness, walk away from a daughter he worshipped, expose his family to a replication of his brother’s suicide, lay to waste a reputation built over 20 years, allowing himself to be remembered as a ‘head case’ who simply decided one day to ‘blow off’ his family, his responsibilities, the citizens who had elected him, his staff and his future as an attorney, is someone I do not recognize. And I am absolutely confident that I am not alone.

[J. J. in Phila]

And during those 18 years, JKA never actually was given administrative responsibility for running the office. RFG never cited he ability to run the office.

There is another Gricar related issue. While JKA wrote a lot on the RFG case, she never suggested a course of action, either during the campaign in 2005(which I can understand), or after. You can contrast this with McKnight and Buehner; both have suggested a course of action.

[gstickley]

To my knowledge, McKnight & Buehner are not candidates for the office of District Attorney of Centre Co. in the next election.

And, to my knowledge, SPM & TdB have never "suggested a course of action" either.

[J. J. in Phila]

To my knowledge, McKnight & Buehner are not candidates for the office of District Attorney of Centre Co. in the next election.

And, to my knowledge, SPM & TdB have never "suggested a course of action" either.


Okay, so let's establish that none of the candidates, including JKA, have addressed the RFG issue.

This was a criticism of both campaigns during the last general election.
http://blogs.centredaily.com/centresquawker/2005/09/da_candidate_ma.html

JKA, and MM, in fairness, have had a greater opportunity to step up and address the the Gricar case. Neither has. MM said "no stone unturned," but didn't lift up too many pebbles.

[gstickley]

This is what TdB had to say about Ray Gricar's disappearance. Compare it to what KA had to say.
(I'm still looking for what, if anything, SPM had to say.)

Nancy Grace, 04/22/05, CNNHN.

Tony DeBoef is a friend and colleague of the missing prosecutor.

Tony, what can you tell us tonight? What do you think happened?

TONY DEBOEF, FRIEND OF RAY GRICAR: Well, as you well know, being a prosecutor yourself at one time, oftentimes, people do interesting things. You can`t really ask yourself why, but look at the facts of what we know.

GRACE: Well, what do you think happened? Of course people do interesting things. That`s why they land behind bars. But your friend was a felony prosecutor. What do you think happened to him? Foul play? Has he just gone on a walkabout? What?

DEBOEF: He`s definitely been missing for seven days. He would have definitely told his family, particularly his daughter if he was just going for a trip or vacation. He missed hearings this week. He is a thinking man`s DA. He tried all the serious cases in this county. He was very methodical. He was very good at what he does.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: What kind of cases did he handle?

DEBOEF: He handled and still on the docket handles several cases involving, you know, death in the community. He always handles...

GRACE: That would be murder?

DEBOEF: Yes, murders.

GRACE: He handles murder cases?

DEBOEF: Murders, you know, shaken baby syndromes. We have one of those right now. But, particularly, he did all the domestic violence cases.
(snip)

[gstickley]

Okay, so let's establish that none of the candidates, including JKA, have addressed the RFG issue.


Let's word it this way: "Okay, so let's establish that none of the candidates, including SPM & TdB, have addressed the RFG issue".

[2-B]

Does anyone happen to recall where the woman in Lewisburg said she saw what she thought was RG's Mini on Sunday, the day after RG's Mini was found in the lot?

I was thinking it was somewhere in the area of the museum, on the main street? I am wondering if this wasn't the red and white Mini seen in the park area, and then somewhere close on Sunday, someone in from out of town for the weekend, staying close by.



I have those posts saved. She said she was at a local cafe for lunch and was parked behind the Maryland Mini on Market Street, the street that runs through the center of town. Not positive this was Sunday, though. Might have been a few days after the Saturday incident, but I'll have to go back and check dates after the obligatory Easter egg hunt and gazillion calorie meal.

[Serendipitous1]

I have those posts saved. She said she was at a local cafe for lunch and was parked behind the Maryland Mini on Market Street, the street that runs through the center of town. Not positive this was Sunday, though. Might have been a few days after the Saturday incident, but I'll have to go back and check dates after the obligatory Easter egg hunt and gazillion calorie meal.It was on Wed. 4/20/05. You are correct, it was on Market Street and the café was not named...so the proximity to the park is unknowable. I was in Lewisburg on 4/22 & 23, and a few times thereafter. I never noticed any Mini Coopers, let alone a red and white one.

[Serendipitous1]

Let's word it this way: "Okay, so let's establish that none of the candidates, including SPM & TdB, have addressed the RFG issue".TdeB has said (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/02/10/local_wants_to_restore_da_offi_1.aspx) that he has not seen what MM has done to find RG, that he definitely wants to figure out what happened to RG and, if elected, would review "every single thing that has or has not been done".

As I posted yesterday, this is about all the Dems can say at this point, unless there is a BB-type streak in one of them...which we have not seen yet.

[Politigal]

It was on Wed. 4/20/05. You are correct, it was on Market Street and the café was not named...so the proximity to the park is unknowable. I was in Lewisburg on 4/22 & 23, and a few times thereafter. I never noticed any Mini Coopers, let alone a red and white one.

http://tinyurl.com/cz3n58

If anything, I'd say the town is left-leaning, judging by the funky shops and the fact that there were a lot of Mini Coopers, Priuses, VW Beetles, PT Cruisers, and other "hip" vehicles in and around town.

and photos from Lewisburg (including one of a red Mini)

http://www.city-data.com/forum/pennsylvania/85083-lewisburg-photo-tour.html

[Politigal]

and another site with a 2003 Red & white Mini Cooper for sale in Lewisburg

http://tinyurl.com/dljsos

2003 MINI Cooper s

2003 MINI Cooper, 39,556 miles, Red

Location:
Lewisburg, PA

Source:
Lewisburg Ford on www.EveryCarListed.com (via EveryCarListed.com),

[Serendipitous1]

highlighting mine
Doesn't that bother you?Everything about this case bothers me. But what bothers me the most is that I have been unable to contribute anything useful. I understand the circumstantial suspicion...and have gone through possible scenarios, over and over again, in my mind.

I have wondered why RG was supposedly wearing the same clothing on Friday that he had been seen wearing on Thursday evening in the courthouse surveillance video. Was there a sinister reason why those particular garments could not be produced at the house, which necessitated the reported dress on Friday? Don't know.

I have wondered why there were no reported sightings of a red and white Mini Cooper in Bellefonte on Friday morning...but there were all kinds of sightings in Lewisburg that day. Could it be that RG's Mini Cooper was moved out of Bellefonte Thursday night? Don't know.

I have wondered why there was absolutely no reported contact with RG on Friday by anyone who knew him, except for PF (day whatever and we have still not seen the cellphone logs). Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered why there is absolutely no corroborating evidence that RG existed on 4/15/05. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered what it was on RG's county-issued laptop computer which necessitated its removal from the house, who might have done that, and when. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered if someone could avoid suspicion despite intense questioning and even a rigorous polygraph examination? Apparently, yes. Could PF do so? Don't know. Did PF do so? Don't actually know, though LE said she is not a suspect.

I have wondered if there is anyone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, slip his underwear into the laundry pile for scenting purposes, move the Mini out of Bellefonte, dress in clothing similar to what was seen on the CH video, place a call on the road Friday morning, get himself noticed in Lewisburg, etc. Is there such a person? Don't know.

Find someone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, and "wonder" grows "legs". Otherwise, we are stuck with the "official" version of events.

[J. J. in Phila]

LW, if you are referring to the Mini across from the Museum (and beside the park), witnesses put RFG in the Mini, moving it.

[Politigal]

I recall early on that there were reportedly at least 3 mini's resembling RG's in Lewisburg during that time frame.

GStickley has also posted about that in the past, so I know she also recalls that...

And Cloudbuster also posted about it on 10/22/08.

[Politigal]

Even JJ posted (in response to Logic) on 2/15/08 at 11:48pm

"I think you include that someone saw a Mini; there were other red Minis in the area."

bada bing bada bing

[Politigal]

Everything about this case bothers me. But what bothers me the most is that I have been unable to contribute anything useful. I understand the circumstantial suspicion...and have gone through possible scenarios, over and over again, in my mind.

I have wondered why RG was supposedly wearing the same clothing on Friday that he had been seen wearing on Thursday evening in the courthouse surveillance video. Was there a sinister reason why those particular garments could not be produced at the house, which necessitated the reported dress on Friday? Don't know.

I have wondered why there were no reported sightings of a red and white Mini Cooper in Bellefonte on Friday morning...but there were all kinds of sightings in Lewisburg that day. Could it be that RG's Mini Cooper was moved out of Bellefonte Thursday night? Don't know.

I have wondered why there was absolutely no reported contact with RG on Friday by anyone who knew him, except for PF (day whatever and we have still not seen the cellphone logs). Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered why there is absolutely no corroborating evidence that RG existed on 4/15/05. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered what it was on RG's county-issued laptop computer which necessitated its removal from the house, who might have done that, and when. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered if someone could avoid suspicion despite intense questioning and even a rigorous polygraph examination? Apparently, yes. Could PF do so? Don't know. Did PF do so? Don't actually know, though LE said she is not a suspect.

I have wondered if there is anyone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, slip his underwear into the laundry pile for scenting purposes, move the Mini out of Bellefonte, dress in clothing similar to what was seen on the CH video, place a call on the road Friday morning, get himself noticed in Lewisburg, etc. Is there such a person? Don't know.

Find someone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, and "wonder" grows "legs". Otherwise, we are stuck with the "official" version of events.

As far as finding a lookalike I don't think that's necessary.

I still think the witness sightings were spurred by news reports, just like in 100's of other cases across the country.

[J. J. in Phila]

As far as finding a lookalike I don't think that's necessary.

I still think the witness sightings were spurred by news reports, just like in 100's of other cases across the country.

Where do these "100's of other cases" exist? Even in looking at other cases. we don't get multiple sightings so close.

[Serendipitous1]

LW, if you are referring to the Mini across from the Museum (and beside the park), witnesses put RFG in the Mini, moving it.A witness (or perhaps witnesses) placed someone, possibly resembling RG, in connection with a distinctive car. What is it that we are supposed to glean from that?

[J. J. in Phila]

Go back to the posted witness list. I only used sights of RFG, not sightings of a Mini.

[Serendipitous1]

As far as finding a lookalike I don't think that's necessary.

I still think the witness sightings were spurred by news reports, just like in 100's of other cases across the country.In this case...I think you would be "dead" wrong...JMOO.

[Politigal]

In this case...I think you would be "dead" wrong...JMOO.

Perhaps it wasn't *just* news reports, but the way law enforcement showed them a video & photos of RG....

and then it was probably...yeah, I think I saw a guy like that...

[2-B]

Where do these "100's of other cases" exist? Even in looking at other cases. we don't get multiple sightings so close.

Sure we do.

There were literally dozens of (inaccurate) alleged sightings of Jennifer Kesse all within a small geographical area.

There were at least 135 (unconfirmed) sightings of Madeleine McCann on the island of Malta alone.

That's just scratching the surface of supposed sightings in those two cases, and those two cases are just the tip of the iceberg. High profile missing persons cases often have hundreds and hundreds of so-called sightings without having a single sighting that can be confirmed and/or without having a single sighting that is valid.

What's typical in garden variety higher profile missing persons case IS multiple sightings, and those multiple sightings will come from a given geographical area if investigators give potential witnesses a reason to believe the person they're looking for was IN a particular geographic area. The simple act of canvassing an area gives potential witnesses that reason.

There's nothing publicly available in the Gricar case to confirm that any of the witness sightings were actually sightings of Ray Gricar. And DZ's comments in the Renner article notwithstanding, most media pieces have summarized the investigation as having failed to confirm or as having discounted most or all of the witness sightings.

Until or unless authorities can confirm which, if any, of the sightings can be validated, IMO they remain only an interesting but essentially useless piece of the puzzle.

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B the Island of Malta is a lot bigger than a city block, Megan McCann was not driving a distinctive vehicle, and the sighting did not occur over six hours. That's just 4/15/05.

No, sorry, there isn't one example that I've ever heard of where this many occurred incorrectly, and were not ruled out.

One of the reasons I have not included the other Mini sitings is because there is no evidence it was the Mini RFG was driving.

[Serendipitous1]

There are NO confirmed sightings of RG, after 4/14/05. Am I right or am I wrong?

[J. J. in Phila]

Considering we do not know how many other areas there were sightings that day, I would be rather surprised if the only place RG was said to have been seen on Friday was in Lewisburg. IF that is the ONLY place, I would guess it was because the focus was on the car area in Lewisburg, and people rose to the occasion to assist. It is impossible to have traveled 60+ miles without being seen once until Lewisburg.
JMO

He saw seen by one person, outside of Lewisburg, by McKnight's witness, but that within two miles of the parking lot.

Rarely would someone see another driver, and remember it, while driving; the only times were when was traveling very slowly or was stopped. Also, Brush Valley is sparsely populated, making it harder to spot.

[J. J. in Phila]

There are NO confirmed sightings of RG, after 4/14/05. Am I right or am I wrong?

You are wrong, depending on how you define "confirmed." Do the police say he was there? Yes. Are there witness accounts supported by other witness accounts and/or physical evidence he was there? Yes. Was I standing in the SoS and saw him? No.

What do you mean by "confirmed?"

We've thrown around words like "corroborated" and "confirmed," but without giving them any real meaning.

RFG was seen Tallyrand Park on 4/14/05. We have two witnesses, each of whom gives a similar account. Is that "confirmed?"

[Politigal]

There are NO confirmed sightings of RG, after 4/14/05. Am I right or am I wrong?

You're absolutely right!

[2-B]

When investigators canvassed witnesses, did they narrow time frame and geography with their questioning or did they show photos of Ray Gricar and ask, "Have you seen this man in your lifetime, ever, anywhere?"

They could not ask the latter. Gricar, being a public servant, had photos and video in the media, had appeared in public, etc.

Investigators would by necessity have had to narrow time frame. And by questioning those who worked in the area and/or those who had been in the area where investigators anticipated Gricar might have been, they limited geography. That is inherent in the canvassing.

Essentially the same effect was created in the very earliest stages of the Laci Peterson case, when word went out that a pregnant woman had gone missing while walking her dog in her neighborhood Christmas Eve morning somewhere between 9:30 a.m. and about 10:30 a.m. or so. What did that produce? A list of at least seven witnesses who claimed to see a pregnant woman dressed in the clothes Laci had been wearing, walking the kind of dog Laci was walking, in Laci's neighborhood within blocks of her home, in the hour and a half time frame that had been specified.

When it comes to witness sightings, investigators can often inadvertently get what they ask for. Ever hear of Ali Gilmore? Probably not. She's a 30-year-old, African-American, pregnant woman who went missing from her home in February 2006. Take a look at the old news articles on her disappearance. I didn't find a single mention of sightings of Ali until her case was featured in May 2006 on the Montel Williams Show, and then, voila! After the Friday airing of the show, that weekend, suddenly forty sightings of Ali were reported. Investigators had gotten exactly what they asked for, and that is tips and sightings in the case.

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/2765466.html

As of the third anniversary of Ali's disappearance, she was still missing, by the way. Apparently none of the sightings was ever confirmed as valid.

[2-B]

What do you mean by "confirmed?"

We've thrown around words like "corroborated" and "confirmed," but without giving them any real meaning.


[snipped]

The FBI seems to have very clear ideas of what it means when it uses the word "confirmed" relative to witness sightings. The FBI will confirm a sighting only when it has documentation and/or corroboration, and it does not consider merely having multiple witnesses corroboration.

What's good enough for the FBI is good enough for me when it comes to defining "confirmed" in the context of witness sightings.

[J. J. in Phila]

B-2, there was minimal news coverage of RFG in Lewisburg prior to 4/17/05. McKnight's witness was not a result of canvassing.

Other, inaccurate reports from Lewisburg, after 4/17, could have been suspected, but there none reported. All reported results came from that specific area, except for McKnight's witness.

In the Peterson, LE could match the person seen by witnesses to an actual person, and it wasn't Laci. Not so in this case.

None of the other cases you've been citing have common characteristics with this one, multiple witnesses seeing RFG in the same place at the same time in a limited geographic area, and at least 6 seeing him in the Mini. Sorry, but after all this talk about other cases, it still comes to than factor; we don't seem to have any others where what you are claiming occurred.

[Serendipitous1]

You are wrong, depending on how you define "confirmed." Do the police say he was there? Yes. Are there witness accounts supported by other witness accounts and/or physical evidence he was there? Yes. Was I standing in the SoS and saw him? No.

What do you mean by "confirmed?"

We've thrown around words like "corroborated" and "confirmed," but without giving them any real meaning.

RFG was seen Tallyrand Park on 4/14/05. We have two witnesses, each of whom gives a similar account. Is that "confirmed?"I know what I mean when I say confirmed/corroborated. I have no idea why you have such difficulty...perhaps an hallucinogenic state of blogland nirvana.

[J. J. in Phila]

I know what I mean when I say confirmed/corroborated. I have no idea why you have such difficulty...perhaps an hallucinogenic state of blogland nirvana.

I sure have no idea what you mean by it. Using an online dictionary:

"# To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.
# To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics."

http://www.answers.com/topic/confirm

I'd say it was "confirmed." I'm speaking American English, but in keeping with your analogy, you can check the Sanskrit if you'd like.

[J. J. in Phila]

Adding to this------------OR did he make that call as a sort of scare-tactic in the event someone was following----which they would have then proceeded on down route 192, or if already on route 445, stopped and turned away, only to catch up with him further down the road, or turning off in another direction as if they weren't following but then caught up with him later. Those two Z's have to be connected, somehow, someway, and before all is said and done with this investigation, I am certain I find out what they mean.
JMO

He could have turned off or not been on 192 when the call was made.

If he though there was someone following him, however, why didn't he call LE.

[Politigal]

I don't have the link handy but I recall law enforcement stating that none of the witness sightings had been corroborated.

cor·rob·o·rate audio (k-rb-rt) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
cor·rob·o·rat·ed , cor·rob·o·rat·ing , cor·rob·o·rates

To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.

[J. J. in Phila]

[snipped]

The FBI seems to have very clear ideas of what it means when it uses the word "confirmed" relative to witness sightings. The FBI will confirm a sighting only when it has documentation and/or corroboration, and it does not consider merely having multiple witnesses corroboration.

What's good enough for the FBI is good enough for me when it comes to defining "confirmed" in the context of witness sightings.

Here is the definition for corroborate:

To support or enhance the believability of a fact or assertion by the presentation of additional information that confirms the truthfulness of the item.

The testimony of awitness[sic] is corroborated if subsequent evidence, such as a coroner's report or the testimony of other witnesses, substantiates it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/corroborate [emphasis added]

"Confirmed" and "corroborated."

Now, all that said, I'm willing to use the "reasonable doubt" standard, why is higher than "corroborated."

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't have the link handy but I recall law enforcement stating that none of the witness sightings had been corroborated.

cor·rob·o·rate audio (k-rb-rt) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
cor·rob·o·rat·ed , cor·rob·o·rat·ing , cor·rob·o·rates

To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.

Like Multiple witnesses, right?

[Serendipitous1]

The personified absurdity of this forced, wayward, single-threaded forum...a true thorn amongst roses. Thanks 'sis'...you are a jewel.

[2-B]

B-2, there was minimal news coverage of RFG in Lewisburg prior to 4/17/05. McKnight's witness was not a result of canvassing.

McKnight's witness is one witness, not multiple witnesses.

This is a person who contacted former District Attorney Ted McKnight right after Ray’s disappearance. Ted advised this individual to contact Bellefonte Police Department. Ted related this to me in a conversation right after the disappearance. This individual is a Lock Haven resident familiar with Ray because of reading the Centre Daily Times.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/691532.html

So, let's see. This witness who reported the alleged sighting right after the disappearance was familiar with Gricar because of reading the CDT. Think he read about the disappearance in the same source? He must have heard about it somewhere to report his alleged sighting. Think that information may have in any possible way shaped his memory of what he saw (or thought he saw) on the road near the Country Cupboard on that Friday afternoon? I wonder if it's anything like the time a year or so ago one morning when I could have sworn I saw PF driving the Mini-Cooper in Centre County. Of course, it was a weekday at a time when she normally would have been at work and was nowhere near Bellefonte at the time I "saw" her. Mmm. Maybe I have just been interested in this case and saw a red and white Mini Cooper and thought it was PF?

In the Peterson, LE could match the person seen by witnesses to an actual person, and it wasn't Laci. Not so in this case.

That is not true for all seven of the sightings in the Peterson case. Investigators did not even interview the majority of the witnesses. They suspected Scott almost immediately in her disappearance and doubted his story about Laci walking the dog and wanted to eliminate rather than confirm sightings as they started to build a case against him.

None of the other cases you've been citing have common characteristics with this one, multiple witnesses seeing RFG in the same place at the same time in a limited geographic area, and at least 6 seeing him in the Mini. Sorry, but after all this talk about other cases, it still comes to than factor; we don't seem to have any others where what you are claiming occurred.

Sure we do. But I imagine that until another Republican District Attorney from Centre County, PA disappears with a red and white 2004 Mini Cooper found in Lewisburg, PA, you'll keep finding dissimilarities that somehow make these witnesses special and keep finding ways to corroborate and document that which is non-corroborated and non-documented.

[Serendipitous1]

Bumped...for the blogland challenged:Everything about this case bothers me. But what bothers me the most is that I have been unable to contribute anything useful. I understand the circumstantial suspicion...and have gone through possible scenarios, over and over again, in my mind.

I have wondered why RG was supposedly wearing the same clothing on Friday that he had been seen wearing on Thursday evening in the courthouse surveillance video. Was there a sinister reason why those particular garments could not be produced at the house, which necessitated the reported dress on Friday? Don't know.

I have wondered why there were no reported sightings of a red and white Mini Cooper in Bellefonte on Friday morning...but there were all kinds of sightings in Lewisburg that day. Could it be that RG's Mini Cooper was moved out of Bellefonte Thursday night? Don't know.

I have wondered why there was absolutely no reported contact with RG on Friday by anyone who knew him, except for PF (day whatever and we have still not seen the cellphone logs). Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered why there is absolutely no corroborating evidence that RG existed on 4/15/05. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered what it was on RG's county-issued laptop computer which necessitated its removal from the house, who might have done that, and when. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.

I have wondered if someone could avoid suspicion despite intense questioning and even a rigorous polygraph examination? Apparently, yes. Could PF do so? Don't know. Did PF do so? Don't actually know, though LE said she is not a suspect.

I have wondered if there is anyone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, slip his underwear into the laundry pile for scenting purposes, move the Mini out of Bellefonte, dress in clothing similar to what was seen on the CH video, place a call on the road Friday morning, get himself noticed in Lewisburg, etc. Is there such a person? Don't know.

Find someone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, and "wonder" grows "legs". Otherwise, we are stuck with the "official" version of events.

[2-B]

Here is the definition for corroborate:

To support or enhance the believability of a fact or assertion by the presentation of additional information that confirms the truthfulness of the item.

The testimony of awitness[sic] is corroborated if subsequent evidence, such as a coroner's report or the testimony of other witnesses, substantiates it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/corroborate [emphasis added]

"Confirmed" and "corroborated."

Now, all that said, I'm willing to use the "reasonable doubt" standard, why is higher than "corroborated."

I'm focused on the FBI standards regarding missing persons' sightings, not on what answers.com says about the general meaning of "corroborated."

The FBI requires documentation or corroboration before it confirms a sighting in a missing persons case. "We still don't have a confirmed sighting beyond the Cedar Lodge," [FBI agent] Maddock said.

http://www.sfgate.com/e/a/1999/03/23/NEWS902.dtl

The above is in relation to the disappearance/murder of Carole and Julie Sund and Silvina Pelosso. By the time this news release was made, the FBI had dozens of sightings of these three women. Some of these sightings involved multiple witnesses identifying the women AND placing the women in the make, model, year, and color car they had rented.

None of the sightings was confirmed by the FBI except the one that placed them in their motel room at the Cedar Lodge.

Obviously, the FBI did not consider a second or third witness' testimony as corroboration for another witness' sighting.

Nor, interestingly enough, did they consider the make, model, year, and color car identification enough to document or corroborate the sightings.

I'm still going with the FBI.

[J. J. in Phila]

McKnight's witness is one witness, not multiple witnesses.

This is a person who contacted former District Attorney Ted McKnight right after Ray’s disappearance. Ted advised this individual to contact Bellefonte Police Department. Ted related this to me in a conversation right after the disappearance. This individual is a Lock Haven resident familiar with Ray because of reading the Centre Daily Times.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/691532.html

So, let's see. This witness who reported the alleged sighting right after the disappearance was familiar with Gricar because of reading the CDT. Think he read about the disappearance in the same source? He must have heard about it somewhere to report his alleged sighting. Think that information may have in any possible way shaped his memory of what he saw (or thought he saw) on the road near the Country Cupboard on that Friday afternoon? I wonder if it's anything like the time a year or so ago one morning when I could have sworn I saw PF driving the Mini-Cooper in Centre County. Of course, it was a weekday at a time when she normally would have been at work and was nowhere near Bellefonte at the time I "saw" her. Mmm. Maybe I have just been interested in this case and saw a red and white Mini Cooper and thought it was PF?



That is not true for all seven of the sightings in the Peterson case. Investigators did not even interview the majority of the witnesses. They suspected Scott almost immediately in her disappearance and doubted his story about Laci walking the dog and wanted to eliminate rather than confirm sightings as they started to build a case against him.



Sure we do. But I imagine that until another Republican District Attorney from Centre County, PA disappears with a red and white 2004 Mini Cooper found in Lewisburg, PA, you'll keep finding dissimilarities that somehow make these witnesses special and keep finding ways to corroborate and document that which is non-corroborated and non-documented.

2-B, I don't have to find ways to "corroborate" the witnesses. That has been done, literally years ago. Now, sorry, but there is "corroboration" despite the fact you don't like it. I'm actually suggesting a higher standard, because using the one you suggest, RFG was in MI a month after he disappeared. Even using the higher standard (reasonable doubt) we still get him Lewisburg on 4/15/05.


Outside of Central PA Media Market, RFG was not a familiar face on 4/15/05.

You are basically complaining about LE canvassing for witnesses and witnesses coming forward because they recognized RFG from the newspaper (though the times were not published at the time that witness came forward, and it fits the time line).

[2-B]

All right. I'll bite.

What corroboration has been offered for any of the witnesses?

I'm not talking about multiple witnesses.

Obviously, the FBI does not consider that corroboration.

I'm talking about corroboration as verification.

[Politigal]

Rerun from January 2006 (and note the Wilkes Barre sighting was reported in April 2005)

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/01/01-17-06tdc/01-17-06dnews-08.asp

Investigators, deducing that foul play is more of a possibility than suicide and run-away theories, have begun to lean more toward the foul-play theory in recent months, though they have little information to corroborate it.

edited to add...

Interesting that it states they have "little information to corroborate it (foul play)" instead of "no information."...

hmmm

[J. J. in Phila]

Everything about this case bothers me. But what bothers me the most is that I have been unable to contribute anything useful. I understand the circumstantial suspicion...and have gone through possible scenarios, over and over again, in my mind.

I have wondered why RG was supposedly wearing the same clothing on Friday that he had been seen wearing on Thursday evening in the courthouse surveillance video. Was there a sinister reason why those particular garments could not be produced at the house, which necessitated the reported dress on Friday? Don't know.



The fleece was outwear and it was in the low 50's that morning. Jeans two days in a row are not unusual (especially since they were likely not worn all day on 4/14).


I have wondered why there were no reported sightings of a red and white Mini Cooper in Bellefonte on Friday morning...but there were all kinds of sightings in Lewisburg that day. Could it be that RG's Mini Cooper was moved out of Bellefonte Thursday night? Don't know.


Possible, or simply that no one was paying attention.


I have wondered why there was absolutely no reported contact with RG on Friday by anyone who knew him, except for PF (day whatever and we have still not seen the cellphone logs). Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.


He was about 50 miles from home; unless he was traveling with someone from home, it's unlikely he'd be seen. I'm not sure that he knew anyone in Lewisburg other than DPJ.


I have wondered why there is absolutely no corroborating evidence that RG existed on 4/15/05. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.


Totally inaccurate premise.


I have wondered what it was on RG's county-issued laptop computer which necessitated its removal from the house, who might have done that, and when. Is there something sinister about this? Don't know.


One answer, under most scenarios, is RFG.


I have wondered if someone could avoid suspicion despite intense questioning and even a rigorous polygraph examination? Apparently, yes. Could PF do so? Don't know. Did PF do so? Don't actually know, though LE said she is not a suspect.


Highly unlikely, but logically not impossible.


I have wondered if there is anyone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, slip his underwear into the laundry pile for scenting purposes, move the Mini out of Bellefonte, dress in clothing similar to what was seen on the CH video, place a call on the road Friday morning, get himself noticed in Lewisburg, etc. Is there such a person? Don't know.


LE selected the item for scenting, so no. We also don't have the RFG lookalike.


Find someone in PF's circle of close friends/relatives (or contracted associate) who could pass for RG, and "wonder" grows "legs". Otherwise, we are stuck with the "official" version of events.

I have not seen anyone that could "pass" for RFG, and I have looked.

[Serendipitous1]

Well gee whiz...don't I look like a horse's arze then? Carry on...and thanks for the new definition of corroboration.

[Serendipitous1]

Pardon us others who dabble with the scant "facts". I know we are not worthy. But you know what they say about blind pigs.

[Cloudbuster]

I know Im behind in posting on this but, there was 2 other mini's besides RG's mini. One was a college student from New Jersey and the other was a elderly couples mini. That might explain some of the sightings.

Also there is someone that looks like RG ( I need to check that out again) before saying who. It is my understanding that the who might possibly be who was in the metallic car behind the CH. It has a interesting twist but I want to make sure I heard this correctly.