District Attorney watch II thru 10/13 [Archive] - Page 3

sherrijean981

09-18-2009, 11:58 AM

Maybe not. They endorsed late in 2007.

I don't assign any significance to a late endorsement, as compared to the early one in 2005.

I frankly think that this will be a close race. MM has gotten good press in recent weeks, with the crime statistics and the Boob case (which are functions of incumbency).

One thing I see that was done wrong on the Boob case was not filing to get the phone text messages in time to get the 30 days of records before the murder happened. A loss of information that could very well have led to a quicker arrest and trial.

In the article from the Lock Haven newspaper MM made a couple quotes on the case. One that it could take months to get the case together, could mean he is sitting at home or an office somewhere else reading the CDT to see how SPM is handling the case.

http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512981.html?nav=5009

Politigal

09-18-2009, 12:01 PM

And, just yesterday, the same judge said that a new trial could continue and that "...it is clear that the commonwealth did not realize the connection and there is no evidence that the failure to disclose was deceitful.”

http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/1513992.html?storylink=omni_popular

That big hurdle was just cleared by MM. The Rogers situation is damaging, but, as of now, that damage is limited.

MM has political problems, but they are not fatal political problems.

The judge also said this:

“This court is baffled as to how the commonwealth failed to realize the relation of the information concerning Ronnie Starr to the facts at issue,...

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1513992.html#ixzz0RTU0xYcu

So it sounds like the judge is basically saying Madeira is an idiot IMO

J. J. in Phila

09-18-2009, 12:09 PM

One thing I see that was done wrong on the Boob case was not filing to get the phone text messages in time to get the 30 days of records before the murder happened. A loss of information that could very well have led to a quicker arrest and trial.

In the article from the Lock Haven newspaper MM made a couple quotes on the case. One that it could take months to get the case together, could mean he is sitting at home or an office somewhere else reading the CDT to see how SPM is handling the case.

http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512981.html?nav=5009

It is almost impossible for the case to go to trial prior to the election. I'm thinking of the press coverage. This is a major story and MM's name is all over it, favorably. That helps him.

He'd really have to screw up, big time and publicly, to have this go negative in the time before the election.

That is the real power of incumbency; you get your name in the paper.

J. J. in Phila

09-20-2009, 08:29 AM

Two (now) accused murderers walked around for 5 days while MM assured the public that, though there were no suspects, the community had nothing to fear. Now we learn from MM that the PSP (and therefore he) had strong suspects "on the second day". "When it became clear who we thought were involved with this, we couldn't allow these people to be out. We had to make an arrest at that time," MM said.

It took 3 more days to round up the suspects, MM? I may need a lot of work on my people skills ... but should a DA on his/hers? MM has learned nothing in 4 years. DA candidates talk temperaments (http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/1515539.html#none).

The "entire community" wasn't married to Mirinda Boob. :rolleyes:

Five days isn't 4 1/2 years.

I've said, and continue to say, not very nice things about MM, but this isn't one of them.

This issue is a plus for MM.

sherrijean981

09-20-2009, 02:04 PM

The "entire community" wasn't married to Mirinda Boob. :rolleyes:

Five days isn't 4 1/2 years.

I've said, and continue to say, not very nice things about MM, but this isn't one of them.

This issue is a plus for MM.

Not by the comments on the articles on the Boob murder. Everyone is just waiting for him (MM) to screw up. Not only did they not arrest anyone on the murder in 5 days, they allowed more days to go by before getting text messages from the phone company. Texts that could have given more answers to what was going on, with the wife, Mr. Heichel, Mr. Decker and others that could have been involved.

I don't believe it is all settled yet. I think there will be much more to come out, but not due to MM. I think Mrs. Boob has the communty turned against her and they will do all they can to find out what was going on and they will turn in the info. She is a hated woman now. It didn't help she used a handicapped man (due to a previous head injury). IF he is the one in the garage.

Odd all the texting from the boyfriend every day but not on the day her husband was killed. Is that because he was there with her?

How long did it take LE to get the phone records for RG? Why have they not been made public? Where is MM standing on all the records for RG's case? Must have left them under some large stone somewhere, to big to lift. LW, maybe your dream of RG at a big rock was the message the there is a rock that has been unturned.

And MM might have been handed a murder but that does not mean he will be the DA handling the case, if it goes to trial.

J. J. in Phila

09-20-2009, 04:24 PM

On the delay, it takes time to get a court order; you have to establish probable cause.

I agree that everyone, that posts, is waiting for MM to screw up. The thing is, he won't have too much of a chance to, publicly at least, until after the election.

Like it or not, it's good press.

Politigal

09-24-2009, 09:21 AM

County Judge said MM’s mistake showed “seriously poor judgment” but no evidence it was intentional. Rogers' attorneys appeal to Superior Court citing prosecutorial misconduct (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1524858.html).

and also from the article:

Lunsford has asked the attorneys involved not to discuss the case.

too much bad press or ?

J. J. in Phila

09-24-2009, 03:58 PM

and also from the article:

Lunsford has asked the attorneys involved not to discuss the case.

too much bad press or ?

Prejudicial to a jury. I wonder if they will start asking potential jurers in Centre County if they read "Sporadic Comments. " ;)

Politigal

09-24-2009, 07:43 PM

Prejudicial to a jury. I wonder if they will start asking potential jurers in Centre County if they read "Sporadic Comments. " ;)

lol, I sincerely doubt it

Politigal

09-24-2009, 07:44 PM

A recent Daily Collegian article (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/09/21/judge_rules_no_double_jeopardy.aspx) called it a gag order, not a request. In an earlier aricle (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/05/12/judge_issues_gag_order_for_par.aspx) Lunsford said "Like in any case that is high profile, you don't want the matter to be litigated in the public. You want it to be litigated in the courtroom." He called the gag order typical for cases like Rogers' and said it's an attempt to ensure that jurors are unbiased.

Compare that then to all the publicity in the recent Boob murder, where there hasn't even been a formal arraignment yet. :confused:

yep, just a tad on the hypocritical side isn't it

J. J. in Phila

09-24-2009, 11:16 PM

lol, I sincerely doubt it

You should not. :)

sherrijean981

09-24-2009, 11:25 PM

J. J. in Phila

09-25-2009, 12:26 AM

I see the Boob murder comments are no longer on the "popular/comment" section of the CDT. Did they gag the CDT on that case?

If you commented, try going to your homepage an look under comments.

Politigal

09-26-2009, 10:26 AM

candidates address local crime

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1529257.html

IMO - *someone* needs to address the crime of what happened to Ray Gricar

J. J. in Phila

09-26-2009, 03:23 PM

candidates address local crime

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1529257.html

IMO - *someone* needs to address the crime of what happened to Ray Gricar

And what crime would that be? So far, the sole crime was the destruction of the laptop; the statute of limitations on that has expired.

There could be some potential crimes.

2-B

09-27-2009, 02:13 AM

And what crime would that be?

I've been unable to find any written policies for the BPD online. Just out of curiosity--have you? Does the BDP state that they will not/do not investigate missing persons' cases as crimes until and unless they have absolute proof that a crime has taken place, as in your laptop example?

If so, they would certainly be the odd department out. Every written policy I can find nationally and internationally advises treating missing persons' cases as if they are potential crimes until and unless potential crime can be ruled out. In every written policy I can find, Ray Gricar would have been classified as an at risk missing person. Some jurisdictions classify anyone missing more than 30 days as automatically at high risk, and let's face it, the 30 day mark has long since sailed for RG.

Many missing persons' cases have been investigated as cases of foul play without any evidence whatsoever that a crime has taken place based simply on classification of the missing person.

I think that's all Pgal is saying, that RG's disappearance should have been investigated from the outset as a case of foul play as most missing persons' policies advise (with a few clearly delineated exceptions, none of which apply to RG).

J. J. in Phila

09-27-2009, 01:40 PM

2-B

09-27-2009, 03:40 PM

2-B, I can think of possibly a half dozen potential crimes. With one possible exception, destruction of the hard drive, I have not seen any evidence of any. Even that may not have been because of criminal intent, and it's a misdemeanor if it was.

But this response avoids my question to you, JJ, which was this:

I've been unable to find any written policies for the BPD online. Just out of curiosity--have you? Does the BDP state that they will not/do not investigate missing persons' cases as crimes until and unless they have absolute proof that a crime has taken place, as in your laptop example?

I'm interested not in what you see as potential crimes but in the BPD's policy with regard to investigating missing persons' cases.

Every written (local, national and international) policy I have dug up on missing persons' cases spells out the need to treat at risk missing persons' cases as if they are cases of foul play.

In every one of these policies, RG would have fit into the "at risk" category at the start.

I am asking, therefore, if the BPD has a written policy which is radically different from these other written policies.

The majority of missing persons enquiries are quickly resolved. In a few cases, however, the report of a missing person is the first step in a major crime case. [B]Therefore the initial stages of any missing person enquiry should commence on the basis that the case may escalate into a serious crime enquiry. It is always easier to rein back from the early stages of a major enquiry than it is to recover missed opportunities resulting from miscalculating in the early stages.

IF IN DOUBT THINK MURDER

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:fm3VgovNEZsJ:www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/missing_persons_2005_24x02x05.pdf+United+Kingdom+m issing+persons+policy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#74

This approach from the UK has been adopted in many policies across the United States. It advises putting foul play first if there is any doubt about what happened to the missing individual. The approach does not advise, "If there's no evidence of foul play, assume that foul play did not occur."

J. J. in Phila

09-27-2009, 05:44 PM

2-B, your comment has nothing to do with my question, "And what crime would that be?" Do you know of any evidence, other than the destruction of the laptop, of any other crime?

J. J. in Phila

09-27-2009, 09:19 PM

Actually, Saunterer, the BPD did not treat it as such, until after January 2006. Some of the things suppressed or not checked pointed toward walkaway.

J. J. in Phila

09-27-2009, 11:40 PM

I note that you've finally come around to the most exasperating conclusion ... shared by everyone involved, including professionals ... that MM had the discretion to request that the AG’s office take over the case, but chose not to.

I believe I called MTM a "stumbling block," as opposed to TC, last September (11:21 PM, 9/17/08, "Ray Gricar, missing since 4-15-2005," to be precise.)

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12138508&highlight=stumbling#post12138508

That was slightly more than a year ago and I've used the phrase since then, regarding MTM. I plan to use it, in the same context, in a future blog.

In total candor, after researching the series, "giant 20 ton boulder completely blocking the road" might be a better analogy, at least in regard to public case.

J. J. in Phila

09-28-2009, 12:18 AM

Well here's what you said: "Okay, he [MM] has had it in his sole power to request that the Attorney General’s Office take over the case, since the very first day he took office ...". http://www.centredaily.com/personas/?insiteUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058&plckPostId=Blog%3a42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058Post%3a56487706-226e-4d9b-bcb4-ebe90ff2ebc8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

That's what I and others have said all along ... but which you argued against. Again I say, welcome to the the truth in this matter. TC and his little buddy are both a-holes!

And MTM has had the power to call a grand jury, and to release PSP-CIA report, and to request the police to do things like having students work on the case.

What I don't want is another investigation with a new set of eyes that will close their eyes and shut their mouths when it is time to report.

2-B

09-28-2009, 01:25 AM

2-B, your comment has nothing to do with my question, "And what crime would that be?" Do you know of any evidence, other than the destruction of the laptop, of any other crime?

Of course it responds to your question.

The potential crime in a missing person's case is always potential harm to the missing person, JJ. That is so self-evident it should not need explanation.

LE cannot wait for evidence that a crime has been committed to investigate a missing person's case as if it were a crime. They must investigate a missing person's case as if it were a crime in all cases except those narrow few which clearly exempt themselves from the possibility of being a potential crime.

As the UK policy details spell out, even a "low risk" assessment does not mean "no risk," and even missing people who have been thought not to be at risk have come to serious harm, including murder. According to the UK National Policy, research demonstrates that a significant number of people thought to be at "apparent low risk" have come to serious harm while they were missing. I have no doubt this applies to the United States as well, since we've seen plenty of cases here where families were told their missing loved one was "a teenage runaway" or "voluntarily missing" over objections of the family, only to have the missing person turn up murdered.

If this is so for the "low risk" missing, what can we say about someone like Ray Gricar, who would so easily be characterized in these written policies as "at risk," whether "medium risk" or "high risk" categories, depending on the venue?

2-B

09-28-2009, 01:30 AM

Sadly, there not only wasn't, AND ISN'T, any stated policy of the BPD in handling missing person cases ... but there wasn't, AND ISN'T, any stated policy for handling anomalies in regard to the most vulernable public targets.

Thank you, S. This is what I was looking for earlier, a clear and direct answer to my question.

[respectfully snipped] . . . to wait upon evidence of a crime, particularly in this case, could be a colossal mistake in judgement. And if certain individuals are passed over as having not been involved in the disappearance, LE had BETTER BE RIGHT!

I could not agree more.

J. J. in Phila

09-28-2009, 01:38 AM

Ridiculous, on its face.

No, pretty much what TG said after the PSP-CIA review.

J. J. in Phila

09-28-2009, 01:48 AM

Of course it responds to your question.

The potential crime in a missing person's case is always potential harm to the missing person, JJ. That is so self-evident it should not need explanation.

LE cannot wait for evidence that a crime has been committed to investigate a missing person's case as if it were a crime. They must investigate a missing person's case as if it were a crime in all cases except those narrow few which clearly exempt themselves from the possibility of being a potential crime.

Yes, and LE looked repeatedly evidence of that "potential harm" and didn't find any. That is actually part of the problem. If it was murder, it is very unlikely it occurred in the SoS area. So figure out how RFG got out of the SoS area.

As the UK policy details spell out, even a "low risk" assessment does not mean "no risk," and even missing people who have been thought not to be at risk have come to serious harm, including murder. According to the UK National Policy, research demonstrates that a significant number of people thought to be at "apparent low risk" have come to serious harm while they were missing. I have no doubt this applies to the United States as well, since we've seen plenty of cases here where families were told their missing loved one was "a teenage runaway" or "voluntarily missing" over objections of the family, only to have the missing person turn up murdered.

If this is so for the "low risk" missing, what can we say about someone like Ray Gricar, who would so easily be characterized in these written policies as "at risk," whether "medium risk" or "high risk" categories, depending on the venue?

First, PA is not part of the UK, so this isn't that relevant.

Second the risk assessment showed no inherent risk. Even though you may not like it, there just is not a lot of cases of a prosecutor being murdered because he is a prosecutor.

2-B

09-28-2009, 02:27 AM

Yes, and LE looked repeatedly evidence of that "potential harm" and didn't find any. That is actually part of the problem. If it was murder, it is very unlikely it occurred in the SoS area. So figure out how RFG got out of the SoS area.

There's NO PROOF RG ever made it to Lewisburg and the SOS area in the first place! That's the problem, JJ. The assumption that Gricar was in Lewisburg has gummed up the works. That's what many of us have been screaming for years.

First, PA is not part of the UK, so this isn't that relevant.

Of course it's relevant. Crime in the United States is not radically different than in the UK. I've studied missing persons' cases here in the U.S. enough to know that what the UK policy says about low risk MP coming to harm is as true here as it is in the UK. Don't pretend that in the US in general or PA in particular parents aren't told their missing teens are just runaways or families aren't told their missing loved ones are just voluntarily gone away on some "wild weekend."

Second the risk assessment showed no inherent risk. Even though you may not like it, there just is not a lot of cases of a prosecutor being murdered because he is a prosecutor.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. That was an assessment done long after the start of the case, and done in a very narrow framework, i.e., only in the context of RG's job description. The full scale assessment laid out in all the written policies for missing persons has nothing to do with prosecutorial duties and inherent risk. Based on the full scale assessment, RG was at the least a "medium risk" (in the UK) missing person and at the most a "high risk" (in all the US policies I found) missing person. You may not like it, but that's what the written policies would say about his situation. Oh, but BDP didn't have a written policy, so I guess we will never know how they would have formally classified him, will we?

J. J. in Phila

09-28-2009, 02:36 AM

gstickley

09-28-2009, 09:44 AM

The assessment was from the PSP-CIA review, done more than 1 1/2 years after RFG disappeared. They really should know.

I'm sorry that you think evidence "gummed up the works," but I'm not surprised. That is your whole agenda, "The evidence is all wrong, the witnesses are all wrong, and I know this because it doesn't fit my theory."

I'm increasingly surprised that you think PA is still an English colony. There are a multitude of differences, legal, cultural, and geographic differences.

PSP-CIA review: Nothing done, except supposedly checking the reporting by BPD & "Ya done a good job, Brownie; no stone was left unturned".

Evidence: None. (Couldn't upset the family/girlfriend by looking for any; plus the fact it might lead to a new theory.)

Witnesses: All sightings after 04/15/05 in Bellefonte were unconfirmed. (Makes no difference how "credible the witnesses themselves were, the sightings were unconfirmed, as per BPD.)

J. J. in Phila

09-28-2009, 10:02 AM

PSP-CIA review: Nothing done, except supposedly checking the reporting by BPD & "Ya done a good job, Brownie; no stone was left unturned".

Evidence: None. (Couldn't upset the family/girlfriend by looking for any; plus the fact it might lead to a new theory.)

Witnesses: All sightings after 04/15/05 in Bellefonte were unconfirmed. (Makes no difference how "credible the witnesses themselves were, the sightings were unconfirmed, as per BPD.)

Actually, the first two are false and the third misleading.

The PSP-CIA review results were never released; that is one of the problems. We had a glimpse of what was found last April (and I don't know what else was discovered).

Evidence: Mini, scent, cell phone records, computer searches.

Witnesses: You'll have to defined "confirmed." Your definition and that in American English are often two different things. And, they are not telling us everything about the witnesses (though hints have been dropped for about four years).

gstickley

09-28-2009, 11:27 AM

Actually, the first two are false and the third misleading.

The PSP-CIA review results were never released; that is one of the problems. We had a glimpse of what was found last April (and I don't know what else was discovered).

The PSP-CIA only reviewed the reporting done by BPD. See link below.

Evidence: Mini, scent, cell phone records, computer searches.

No evidence RG drove the Mini to Lewisburg.
No evidence RG was actually in Lewisburg; read all the gazillion of links
2-B has posted as to how/why the scent was found on the SOS lot.
No evidence the cell phone was used by RG.
No evidence RG did the computer searches.

Witnesses: You'll have to defined "confirmed." Your definition and that in American English are often two different things. And, they are not telling us everything about the witnesses (though hints have been dropped for about four years).

See link below as to what the DA had to say about the "witnesses".

DA still considered a missing person

By Robin Acton
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, November 22, 2006

(snip)
District Attorney Michael Madeira said the Bellefonte police will continue to lead the investigation and take a fresh look at evidence reviewed at his request last week by the state police's Criminal Investigation Assessment Unit.

The unit -- 17 investigators with more than 200 years' combined experience -- reviewed the demographics, the timeline and reports from interviews with witnesses and "persons of interest" related to the case, Madeira said. Investigators examined Gricar's phone, computer and financial records and information concerning his behavior prior to April 15, 2005, when he was reported missing by his girlfriend, Patty Fornicola, a clerk in his office.

The review produced no new evidence to suggest what happened to Gricar.

"We were under no illusion that the case would be solved, but we wanted to provide a fresh set of eyes to suggest leads," Madeira said. "I think the family has understood that this may never be solved. ... He may be alive. He may be dead."

He said the unit recommended several investigative strategies but will not issue a formal report of the review that he insisted "was not a critique of the Bellefonte police." He said the review concluded that all of the local, state and federal agencies involved in the investigation have done a "thorough job" with the evidence.

Bellefonte police Chief Shawn Weaver refused to speculate as to whether Gricar is alive or dead but called him "a missing person." He said authorities will continue to pursue three avenues: suicide, homicide or that Gricar is still alive somewhere.

"Nothing has been eliminated," Weaver said. "We're going to look at some things from a different angle."

Weaver, who joined the force 10 months ago, said he cannot estimate the number of hours the officers in his 10-member department and investigators from other agencies have put into the probe. However, he said police "will devote resources to this case as long as there is evidence."

Family spokesman Tony Gricar, of Dayton, Ohio, said that he is pleased authorities are attempting to advance the case but expressed disappointment that the borough police will continue to lead the investigation into his uncle's disappearance.

"If Bellefonte's handling it, I'm not sure if that's a fresh set of eyes," he said.

(snip)

In the months after Gricar's disappearance, authorities received a number of tips from people who reported sightings of the missing man as far away as Texas.

"I can't say that any of the sightings were credible. We heard everything, frankly, from the sublime to the ridiculous," Madeira said.
Robin Acton can be reached at racton@tribweb.com or 724-830-6295.

(bolding by gstickley)

2-B

09-28-2009, 12:10 PM

The assessment was from the PSP-CIA review, done more than 1 1/2 years after RFG disappeared. They really should know.

Two things:

A. The PSP-CIA finding that RG was "at no inherent risk" was specifically delineated as follows: at no inherent risk because of his job as a prosecutor.

Now whether one agrees or disagrees with that finding, Ray Gricar's job is but a single element of his life. None of the written policies on missing persons I have found even address the issue of missing persons' employment and potential risk from employment.

It is therefore quite possible for the PSP-CIA to be correct that Gricar was at "no inherent risk because of his job as a prosecutor" and for Gricar simultaneously to be a "high risk missing person" because he fit other characteristics that would classify him and his disappearance as such. That should be easy enough to understand.

B. Yes, I mentioned in my post above that the PSP-CIA review was done long after Gricar disappeared--obviously far too long after the disappearance to impact how the investigation was approached. By the time the PSP-CIA review took place, that ship had sailed.

I'm sorry that you think evidence "gummed up the works," but I'm not surprised. That is your whole agenda, "The evidence is all wrong, the witnesses are all wrong, and I know this because it doesn't fit my theory."

This is specious, plain and simple. I refer you to my signature line. Perceptive readers know that I am "The No-Spin Zone" of the Gricar boards. My mission is accurate information.

I'm increasingly surprised that you think PA is still an English colony. There are a multitude of differences, legal, cultural, and geographic differences.

Lest you mislead with the idea of "a multitude of differences, legal, cultural, and geographic," let me re-post the point I made which you claimed was irrelevant because it was described in the UK policy:

As the UK policy details spell out, even a "low risk" assessment does not mean "no risk," and even missing people who have been thought not to be at risk have come to serious harm, including murder. According to the UK National Policy, research demonstrates that a significant number of people thought to be at "apparent low risk" have come to serious harm while they were missing. I have no doubt this applies to the United States as well, since we've seen plenty of cases here where families were told their missing loved one was "a teenage runaway" or "voluntarily missing" over objections of the family, only to have the missing person turn up murdered.

Are you therefore claiming that in the United States, "legal, cultural, and geographic differences" are such that LE across the U.S. there have not historically been significant numbers of missing persons labeled by LE as "at apparent low risk" who have then come to serious harm while missing?

No one who understands the history of missing persons in the United States would ever make that assertion.

For a good historical perspective, start here

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/112473_missreax10.shtml

and then read the ten-part series linked at the bottom.

J. J. in Phila

09-28-2009, 12:56 PM

2-B, if you really believe that the "ship had sailed" by December 2006, why are you still posting today?

I disagree with that wholeheartedly. If this was murder or walkaway, I think that the evidence may still exist, and probably does.

You mantra has been consistently to ignore the evidence and witnesses; sorry but there are numerous examples from you and a few other posters.

A classic example is the dogs. You are troubled because the is no scent evidence from the SoS, meaning RFG couldn't be there. You are troubled because there is scent evidence in the parking lot. You are convinced that the "first" witness was the one that saw RFG first on 4/15, even though the there are a string of others that saw him earlier in the day.

Now we're seeing the surprising claims that the case cannot be solved, it's too late, "the ship has sailed."

Keeeeeep spinning. :lol:

2-B

09-28-2009, 05:16 PM

2-B, if you really believe that the "ship had sailed" by December 2006, why are you still posting today?

I disagree with that wholeheartedly. If this was murder or walkaway, I think that the evidence may still exist, and probably does.

Walkaway is irrelevant to approaching a missing person case as a possible crime, so I'm setting that aside.

As previously posted, however, this is the "ship that had already sailed" in November 2006 when the PSP-CIA review took place:

The majority of missing persons enquiries are quickly resolved. In a few cases, however, the report of a missing person is the first step in a major crime case. Therefore the [B]initial stages of any missing person enquiry should commence on the basis that the case may escalate into a serious crime enquiry. It is always easier to rein back from the early stages of a major enquiry than it is to recover missed opportunities resulting from miscalculating in the early stages.

IF IN DOUBT THINK MURDER

[bolding mine]

By November 2006, "the missed opportunities from miscalculation in the early stages would already have taken place."

You mantra has been consistently to ignore the evidence and witnesses; sorry but there are numerous examples from you and a few other posters.

Ignored the evidence?

We are the ones on this board who have asked the hard, objective questions. We are the ones who have done the extensive research to make certain we fully understand as much as we can all the issues surrounding the superficial sound bites.

It is true we are not privy to the information contained in LE's files on the case itself. But then neither are you, JJ. We have, however, thrown ourselves full force into an effort to understand the information which has been made publicly available and to put that information into the context of what we know

1) historically about missing persons' cases

2) scientifically about various evidentiary issues.

The group of posters you constantly denigrate come to this case with a great deal of knowledge about forensic issues, and we are consistently willing to learn more as we go along in this case. We did not in mid-life become interested in RG's disappearance because we were once politically involved and worry that "if it could happen to him it could happen to [us]." We've had a long-held interest in unsolved crimes missing persons' cases.

We have brought to this board documented material from the most credible authorities available as we've examined and discussed evidence. How you can assert that we've "ignored the evidence" is beyond me. If anything is true, it is that you, JJ, are the one who chooses to ignore evidence from the most credible of authorities, from decades of worth of scientific studies, choosing instead to simply believe your own "beliefs."

You are free to do so. Do not expect others to do so when credible evidence from credible authorities directly contradicts your beliefs.

A classic example is the dogs. You are troubled because the is no scent evidence from the SoS, meaning RFG couldn't be there.

I have never said, and never indicated, that I am "troubled" because there is no scent evidence in the SOS.

This is indeed a classic example, but it is a classic example of truly examining and analyzing the evidence. The analysis of the scent evidence tells me that Gricar was not in the SOS, so that is a key piece of evidence. Work from that, rather than trying to place him in the SOS when the more reliable evidence says that he was not there. Scent evidence is far more reliable than any witness evidence you'll ever find.

You are troubled because there is scent evidence in the parking lot.

Where are you getting this "troubled" stuff? Nothing about the scent evidence in the parking lot troubles me. I have said consistently there are two scientific explanations for what we in the public know about the scent evidence in the parking lot: either RG drove to Lewisburg and immediately got out of the Mini and into another vehicle (going nowhere else, eliminating non-SOS lot sightings) OR he was never in Lewisburg and the scent in the lot resulted from transfer when the Mini doors were opened.

You are convinced that the "first" witness was the one that saw RFG first on 4/15, even though the there are a string of others that saw him earlier in the day.

HUH??? Never said that. Never.

Now we're seeing the surprising claims that the case cannot be solved, it's too late, "the ship has sailed."

Never said that either. See above.

J. J. in Phila

09-30-2009, 04:38 PM

2-B

09-30-2009, 07:06 PM

Walkaway is relevant, even if this is a murder case. It is possibly the the most relevant aspect to proving a murder case.

I'm sorry you don't understand that, but as long as there remains a good possibility that RFG walked, you don't have a murder case. Unfortunately, MTM has done nothing to lower that possibility.

The majority of missing persons enquiries are quickly resolved. In a few cases, however, the report of a missing person is the first step in a major crime case. Therefore the initial stages of any missing person enquiry should commence on the basis that the case may escalate into a serious crime enquiry. It is always easier to rein back from the early stages of a major enquiry than it is to recover missed opportunities resulting from miscalculating in the early stages.

And I am sorry you don't seem to understand why walkaway is irrelevant to the admonition contained in this paragraph.

I am also sorry you don't seem understand the concepts expressed in that paragraph.

1. The paragraph refers the beginning of a missing person's investigation. MM had nothing to do with the beginning of the Gricar case. That is not to say constant reassessment isn't necessary throughout the course of an investigation. MM does play a role, or should play a role, in that reassessment.

2. The paragraph points out, rightly, that if an investigative team fails to approach a missing person's case in the beginning as if it were a case of foul play, there will be difficulties down the line recovering missed opportunities resulting from that miscalculation.

That should not be difficult to understand, yet you have consistently fallen into the same trap, arguing endlessly that it is necessary somehow to rule out "a walkaway from Lewisburg" so that foul play can then be investigated.

And that approach is seriously flawed for a variety of reasons.

1. It violates the principle in the paragraph quoted above (a principle underlying most written missing persons' policies).

2. It assumes Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg, an assumption which has not been objectively proven.

3. It assumes it is possible to prove or disprove whether he had a means out of Lewisburg by eliminating modes of "leaving" Lewisburg that would "likely" leave a trail, a seriously flawed premise even if it were proven that RG had been in Lewisburg, which it is not.

In the meantime, 4 1/12 years have passed; the disappearance has not been approached by you (or anyone else) as if serious crime were at the top of the list of possibilities. If RG was indeed the victim of a serious crime, the investigation, including MM or SPM or whoever, will have to attempt "to recover missed opportunities resulting from miscalculating in the early stages."

J. J. in Phila

09-30-2009, 11:37 PM

Politigal

09-30-2009, 11:45 PM

2-B

10-01-2009, 01:51 AM

I think you should read the first three blogs in the series. I have a very hard time claiming that LE did not look for a body (either one murdered or dead by suicide). The problem is, they found no evidence of it and no evidence of foul play.

The main question regarding Lewisburg is, where did RFG go from there. The path starts in Lewisburg; it might end in murder.

A. Written missing persons' policies I've read at do not say, "Look for evidence of foul play and then adopt the absence of evidence is evidence of absence fallacy" if none is found.

They say instead that MP should continue to be looked at as "at risk" and investigated as such until information contradicting that status is obtained.

"Lack of evidence of foul play" in the Gricar case is no reason that the case should not have been investigated as a case of potential foul play from the outset, especially when opportunities to uncover potential foul play were not investigated early on! Was PF given a polygraph early in the game as most significant others are? Were RG's neighbors interviewed? Was SS interviewed by anyone other than the profiler whose main goal was a character profile of RG? Was EW interviewed? Were all of the courthouse staff interviewed? Were extra resources asked for so that more of Gricar's case files could be reviewed? That's just a start, and the answer to each of those questions is no. Of course, following up on those things and any others might just have "led to another theory."

B. No, the main question isn't where did Gricar go from Lewisburg. You've got to place him in Lewisburg first, and you have no objective evidence to place him there.

J. J. in Phila

10-01-2009, 10:46 AM

JJ -- the only confirmed "path" is the path leading out of the courthouse door Thursday night.

And that's a fact jack.

No, that is the fiction.

The evidence, the stuff actually used to prove a crime was committed, is that RFG was in Lewisburg. Unless you actually get some evidence that contradicts that, you have nothing other than opinion, and biased opinion.

B-2, you've keep on saying "look for evidence of foul play." Early on, the police were, and they found none. None at the house, none at the car, none (released at least) from witnesses, none from the cell or computer records. No body, no signs of a struggle, no evidence of any injury.

That leads to two possibilities:

1. There was foul play, but it didn't occur around the SoS (nor at the house).

2. There was no foul play.

Both of those possibilities lead to one question: How did RFG get out of Lewisburg? That answer has been, and remains, the key question.

2-B

10-01-2009, 12:09 PM

No, that is the fiction.

The evidence, the stuff actually used to prove a crime was committed, is that RFG was in Lewisburg. Unless you actually get some evidence that contradicts that, you have nothing other than opinion, and biased opinion.

Pgal is absolutely correct. The last confirmed sighting of Gricar is on the videotape Thursday night at the courthouse. As recently as July 2009, the BPD has put out materials describing all other sightings, including your oft' touted Lewisburg sightings, as unconfirmed.

You claim over and over and over that evidence exists to place Gricar in Lewisburg, but there is no evidence to place him there. What exists is only the possibility that he may have been there.

That assumption is what LE operated upon in the early days of the investigation, and it was reasonable to operate at least in part on that assumption in those first few days. There would have been huge criticism of LE had they not done the river searches, the searches of the river banks, the canvassing for witnesses, the dog tracking, etc. in Lewisburg.

But having done so, they "looked" and "found no evidence" that Ray Gricar was ever in Lewisburg. :biggrin:

You can spend the next ten years on this board and in your blogs trying to spin witness sightings into objective evidence that RG was in Lewisburg, but you will never make witness sightings into reliable evidence that he was there. Every credible authority on the issue of witness memory and identification disagrees with you.

You can spend the next ten years on this board and in your blogs trying to spin the scent found only in the vicinity of where the Mini Cooper had been parked in the SOS lot into objective evidence that RG was in Lewisburg, but you will never be able to do that. The FBI Scent Unit and every other credible authority on scent theory disagrees with you.

B-2, you've keep on saying "look for evidence of foul play." Early on, the police were, and they found none. None at the house, none at the car, none (released at least) from witnesses, none from the cell or computer records. No body, no signs of a struggle, no evidence of any injury.

That leads to two possibilities:

1. There was foul play, but it didn't occur around the SoS (nor at the house).

2. There was no foul play.

Both of those possibilities lead to one question: How did RFG get out of Lewisburg? That answer has been, and remains, the key question.

1. Police at the house did a cursory walk through, not a forensic investigation. I'm not arguing that RG was murdered at the house, merely pointing out that no forensic investigation for a crime ever took place there. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when you're talking about a cursory walk through. Even full scale forensic investigations have missed forensic evidence of crimes!

2. Police at the SOS lot saw no obvious evidence of a violent struggle or murder, true. But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How many cases do we have on the books where missing people have been abducted, many in broad daylight in parking lots, parks, and other well-traveled areas, where no obvious evidence of a crime existed? IIRC, Brooke Wilberger disappeared from the parking lot area where she had been cleaning with only her cleaning supplies and her flip flops as evidence that she had been there. I don't recall any evidence left to show that Chandra Levy had been abducted by IG in Rock Creek Park. I don't recall any evidence left to show that Jennifer Kesse was abducted. Study the list of people on the National Center for Missing Adults website. There are many men and women who have seemingly disappeared off the face of the earth leaving no evidence of any crime but who are classified as "missing endangered" and whose cases are being treated as potential crimes.

3. The big problem with your thinking: you leap immediately, again, to the conclusion that Gricar was in Lewisburg and that all investigation must proceed by answering the question "How did he get out of Lewisburg."

You ignore the questions, "If Gricar never arrived in Lewisburg but his Mini Cooper did, who may have driven the Mini Cooper to Lewisburg? And what may have happened to RG along the way?"

You insist on ruling out walkaway from Lewisburg before turning your attention to the real possibility of foul play. That is your prerogative. But I hope you are never in charge of a missing person's investigation.

2-B

10-02-2009, 07:08 PM

You insist on ruling out walkaway from Lewisburg before turning your attention to the real possibility of foul play. That is your prerogative. But I hope you are never in charge of a missing person's investigation.

Looking for something else on old threads, I came across a post from JJ dated 11/24/08, 12:07 a.m., which spells out what he thinks the sequence/priority of investigation ought to be in this case and why:

. . . there is a 90% chance that one of these two things happened:

A. He voluntarily disappeared and was alive on 4/18/05. (46%)

B. He was murdered and was dead by 4/18/05. (44%)

Those are mutually exclusive possibilities and at least one is wrong.

Now, if A is correct, there will be some evidence of the method RFG used to get out of Lewisburg. If LE checked all those methods, and didn't find anything, it would be likely that A is wrong and B is right. I doubt if LE checked all methods, but if and when they do, and if the results are negative, B. is the most likely answer.

It is easier to eliminate A, that [sic] to eliminate B. That's why I think option A should be the most pressing avenue of investigation.

[bolding mine]

I also came across a previous link Pgal had posted to NJ protocols for missing persons cases (different link, but I think the same protocols as we've recently had on the board).

JJ claimed that by those protocols, RG would not have been considered an "at risk" missing person until he was missing for 30 days. Yet the protocols clearly spell out that one category of "high risk" missing person is anyone "whose whereabouts are not currently known and the circumstances of the person’s disappearance suggest that the person may be at imminent or likely risk of injury or death" given that the person "does not have a pattern of running away or disappearing" or "[a]ny other factor that may indicate, in the judgement of the lead law enforcement agency, that the missing person may be at risk."

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/divorg/invest/pdf/mpi-best-practices-protocol.pdf

Gricar had no pattern of running away or disappearing. His position as DA would certainly be a factor that would lead LE to conclude that he might be at risk. (That factor certainly led PF's brother to urge PF to not to consider herself paranoid and to report RG as missing.)

Why the continued efforts to downplay RG's disappearance as a case of potential foul play?

Politigal

10-03-2009, 01:30 PM

State Dem Party head attacks AG Corbett and DA Madeira (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1544134.html) ... mouthpiece Harley-har-har to the "rescue" once again (ala the Buehner rebuff). How's that state investigation coming along Corbett ... Harley ... anyone? And is MM still named in the collateral civil suit?

It also seems MM is going to try and milk the bull (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1544139.html) right up to the election. It is, after all, the only thing he's got going in his favor ... even if it is misleading:

I think TC's endorsement could backfire for MM. :w00t:

ladyheartfixer

10-03-2009, 08:30 PM

J. J. in Phila

10-03-2009, 11:31 PM

I thought we were supposed to hear some campaign-saving, Gricar-case-closing revelation from MM. But it seems one term Mike is too busy trying to get milk from a bull:

CQ Press - Metropolitan Area Rankings, Methodology, Limitations, etc (http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime2008/citycrime2008.htm).

The FBI cautions against using its collected data to compile rankings (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/about/variables_affecting_crime.html), which "provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region" ... and which lead to "simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents."

One of things about not releasing the PSP-CIA review is that we don't know if this was murder. If there is no evidence of walkaway, this probably wasn't walkaway. If LE says, **We checked and didn't find anything,** this was probably a murder. It is a nice fat juicy high profile unsolved criminal case dumped right in the lap of MTM, with an election looming.

I think that point might be made soon.

J. J. in Phila

10-03-2009, 11:36 PM

I think TC's endorsement could backfire for MM. :w00t:

Well, not exactly. What it did is see that the name Lance Marshall would appear in the press (not to mention MTM's photo next to LM's in the press). And it wasn't SPM saying it.

Rooney hits TC and MTM at the same time; SPM has clean hands.

2-B

10-04-2009, 12:45 PM

is it just me or does it seem that Saunterer has a "horse in the race"? It really will be a shame if his candidate just turns away from this case and goes about with "business as usual". Perhaps he will be able to get her to show some interest in this case. Who knows? Should be interesting.

Hi LHF. It's certainly interesting. We've definitely got a national climate were many are losing faith in politicians of any persuasion and putting faith back in "the people." Almost surprising then to see such complete faith put in any one single candidate, even if at the local level.

I'm not sure any politician will be our answer, but that's just me, losing faith in our political system. I guess I keep waiting for someone like Mark Furhman to ride into town on a white horse, lol. (Not MF specifically, but that kind of dedicated, single-minded, case-obsessed intelligence focused only on finding out what happened to Ray Gricar.)

2-B

10-04-2009, 12:57 PM

One of things about not releasing the PSP-CIA review is that we don't know if this was murder. If there is no evidence of walkaway, this probably wasn't walkaway. If LE says, **We checked and didn't find anything,** this was probably a murder.

Nah. Rejected.

Police files across this great country are filled with cases where "looking" was done, conclusions were reached, and it later turned out that the conclusions were wrong because

evidence that was there was not collected or
evidence that collected was not effectively interpreted at the time or (much more rarely)
no evidence was left to collect.

If you are searching for your car keys and you look

on the peg board where you usually hang them and
on the table in the living room where you sometimes put them (but don't move the pile of papers on the table) and
on the kitchen counter where you sometimes put them

but you don't bother looking on your dresser, you don't look in the dining room, and you don't look in your jeans' pocket because "it would only lead" to looking in the pockets of your shorts and your dress pants, you can't conclude that there's no evidence your keys exist!

ladyheartfixer

10-04-2009, 08:22 PM

D.gaurl...please PM me...

ladyheartfixer

10-05-2009, 12:53 PM

That hurt, coming from you ... nurse.

you say that as if it is an insult...yes, I'm a nurse and a darn good one...don't make me hurt you to prove my point:tonguewag:

Let me clarify...the CC DA is not omnipotent and believing that whoever gets into the office will set out on a journey to solve this case is ludicrous. I can see blocks coming from all directions...not least the PA AG. It is like when Obama made all kinds of campaign promises that the legislature now won't allow to come to fruition. I read all campaign gobblety-gook with a grain of salt. Especially when one has "history".

You have shown great loyalty to this candidate and it just makes the curious wonder what is the true reason...

Anyway...the most important thing to me is that whoever gets in works on the case at hand...at least once in their term.

Politigal

10-05-2009, 01:18 PM

We've seen how Michael Madeira has tried to distance himself from the Lance Marshall fiasco...

Can you imagine how he would distance himself if it was learned that one of his staff was responsible for RG's disappearance??? :ohmy:

J. J. in Phila

10-05-2009, 03:35 PM

you say that as if it is an insult...yes, I'm a nurse and a darn good one...don't make me hurt you to prove my point:tonguewag:

Let me clarify...the CC DA is not omnipotent and believing that whoever gets into the office will set out on a journey to solve this case is ludicrous. I can see blocks coming from all directions...not least the PA AG. It is like when Obama made all kinds of campaign promises that the legislature now won't allow to come to fruition. I read all campaign gobblety-gook with a grain of salt. Especially when one has "history".

You have shown great loyalty to this candidate and it just makes the curious wonder what is the true reason...

Anyway...the most important thing to me is that whoever gets in works on the case at hand...at least once in their term.

Actually, SPM has made but one comment about what she'd do, tear the file apart. Now, that is more than MTM did.

I really wouldn't expect her to make too many promises, since she has no idea what has been done and what has been found.

I am hoping that she will be at least more forthcoming about what has been checked.

J. J. in Phila

10-05-2009, 03:53 PM

Politigal

10-07-2009, 09:43 AM

Rival district attorney candidates sparred Tuesday over crime data, leadership and office management styles (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1551598.html#none) as the League of Women Voters of Centre County held its twice-yearly forum.

The state Supreme Court threw out the trademark counterfeit law Monday (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1551595.html#none), thanks to two CC cases on appeal. RG was mentioned in the news article, contrasting his decision not to prosecute such cases with MM's decision (which prompted the appeals).

Interesting in the first link about the $95000 drug $$$.....that's just what Cloudbuster had been posting about.

Parks Miller at one point suggested disapprovingly that the District Attorney’s Office has left $95,000 in drug forfeiture money in the borough police department instead of putting it to better use.

That prompted a charge by Madeira, subsequently unanswered by Parks Miller, that “much of that is not forfeitable” and that Parks Miller “doesn’t understand the law.”

J. J. in Phila

10-07-2009, 10:34 AM

The DA race in the CDT (http://www.centredaily.com/district-attorney-race/).

The comments show a number in support of MTM:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1551598.html

I expect this to be a close race and I think either candidate could win.

Politigal

10-07-2009, 10:51 AM

Interesting in the first link about the $95000 drug $$$.....that's just what Cloudbuster had been posting about.

Parks Miller at one point suggested disapprovingly that the District Attorney’s Office has left $95,000 in drug forfeiture money in the borough police department instead of putting it to better use.

That prompted a charge by Madeira, subsequently unanswered by Parks Miller, that “much of that is not forfeitable” and that Parks Miller “doesn’t understand the law.”

I'm very intrigued about this drug money and even more curious about the monies/properties that may have been obtained thru the big bust that RG was involved in just before he vanished.

J. J. in Phila

10-10-2009, 12:39 AM

Interestingly, the local FOP is still silent.

Politigal

10-10-2009, 01:02 PM

not any more - even though it sounds a little half-hearted (almost like they're afraid of Madeira IMO)

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1558642.html

2-B

10-10-2009, 03:30 PM

The following statements are conflicting information, IMO.
Which one is true, which holds the hidden message that leads the voters to believe Centre County LE is behind SPM------------It's common knowledge that the FOP consists of many who are from out-of-county. IMO, we have yet another bit of added 'fluff' going on with the press.

Thirty to 35 FOP members, most of them from police departments in Centre County, were there. Polachek said Madeira did not ask to address the meeting. (Ummmmm--------yeah. He knew he had a commitment.)

vs

Parks Miller, a former assistant district attorney in Clearfield County, said Friday she was proud to have received the endorsement.

“It’s an interesting blend of police officers from my past who know me as a prosecutor and police officers from Centre County who I work with now,” she said. “It’s a nice seal of approval.”

A nice example of truthiness, IMO.

J. J. in Phila

10-10-2009, 08:49 PM

not any more - even though it sounds a little half-hearted (almost like they're afraid of Madeira IMO)

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1558642.html

An "overwhelming majority." Not half-hearted, by a long shot. They noted "...administrative issues with the current DA’s office," as some of the reason for their endorsement.

MTM received their endorsement in 2005. This is effectively the LE community saying who they trust, and it is not MTM. This was a major blow to MTM's re-election bid. His last week was a disaster.

J. J. in Phila

10-10-2009, 09:55 PM

The same thing could have been said about the endorsement of MTM in 2005, LW. It was spectacularly successful.

There is also the factor that many of the folks that do attend are reflective of the members of the department and communicate with them. This one is big, and it's at the end of a bad week for MTM.

Marshall comes up, certainly no knock out punch in the debate, a blog calling him "a failure" on the RFG case, reminders of RFG's birthday and disappearance, now the FOP, for "the first time any of them could remember that the lodge had endorsed a challenger over an incumbent district attorney."

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1558642.html

The FOP endorsement could only be trumped as bad news by the Rogers case being dismissed.

Politigal

10-10-2009, 11:41 PM

Politigal

10-10-2009, 11:49 PM

Politigal

10-11-2009, 12:16 AM

Candidates Reflect on Career Choices

http://www.centredaily.com/opinion/story/1558654.html

J. J. in Phila

10-11-2009, 12:27 AM

per the article --

The Fraternal Order of Police Bald Eagle Lodge 51 met Wednesday night at its Port Matilda office, listened to a speech by Parks Miller and then voted to endorse her over incumbent District Attorney Michael Madeira.

Obviously if there were other members that weren't present for the vote, perhaps that *was* their vote....

Prehaps all the folks that didn't show up in the Democratic primary were going to vote for JKA, but SPM won.

It wasn't before, when they endorsed MTM four years ago, and isn't now. One of the key points is that almost never has a sitting DA that was seeking re-election not been endorsed, until now. It was, in looking back to 2005, a major selling point for MTM.

It shows two things: The comfort of the local LE community with SPM and the discomfort of the same community with MTM.

Politigal

10-11-2009, 01:18 AM

I see a list of committees, but not a membership list. Am I missing something?

I assume the board or committee leaders/members are the ones who probably vote in matters like this.

sherrijean981

10-11-2009, 10:03 AM

here's the website for the Fraternal Order that endorsed SPM

(but it doesn't appear to have been updated in a while)

http://www.mcrpdvet.pages.qpg.com/pafopbaldeagle51/id23.html

edited to add the list of members:

http://www.mcrpdvet.pages.qpg.com/pafopbaldeagle51/id18.html

That list is for committee's and members on those committee's, some are listed a couple times. There are no names on the members page.

sherrijean981

10-11-2009, 10:05 AM

I see a list of committees, but not a membership list. Am I missing something?

Great minds think a like, lol. Sorry, didn't get to your post before I posted.

2-B

10-11-2009, 11:26 AM

If the email didn't reach the debate personnel until hours before it was to be held, and according to the last meeting minutes on the site 11 members showed up for the meeting, why did 30-35 show up at this meeting? ---last minute, no announcement online before the meeting. While 'timing is everything', manipulating to position doesn't qualify.
JMO

It's just a breeding ground for more truthiness, so the headline can read ""Police Group Backs Parks Miller." Not radically different from the breeding ground that set up the headline reading, "Foul Play Theory Weakened" last April, IMO.

Politigal

10-11-2009, 11:32 AM

They have a contact page ----

http://www.mcrpdvet.pages.qpg.com/pafopbaldeagle51/id7.html

Politigal

10-11-2009, 11:37 AM

I'm curious if anyone knows how many in this fraternal order actually voted last go-round when they endorsed Madeira?

Politigal

10-11-2009, 11:47 AM

I found the archive of their endorsement of Madeira

http://web.archive.org/web/20050527093146/pages.zdnet.com/mcrpdvet/pafopbaldeagle51/id24.html

it says they voted unanimously but it doesn't say how many actually voted

And, here are all the other endorsements Madeira got last time

http://web.archive.org/web/20050526043022/www.madeiraforda.com/endorsements.htm

J. J. in Phila

10-11-2009, 12:15 PM

It's just a breeding ground for more truthiness, so the headline can read ""Police Group Backs Parks Miller." Not radically different from the breeding ground that set up the headline reading, "Foul Play Theory Weakened" last April, IMO.

It was nearly identical coverage to his endorsement for years ago, and to the endorsement of commissioner candidates in 2007.

In this case, it is probably been downplayed a bit by the press, because of the rarity of endorsing someone over an incumbent that is seeking re-election. This is something that just doesn't happen; they don't know the last time it did happen.

Keep something else in mind. MTM has packaged himself as a "law and order" Republican. That is a good selling point, in general. Now, the forces of "law and order" are saying, "We support SPM."

This is big, and it isn't the only one hitting Mr. Madeira this week. September wasn't too bad (except for a blog I could mention) but starting October 3, 2009, MTM has had nothing but a stream of negative press.

Basically, political fires are breaking out across the forest, and MTM isn't able to put them out. They are spreading.

I expect to see him trying to lash out.

2-B

10-11-2009, 12:31 PM

It was nearly identical coverage to his endorsement for years ago, and to the endorsement of commissioner candidates in 2007.

Do you think truthiness is an invention new to 2009?

2-B

10-11-2009, 02:00 PM

Truth sings through our universe and in our quietest moments, we hear it. In the state of 'distracted by the clanging gong', we can't even hear our self think, let alone tune into truth. Just one more reason why I steer clear of ALL clanging gongs. Every day of my life, I want to hear truth sing as clearly as I possibly can.

I take a different approach, which is not to say your Walden-esque viewpoint is wrong, simply different.

For me, it is critical that I immerse myself in those clanging gongs, whether it's the broad national debate or the more laser focused issues we have here. I need and want to study what all sides have to say on issues so that I can sort through it all, deciding by that study what is truth and what is truthiness. It's the reason that here, I do not put any posters on "ignore." I need to study that truthiness so that I can compare it to fact and reach my own conclusions about what might or might not be true about the Gricar case as a result. It's the reason at the national level that I don't form my opinion about the more divisive political talking heads from soundbites in opposing media or in the opposing blogosphere.

There may be a lot of clanging gongs banging in my head, but sorting through them leads to hearing the truth sing, in my own way.

2-B

10-11-2009, 03:19 PM

SPM will be the best DA Centre County has yet seen . . . on both counts.

Your faith in SPM is so strong you believe she will be better than Ray Gricar? Just asking for a clarification here.

Politigal

10-11-2009, 05:57 PM

Politigal

10-11-2009, 07:27 PM

The best DA Centre County has yet seen, bar none.

Sunday must be "bourbon" day....lol

:tongueside:

J. J. in Phila

10-11-2009, 09:19 PM

I still firmly believe that J Karen Arnold would have done the most in the DA's office on Ray Gricar's behalf.

And, we've seen what Madeira did.....:thumbdown:

I'm glad that SPM at least knew Gricar, and that she's promised to tear thru the file. Time will tell (if she's elected.)

If Madeira wins, we're **** outta luck.

IMO

I think you fail to grasp one thing. To do anything as DA, you have be elected DA. JKA probably could not have won the election; as was seen, she had too much negative political baggage (much of which you saw come out).

SPM offers several things on the Gricar case:

1. She is another set of eyes and will not follow MTM's lead.

2. She is open minded and will actually look at the information (something MTM did not do initially).

Now, I hope that she cause more information to be publicly disclosed (there is more that has not).

Politigal

10-11-2009, 09:33 PM

2-B

10-11-2009, 09:42 PM

And how profound about there being more information that police have not released.

sheesh

Time to dig out those Jack Handy quotes again. :wink:

2-B

10-11-2009, 09:43 PM

The best DA Centre County has yet seen, bar none.

Because . . . ? Based on . . . ?

You know generalities won't cut it for me, S. I need specifics. Don't toy with me.

Politigal

10-11-2009, 09:50 PM

Time to dig out those Jack Handy quotes again. :wink:

lol...I sooo enjoyed reading those

2-B

10-11-2009, 09:58 PM

lol...I sooo enjoyed reading those

I did too. But the more I ponder it, the idea that "there's more that hasn't been released" is probably less "deep thoughts" than it is "glittering observations of the obvious."

J. J. in Phila

10-11-2009, 10:22 PM

I didn't fail to grasp anything JJ.

And you have absolutely no clue what SPM will really "offer" if she is elected.

And how profound about there being more information that police have not released.

sheesh

Missed it once again. A new district attorney offers that new set of eyes.

That there is more information is profound and asks the question of why MTM has not released it.

SPM actually said that the first thing she would do is look at the evidence. Her next step depends on what information is there. But she also indicated, "...the community can ever really rest until we have an answer to Ray's disappearance."

JKA said that she'd review the files, and then "... sit down with [Bellefonte Police Chief Shawn] Weaver and all officers, past and present, who have been involved at any level in the case, and talk to them in depth about why certain steps were taken or not taken,"

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/17/candidates_vow_to_find_missing.aspx

She wanted to look at the investigation, but didn't say that she'd do anything, even broadly, to solve the case. JKA's goal was looking at the investigation, not at resolving the case. It frankly isn't too important what steps were taken, if they didn't yield evidence. The only importance at looking at what wasn't done is to do it now; the reasons for not doing it in the past 4 years is not relevant to the solution.

I actually prefer getting answers. It looks like a majority of Democratic voters in the primaries did as well.

2-B

10-11-2009, 10:50 PM

You know how to do your own research, make your own contacts and form your own opinions. So do I. God knows I'm not looking for any converts HERE.

Sure, I know how to do research. But that's not something I can do to explain your opinion, as stated here on the board, that SPM would be a better DA than any Centre County has ever seen.

I can obviously make up my own mind about any candidate running for any office. I'm asking you to support your stated opinion, because I'm interested in your point of view on the issue.

2-B

10-11-2009, 10:55 PM

That there is more information is profound and asks the question of why MTM has not released it.

Oh good grief. No it's not and no it doesn't.

You make it sound as if you believe police and DA's run around releasing abundant information in cases, and that lack of information release in the RG case is somehow unusual.

Try again, JJ. There are legions of cases 5, 10, 15 years old where even family members can't get information released to them. You think this one is so unusual because there's been information withheld from the public?

J. J. in Phila

10-12-2009, 01:04 AM

Oh good grief. No it's not and no it doesn't.

You make it sound as if you believe police and DA's run around releasing abundant information in cases, and that lack of information release in the RG case is somehow unusual.

Try again, JJ. There are legions of cases 5, 10, 15 years old where even family members can't get information released to them. You think this one is so unusual because there's been information withheld from the public?

Ah, then why were the computer searches held for 2 1/2 years and then sprung on the public. Suddenly, after 2 1/2 years, it stops jeopardizing prosecution. Why was that similar to the information RFG wanted to eliminate the data? Released about nine months before?

What with the sudden defense of the MTM?

2-B

10-12-2009, 12:07 PM

Ah, then why were the computer searches held for 2 1/2 years and then sprung on the public. Suddenly, after 2 1/2 years, it stops jeopardizing prosecution. Why was that similar to the information RFG wanted to eliminate the data? Released about nine months before?

What with the sudden defense of the MTM?

My recollection, JJ, is that you have said quite openly you're not a true crime buff. You've said quite openly you became interested in the Gricar case not because of an interest in true crime cases but out of concern that "if it happened to Ray Gricar" it could happen to you (as someone who has been involved in PA political circles). Nothing wrong with that.

But that's one (among a number) of differences between you and many posters here. Some of us have followed true crime for eons. You may have picked up some minimal, peripheral knowledge of true crime cases along the way while following this one, but you don't seem to have the hundreds of "case files" stored away that many of us do. Not a criticism, just an observation.

That fact makes it harder for you to look at the Gricar case and see that some things you think are so "significant" are just S.O.P. or at least not so significant as you're prone to believe. I can look at the release of the computer searches after 2 1/2 years and understand that LE will frequently make similar releases in cold cases after a passage of time. They'll determine at a particular time there's more to be gained by release of information than by keeping the information under wraps. I have no doubt it's a balancing act. I'm sure the public is never aware of the discussions which precede the decision to release the information or the difficult balancing act LE must engage in to reach such a decision. But I can assure you, such a release is not uncommon.

There was nothing in my post which was a defense of MM. My comment was simply an observation

a) correcting your mistakement that there's something "profound" about there being more information and

b) correcting your mistakement that there's some reason for MM not to have released whatever other information is being withheld.

While I believe there's some specific information which could be released to the public without harming the investigation, I would never make a call for LE to make a blanket release of "information" in the investigation at this point. Therefore, whether it's MM, MR, or the man in the moon, your assertion "That there is more information is profound and asks the question of why MTM has not released it" is erroneous. There's no question why MM hasn't released all information that hasn't been released. Surely you must be able to understand that.

2-B

10-12-2009, 03:04 PM

There's no way for me to explain it without compromising private discussions. I know that's a cop out to some, and I know people get tired of the 'secret squirrel stuff'.

Politigal thinks "if we have sources we should put it out there"; that if those sources "didn't want it out there...tough! ...then they shouldn't share it." I disagree, because I've found that people are more likely to open up and to continue a dialogue when they have confidence that they're not going to be quoted in a public forum.

I can respect not wanting to compromise private discussions. I think private discussions are just that, private, and don't belong on the board.

OTOH, it does make it difficult for those of us who see statements made here without any support.

Your opinion of SPM--no biggie, really. I was just sincerely interested in why you believed what you do.

But your statement was just a personal opinion about a political candidate.

The "secret squirrel" problem here isn't with personal opinions. It's with assertions of fact made with no support forthcoming, definitely not what you did, but definitely rampant on this board.

Politigal

10-12-2009, 08:13 PM

Last week's debate is online:
http://cnet.pegcentral.com/index.php

thanks for the link - I really enjoy watching these

here's my overview of the questions/responses

Question #1 regarding the FBI warning about using their crime study as a safety ranking which can cause a misleading analysis

Madeira - crime lower than it's ever been in Centre County - the surge of crime occurs obviously when new students come into the community - he doesn't just look at the FBI crime study - looks at UCR - the quality of life, etc

Miller - although Madeira touts Centre County being one of the safest communities in his campaign, rapes are doubled what they were previously, weapons & alcohol charges are also up - drugs & burglaries are about the same

Question #2 regarding most recent criminal jury experience in Centre County

Madeira - homicide by vehicle case - won, then took 8 other cases to conviction - again touts that crimes are dropping

Miller - homicide by vehicle case - not guilty verdict, additional rape & other criminal cases, plus 30 various cases including homicide in Clearfield County --- doesn't matter if the experience was in Centre County or Clearfield County - juries are juries

Question #3 dealt with the man who fled the country on rape charges & how would they avoid that in the future

Madeira - claims he & law enforcement had the best information available that the man was not a flight risk

Miller - it's simple - a quick fix - the initial charges should not have been withdrawn, thereby allowing the man to go & get his passport - facing 2 rape charges with possible sentences of 10+ yrs it should have been obvious he would be a potential flight risk

Question #4 working with law enforcement

Madeira - touts his success and his accessibility - claims that drug cases are the most intensive - and because of his experience and he does so well that he's asked to train others across the commonwealth and touts a 95% victim approval rating

Miller - prosecuting as a team with law enforcement is key - being available - and working on every case as a team

Question #5 management style & innovations they might bring to office

Madeira - (IMO Madeira copied what SPM has built her campaign on in this segment) - he spoke of recognizing the individual strengths of the asst das and allowing them to put their expertise to work with the particular cases - and spoke of decreasing caseload where alternatives are available

Miller - spoke of mentoring and being completely involved with the staff - that there's currently a lack of management in the DA's office - "you don't just get to take the credit" - you're also responsible for the blunders - there needs to be more integrity in the DA's office.

Question #6 reducing repeat offenders

Madeira - he campaigned 4 yrs ago for the DUI court - claims SPM doesn't understand the law with regard to the $95,000 in drug forfeiture monies and that much of it isn't forfeitable

Miller - alternative programs - DUI court - branching out into other alternative courts with treatment for treatable illnesses such as mental illness, etc. Some cases don't deserve these special treatments and offenders need to be incarcerated. Spoke about the $95,000 in drug forfeiture monies and how some of the related cases have even gone past the statute of limitations so why isn't that money being put to better use.

Final statements

Madeira - crime is down, Centre County is one of the safest places in the country, and has the highest quality of life compared to other communities in PA. He didn't just decide one day that he wanted to become a DA - he's a career prosecutor. Does he take credit for all the good things in Centre County - no. It stemmed from working as a team. And he wants to continue doing a good job to make it the safest place for his four children and others to live.

Miller - many failures of the DA's office have been in the news - it's about leadership - again - he doesn't just get to take credit for the successes - he needs to acknowledge the failures. The DA's office isn't just about trying cases - it's about making the right decisions & teamwork.

the above overview was my interpretation & words where not in quotes.

Politigal

10-12-2009, 11:30 PM

I can respect not wanting to compromise private discussions. I think private discussions are just that, private, and don't belong on the board.

OTOH, it does make it difficult for those of us who see statements made here without any support.

Your opinion of SPM--no biggie, really. I was just sincerely interested in why you believed what you do.

But your statement was just a personal opinion about a political candidate.

The "secret squirrel" problem here isn't with personal opinions. It's with assertions of fact made with no support forthcoming, definitely not what you did, but definitely rampant on this board.

I admit I feel bad about what I wrote .... I was just so frustrated with all the secret squirrel stuff that goes on here.

At that time, with JJ's posts, it was almost like naa-naa-naa-boo-boo ...I know more than you do...

But of course, that apparently isn't the case.

J. J. in Phila

10-12-2009, 11:48 PM

There's no way for me to explain it without compromising private discussions. I know that's a cop out to some, and I know people get tired of the 'secret squirrel stuff'.

Politigal thinks "if we have sources we should put it out there"; that if those sources "didn't want it out there...tough! ...then they shouldn't share it." I disagree, because I've found that people are more likely to open up and to continue a dialogue when they have confidence that they're not going to be quoted in a public forum.

I agree and I do use private sources.

There is another problem; even when it given, a few posters still don't believe it. Again the pattern repeated over and over again here.

It was said, almost exactly six months ago:

Some people that observe the case, and not just the bloggers on message boards, have a preference for want they want to have happened. Some have Mr. Gricar being murdered by the forces of evil for his prosecutorial actions, going down heroically as he is killed by a vengeful thug; there are numerous other murder theories, each with a "favorite suspect(s)." Some want it to be suicide, because it is a voluntarily act. Some want a voluntarily departure, because not only is voluntary, but if true, Mr. Gricar is both possibly alive, but demonstrated how brilliant he was by pulling this off. The truth, whatever it ends up being, will not satisfy some. It will destroy their image of what happened, and possibly their impression of Mr. Gricar.

2-B

10-13-2009, 12:24 AM

I admit I feel bad about what I wrote .... I was just so frustrated with all the secret squirrel stuff that goes on here.

At that time, with JJ's posts, it was almost like naa-naa-naa-boo-boo ...I know more than you do...

But of course, that apparently isn't the case.

It takes a big person to admit writing something they probably didn't really mean when they were acting out of frustration.

I understand the frustration with posts that pull the "I know more than you do" stuff. It's silly one-upsmanship and not worthy of this board or of Ray Gricar. Either you know things you can share about the investigation and you share them--or you have private information and you keep it to yourself until such a time (if that time ever comes) that you can share it with the board. No doubt many here have private information they have kept to themselves.

What you don't do is run around a board saying, "There's more out there," "More to come," "Things will come out that will make you look foolish," "Information coming by the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg," "Information coming later this summer," "Things you're not aware of," "Blah blah blah blah blah," ad infinitum, ad nauseum, just to build your own ego. Because if you can't share it, that is ALL you're doing, building your own ego.

Especially when the few little items that have actually then been given the Big Reveal treatment have turned out to be nothing but a Not So Big Anything.

All just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

2-B

10-13-2009, 12:47 AM

Some people that observe the case, and not just the bloggers on message boards, have a preference for want they want to have happened. Some have Mr. Gricar being murdered by the forces of evil for his prosecutorial actions, going down heroically as he is killed by a vengeful thug; there are numerous other murder theories, each with a "favorite suspect(s)." Some want it to be suicide, because it is a voluntarily act. Some want a voluntarily departure, because not only is voluntary, but if true, Mr. Gricar is both possibly alive, but demonstrated how brilliant he was by pulling this off. The truth, whatever it ends up being, will not satisfy some. It will destroy their image of what happened, and possibly their impression of Mr. Gricar.

[red emphasis mine]

That's a specious argument (Willoughby's?) as evidenced by the words and phrases I've noted in red.

"Preference" and "want" (read:desire) have nothing to do with this. And therefore satisfaction has nothing to do with the eventual outcome.

People don't have a "preference" for what they "want to have happened."

What they have is conclusions about what most likely happened, based upon the evidence, which has nothing to do with preference.

Speaking only for myself, my preference is that Ray Gricar is alive and well and living happily somewhere. I wouldn't give a rat's patatootie what circumstances led to him living somewhere else under such mysterious conditions, though I'd likely want to slap him upside the head a few times for all the hours I've put in to trying to solve the mystery of his disappearance. A lot of stuff I could have accomplished otherwise around here, eh, Ray?

But my conclusion, inescapably, based on the evidence I've studied, is that Ray Gricar is almost assuredly and sadly deceased and likely has been since April 15, 2005.

From the last line, it sounds as if Willoughby has likely reached his own conclusion, obviously different from the one I have reached.

Politigal

10-13-2009, 01:05 AM

I want for Ray Gricar to be sitting in an easy chair, smiling and talking with Lara, maybe sipping on a glass of good wine - teasing her about when he can expect a grandbaby with blonde hair.

But, I think that's a scene that will never materialize.

2-B

10-13-2009, 01:15 AM

I want for Ray Gricar to be sitting in an easy chair, smiling and talking with Lara, maybe sipping on a glass of good wine - teasing her about when he can expect a grandbaby with blonde hair.

Well there you go. That's the best "want" I can imagine in this whole mess.

ETA: That image actually made me tear up, Pgal. Darn you.

Politigal

10-13-2009, 11:42 AM

Centre County is one of the safest places in PA to live, and the 'be afraid' tactic doesn't ring true, particularly by comparison to what happened in Clearfield County during SPM years in service there.

In the years SPM claims she was not only ADA but acting as district attorney, due to her boss being part-time, Clearfield County violent crime rate took it's biggest leap ever.
Rapes nearly doubled and aggravated assaults more than quadrupled.
Apples to apples, years in service compared, the record speaks for itself.

Number of Violent Crimes Reported by Clearfield County

Year 2000 Year 1995
Population 38,215 Population 34,349
Murder/ Man-slaughter 0 Murder/Man-slaughter 3
Rape 16 Rape 9
Robbery 3 Robbery 0
Aggr. Assault 67 Aggr. Assault 16

Total Violent Crime 86 Total Violent Crime 28

JMO

I wonder how Centre County stats compare - do you have a link for the above and maybe I can also look up Centre County. Thx

Politigal

10-13-2009, 12:02 PM

here's an updated link on crime statistics by county

http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/UCR/Reporting/RUAware/RUAwareCountyUI.asp

Politigal

10-13-2009, 12:07 PM

this shows the 5 year trend in crimes

Clearfield County 5 yr trend:

http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/ibi_apps/WFServlet?PG_REQTYPE=REDIRECT&PG_MRsaved=false&PG_Func=GETBINARY&PG_File=kocpadhs.pdf

Centre County 5 yr trend:

http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/ibi_apps/WFServlet?PG_REQTYPE=REDIRECT&PG_MRsaved=false&PG_Func=GETBINARY&PG_File=jsivnrsx.pdf

Politigal

10-13-2009, 12:42 PM

I wasn't sure what data to input -- but just found the "query" link

http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/UCR/Reporting/Query/Summary/QuerySumArrestUI.asp

just input the correct County on the right

Politigal

10-13-2009, 12:47 PM

oops - here's a better query

http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/UCR/Reporting/NIBRS/NIBRSArrestUI.asp

Politigal

10-13-2009, 12:58 PM

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/pacrime.htm

Although the overall stats go to 2008 for all of PA, the individual reported stats only go to 2005, therefore the years since then are not in the report.

Thanks for the link to the more recent stats in Centre County.

JMO

thanks for the base link - here are the County links from that link

Clearfield per Logic’s link

http://www.disastercenter.com/pennsylv/crime/11033.htm

Centre County

http://www.disastercenter.com/pennsylv/crime/10971.htm

Politigal

10-13-2009, 07:18 PM

After getting off work & looking closer at the various crime reports, it does appear that Centre County really does have a lower crime rate than many other areas in PA (looking at population, etc.)

But, it also appears it was that way when Gricar was DA.

So, how do we really know how much Madeira has contributed to the safety factor?

J. J. in Phila

10-14-2009, 12:46 AM

[red emphasis mine]

That's a specious argument (Willoughby's?) as evidenced by the words and phrases I've noted in red.

"Preference" and "want" (read:desire) have nothing to do with this. And therefore satisfaction has nothing to do with the eventual outcome.

People don't have a "preference" for what they "want to have happened."

What they have is conclusions about what most likely happened, based upon the evidence, which has nothing to do with preference.

Speaking only for myself, my preference is that Ray Gricar is alive and well and living happily somewhere. I wouldn't give a rat's patatootie what circumstances led to him living somewhere else under such mysterious conditions, though I'd likely want to slap him upside the head a few times for all the hours I've put in to trying to solve the mystery of his disappearance. A lot of stuff I could have accomplished otherwise around here, eh, Ray?

But my conclusion, inescapably, based on the evidence I've studied, is that Ray Gricar is almost assuredly and sadly deceased and likely has been since April 15, 2005.

From the last line, it sounds as if Willoughby has likely reached his own conclusion, obviously different from the one I have reached.

Twas not Willoughby, but he/she expressed those views. You conclusion is an excellent example what I just described.