~The Computer Searches~

[Politigal]

color me confused on this....:unsure:

Ok - reportedly, Gricar had inquired about 16 months prior about erasing his laptop hard drive, in preparation for retirement...not a big issue IMO, since it probably contained some sensitive case info or personal data, and he wanted that clean before it was returned to the county.

Here are some of the statements about the software that he may have used:

In October 2008 Michael Madeira claimed there was no evidence of or any receipt for Gricar having purchased any hard drive erasing software.

This week however, Matt Rickard claims that indeed Gricar had purchased the software.

Also this week, Shawn Weaver claims that the software box was located long ago.

in October Madeira also said this:
"She remembers Ray looking at it in a store. She believes she saw it at the house, but it wasn't there when police began looking for Ray," Madeira said. "There was no evidence of where it went, whether or not it was ever used."

Read more: "www.centredaily.com" - http://www.centredaily.com/personas/?insiteUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-17129&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-17129&plckPostId=Blog%3a42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-17129Post%3a99c6005d-6aa4-4776-a549-b4e278bd9212&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest#ixzz0Cwbk7JMo&A

And of course, it was reported that Patty recalled seeing the box in the home at one point.

Ok - they are saying there was a software box for the erasing software.

Why then....after purchasing the desktop computer for the home (approx January 2005) would Gricar need to do a search for "Window Washer" (as reported this week) if he in fact *already* had some hard drive erasing software???

This makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Politigal]

here's the link to Window Washer (reportedly Gricar searched for Window Washer 5.0)

http://window-washer.ws/

Window Washer will Eliminate Pictures, files, sensitive data, Search bar Memory, the secret.dat hidden Windows memory and anything else you dont want others to find!

Why would he need this if he already had software that erases the hard drive???

[2-B]

What if Gricar inquiring about software to erase a hard drive, perhaps buying or borrowing software to erase a hard drive and the searches for ways to "fry a hard drive" and "wreck a hard drive" aren't connected by Ray Gricar?

What if they are connected by someone who knew that Ray had inquired about/bought/borrowed/whatever such software, someone who wanted it to look as if Ray had done these searches?

I believe S1 that the laptop was NOT in the river when the initial searches took place. I believe it was put there at a later time, to re-focus attention on Lewisburg.

And I believe Lewisburg was a carefully staged scene, but not staged by Ray himself.

I have no idea who did the staging. But I believe that the computer searches could well be part of that staging. If they had been done by a clever Ray, cleverly setting up a YITMAMPW, he would have been smart enough to do the searches on the hard drive he planned (under that scenario) to destroy.

I'll gladly re-adjust my thinking if we see hard evidence that Gricar, and Gricar alone, is the only one who could have done those searches.

So far, we've seen only the claim that Gricar made the searches and nothing to support why LE has reached the conclusion that Gricar and Gricar alone was the "searcher." I don't know about anyone else, but I need to see the explanation before I can accept the claim at face value.

[Politigal]

I don't think there's really any way that law enforcement can honestly say *who* did those searches on the home computer.

And again, why would Gricar need to search for Window Washer 5.0 if he had in fact already purchased some software to erase his laptop hard drive?

Once again...Patty Fornicola is drawn into the mix IMO.

~Her home/her upstairs closet where the laptop was kept/her mutually owned desktop computer~

[gstickley]

I want to know about the box that wasn't there, then suddenly was there. Why was it brought up in the first place? If you're going to misinform, misdirect, do the smoke & mirrors thing, then you ought to at least try to keep your stuff straight!

[Politigal]

I'm sure many of you remember this from the Laci Peterson case...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15788089.html

Lydell Wall of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department, returning to the stand for cross-examination, testified that someone used Peterson's home computer to search shopping Web sites for a scarf and a sunflower umbrella stand on Dec. 24, 2002, between 8:40 a.m. and 8:45 a.m

the defense tried to say that Laci used the computer that morning...

but of course, Laci was dead and in the bay.

[J. J. in Phila]

PEF didn't know where the box was, but LE found the box.

RFG asked other people, as long as 16 months prior to his disappearance.

None of that necessarily points to walkaway, only that RFG was considering destroying the data.

You really should read my blog from Monday on how easy it is to track locations in an electronic age.

P'gal, even those programs can be defeated by forensic data recovery companies, like Kroll.

PEF is only "in the mix" because you keep trying to throw her in. You should listen to some of the commentators in the CDT.

[Politigal]

You've missed my point JJ.

If RG did indeed purchase (or borrow) software to erase the hard drive on his lap top (in 2003 or 2004)....why would he then need to search in *2005* for "window washer 5.0" ????

[J. J. in Phila]

You've missed my point JJ.

If RG did indeed purchase software to erase the hard drive on his lap top (in 2003 or 2004)....why would he then need to search in *2005* for "window washer 5.0" ????

Looking to see how effective it was.

Basically, most of those programs are good in protecting data from hackers. The don't from more forensic recovery services. He didn't want the data read.

[Politigal]

What if Gricar inquiring about software to erase a hard drive, perhaps buying or borrowing software to erase a hard drive and the searches for ways to "fry a hard drive" and "wreck a hard drive" aren't connected by Ray Gricar?

What if they are connected by someone who knew that Ray had inquired about/bought/borrowed/whatever such software, someone who wanted it to look as if Ray had done these searches?

I believe S1 that the laptop was NOT in the river when the initial searches took place. I believe it was put there at a later time, to re-focus attention on Lewisburg.

And I believe Lewisburg was a carefully staged scene, but not staged by Ray himself.

I have no idea who did the staging. But I believe that the computer searches could well be part of that staging. If they had been done by a clever Ray, cleverly setting up a YITMAMPW, he would have been smart enough to do the searches on the hard drive he planned (under that scenario) to destroy.

I'll gladly re-adjust my thinking if we see hard evidence that Gricar, and Gricar alone, is the only one who could have done those searches.

So far, we've seen only the claim that Gricar made the searches and nothing to support why LE has reached the conclusion that Gricar and Gricar alone was the "searcher." I don't know about anyone else, but I need to see the explanation before I can accept the claim at face value.

going back to the Laci Peterson case...I think there's definitely the possibility of premeditation in this case too.

[J. J. in Phila]

Premeditation by RFG, obviously, at least on destroying the drive.

[Politigal]

JJ - you posted above about "tracking location"...

In reference to the home computer, the location was the home.

I think more important is the question - who was the *user* ??

That cannot be proven IMO.

[2-B]

I think more important is the question - who was the *user.* ??



Yep. And that's why I think forensic linguistics could potentially be helpful here. I got interested in that way back with the JBR case. It's a reasonably young science and has still has its limitations, but its definitely progressing by leaps and bounds. It's still more useful to exclude than it is to include, and it's still more useful with longer pieces when trying to include a writer (the Unabomber being a great example).

But I know of cases where very short text messages on cell phones were used to exclude writers (two where murderers tried to pass off text messages as having been sent by the person they killed). And even chat logs and IM messages are being analyzed and used in court cases now to exclude writers.

[Politigal]

Yep. And that's why I think forensic linguistics could potentially be helpful here. I got interested in that way back with the JBR case. It's a reasonably young science and has still has its limitations, but its definitely progressing by leaps and bounds. It's still more useful to exclude than it is to include, and it's still more useful with longer pieces when trying to include a writer (the Unabomber being a great example).

But I know of cases where very short text messages on cell phones were used to exclude writers (two where murderers tried to pass off text messages as having been sent by the person they killed). And even chat logs and IM messages are being analyzed and used in court cases now to exclude writers.

Forensic linguistics is certainly becoming a prominent study and is even offered as a college course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_linguistics

http://www.languageandlaw.org/FORENSIC.HTM

http://www.all-about-forensic-science.com/forensic-linguistics.html

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/Colleges/Hclas/FLP/

[Politigal]

from the Hofstra edu link I posted....take a look at this:

The Forensic Linguistic Project conducts original research, accepts outside assignments, and organizes lectures and conferences. Through the Forensic Linguistics Project, the linguists -- Dr. Leonard, allied professors, and forensic linguistic interns -- attempt to help people with legal issues that relate to language by accepting pro bono research assignments.

Pro bono research.....Reckon Madeira would be open to this?


naaahhh :w00t:

[puzzled]

I am sorry but I can not imagine Ray planning to destroy county property under any circumstances. I don't think it fits his character at all. I just do not believe he would do a search about how he could destroy something that did not belong to him.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - you posted above about "tracking location"...

In reference to the home computer, the location was the home.

I think more important is the question - who was the *user* ??

That cannot be proven IMO.

Wrong again, for potentially two reasons.

1. The search could have been done at a time RFG was known to be in the house, and PEF was known to be someplace else. Remember the naps?

2. It could have been a secured ISP account, one that PEF didn't have access to.

[J. J. in Phila]

I am sorry but I can not imagine Ray planning to destroy county property under any circumstances. I don't think it fits his character at all. I just do not believe he would do a search about how he could destroy something that did not belong to him.

There was a report that he was considering, at some point, to keep the laptop. My guess would be that he'd pay for it, if so. It would be used, several years old, and he could retain it probably for something less than replacement cost.

[Cloudbuster]

Here is a interesting link about web bots. It ueses language words to come up with things that occur or about to occur.

http://www.urbansurvival.com/bothit5.htm

[2-B]

1. The search could have been done at a time RFG was known to be in the house, and PEF was known to be someplace else. Remember the naps?

2. It could have been a secured ISP account, one that PEF didn't have access to.


1. Then we would have only PF's word to say Gricar was home when she was known to be somewhere else. They worked essentially the same hours. They came home together for lunch as SOP, at least according to BW.

There would have to be proof other than PF's word that Gricar was home and was the only one in the home at the time the searches were conducted for it to mean anything.

2. A secured ISP account that PF didn't have access to? For their shared home computer? Yeah, that's likely . . . :rolleyes:

****

Nancy Grace was on in the background tonight talking about the Casey Anthony case and searches for the 100th episode of a show called One Tree Hill, an episode which apparently featured a nanny stealing a toddler from his mother.

What caught my ear was NG's phrasing in talking about this: "forensic analysis showed that someone had done searches on Casey Anthony's computer for the 100th episode of One Tree Hill."

[2-B]

There was a report that he was considering, at some point, to keep the laptop. My guess would be that he'd pay for it, if so. It would be used, several years old, and he could retain it probably for something less than replacement cost.


Link, please? I do not recall this.

[J. J. in Phila]

1. Then we would have only PF's word to say Gricar was home when she was known to be somewhere else. They worked essentially the same hours. They came home together for lunch as SOP, at least according to BW.


You forgot about the days off and the naps. It one such search was on 4/14, that would be solid evidence.


There would have to be proof other than PF's word that Gricar was home and was the only one in the home at the time the searches were conducted for it to mean anything.


Did it ever occur to you that he might have gotten and responded to an e-mail while in the process of the search? One clearly from him?


2. A secured ISP account that PF didn't have access to? For their shared home computer? Yeah, that's likely . . . :rolleyes:

****


Oh, yes, that never ever could possibly happen. It depends on the situation. I have numerous password protected Internet areas, including the spot where I happen to be posting, and I live alone.


Nancy Grace was on in the background tonight talking about the Casey Anthony case and searches for the 100th episode of a show called One Tree Hill, an episode which apparently featured a nanny stealing a toddler from his mother.

What caught my ear was NG's phrasing in talking about this: "forensic analysis showed that someone had done searches on Casey Anthony's computer for the 100th episode of One Tree Hill."

And MR was quite specific here that RFG did the search, not that it was just "someone."

We also have other sources that RFG wanted to eliminate the data.

[gstickley]

Doncha just luv a police agency that "leaks" investigative information to an out-of-the-area blobber & a so-called reporter who couldn't get any information from them at all just a year or so ago & who is now supposedly out of state??? :rolleyes: Or, is this "leaked", "hinted at" information just coming out now since it's election time???

[2-B]

JJ, we have sources who said RG was interested in cleaning up the hard drive before returning the laptop to the county.

We don't have sources who said RG was interested in destroying a hard drive.

Big difference. Critical difference.

Do you know of specific evidence LE used to determine that RG and RG alone could have made the searches?

If so, please share.

If not, the guesses you're making aren't particularly relevant, and more importantly, they're potentially refutable.

A search done on 4/14 while PF was at work and RG was not? Prove that RG was in the house, and that he was in the house alone.

A search done at the same time emails were being exchanged? Prove that Gricar himself sent and received the emails (it's the same problem as the searches--prove that he was the one at the computer).

IMO, this is exactly like the Casey Anthony situation--someone did searches on each of the computers. From what I've been reading, proving that a specific person did the searching isn't possible except perhaps with a keystroke logger installed on the computer. Are you suggesting PF put a keystroke logger on the home computer to follow what RG was doing on it? Even Google, with all its power to track what a user does, can't isolate information enough to determine WHO is using a particular computer.

The significant difference between the Gricar situation and the CA situation is that with CA authorities have a long laundry list of incriminating evidence against Casey. Little things like a dead toddler, evidence of human decomposition in Casey's car, post-mortem hair consistent with Caylee's in Casey's car trunk, etc., etc., etc.

No other evidence publicly available says that Ray Gricar wanted to destroy the hard drive on his computer. At best, it says only that he wanted to wipe it before returning it when he retired--hardly suspicious, since many or most people would want to do the same.

[2-B]

I need to hear a whole lot more of the particulars to believe this 'big find' proves in any way that RG was searching for a way to 'wreck' or 'fry' a computer. I was also wondering if LE has checked to see who else came and went from that house at particular times prior to disappearance, at lunch times, break times and other times, in the company of either party living at the house. The language is definitely out of character for a DA who has been writing briefs for decades. This is a younger persons language, IMO.
JMO

Finding out who else was in and out of that house is key here, IMO. Computers can be used by anyone who has the opportunity to access them, and the cases where computer use figures in to timeline or some other critical aspect (CL, LP, CA, etc.) have never to my knowledge been able to show that any one particular individual was at the keyboard.

At best what happens is that computer searches combined with tons of other incriminating evidence wind up convicting someone of a crime, as in the case in Florida where the husband murdered his young wife on the beach (the name escapes me at the moment--it'll come to me eventually, lol. Really pretty blonde wife, cheating husband--anyone remember?).

ETA: Justin Barber.

[Politigal]

heck....on the email...let's not forget that RG didn't even email the staff that he was taking off work...

Patty supposedly emailed the staff *for* him.

[Politigal]

On the search term of "frying" the drive...that absolutely implies destroying the drive...not just erasing data.

The most common terms for erasing the data on a hard drive are "wiping" or "scrubbing" the drive.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, we have sources who said RG was interested in cleaning up the hard drive before returning the laptop to the county.

We don't have sources who said RG was interested in destroying a hard drive.

Big difference. Critical difference.


Erasing destroys the data. So does tossing the drive into the Susquehanna.


Do you know of specific evidence LE used to determine that RG and RG alone could have made the searches?

If so, please share.

If not, the guesses you're making aren't particularly relevant, and more importantly, they're potentially refutable.


No, but they were specific. I look at the words.. MR isn't DZ and tends to words precisely. Those words are not guesses.




A search done on 4/14 while PF was at work and RG was not? Prove that RG was in the house, and that he was in the house alone.


A search done at the same time emails were being exchanged? Prove that Gricar himself sent and received the emails (it's the same problem as the searches--prove that he was the one at the computer).



You don't have to, only that he was there; this wasn't a public computer. In the case of e-mail, there are many technical aspects of cases that only RFG could answer.




IMO, this is exactly like the Casey Anthony situation--someone did searches on each of the computers. From what I've been reading, proving that a specific person did the searching isn't possible except perhaps with a keystroke logger installed on the computer. Are you suggesting PF put a keystroke logger on the home computer to follow what RG was doing on it? Even Google, with all its power to track what a user does, can't isolate information enough to determine WHO is using a particular computer.

The significant difference between the Gricar situation and the CA situation is that with CA authorities have a long laundry list of incriminating evidence against Casey. Little things like a dead toddler, evidence of human decomposition in Casey's car, post-mortem hair consistent with Caylee's in Casey's car trunk, etc., etc., etc.

No other evidence publicly available says that Ray Gricar wanted to destroy the hard drive on his computer. At best, it says only that he wanted to wipe it before returning it when he retired--hardly suspicious, since many or most people would want to do the same.

2-B, first, this isn't the Anthony case, so it is not relevant at all.

Second, I don't recall ever saying this was "suspicious." I think it points, increasingly strongly, to RFG getting rid of the data. So did the information last summer; this merely reinforces that. It again weakens the PEF theory, but that was laughably weak anyhow. This doesn't even weaken the troll under the bridge theory for that matter, though that is laughably weak as well.

[2-B]

JJ, first, there is a world of difference between someone who wants to wipe a hard drive clean before returning it to an employer and someone who wants to destroy a hard drive. Both destroy data, but there's a quantifiable difference in intent. There would be absolutely nothing suspicious about Gricar wanting to wipe his hard drive clean before returning it to the county. There would be great suspicion attached to real evidence that Gricar himself tossed it into the river. So let's keep it real: there's a huge and critical difference between the two, even if both destroy data.


Second, do you have any direct quotes from Matt Rickart? Do you have the exact wording of the press release? Or are you relying on paraphrase written by SG and others? You can't interpret MR's precise language without first having seen MR's precise language, and as far as I know, none of us has seen the exact wording of the press release. Please don't tell us that journalists will always represent precisely and accurately exactly what they've seen or heard. We know that isn't true.

Third, yes, there needs to be proof that Gricar himself did the searches. Otherwise, the existence of the searches is only suggestive. It tells us that someone did the searches, not that Gricar did them.

Fourth, the Anthony case and any other cases where computer searches were used as evidence to arrive at a theory are indeed relevant. Computer searches cannot be pinned to any single user, only to a single computer. They've been useful in supporting tons of other hard evidence but never in making a case in and of themselves. Try reading some of the legal cases on CNET with regard to this issue.

[2-B]

Testimony from Neil Entwistle's 2008 murder trial:

On the 13th day of Entwistle's double-murder trial, prosecutors Wednesday used a computer forensics expert to add some backbone to that theory.

Testimony also revealed details about Internet searches made on Entwistle's computer about ways to kill.

Medford Police Officer Lawrence James, testifying in Middlesex Superior Court, spent about two hours reading line after line of Web site searches about murder, escort services and plane tickets. The searches were made in the days ahead of the Jan. 20, 2006, murders of Rachel and Lillian Rose Entwistle in their Hopkinton home, he testified.

James never used Entwistle's name, but said the searches were made on Entwistle's computer. The computer profile's name was “ENT,” which could only be used with a password.

On Jan. 16, someone used Google to search . . .

On Jan. 17, just three days before Entwistle said he found the bodies of his dead family, someone, still using the profile “ENT,” searched on Google . . .

James said someone clicked on a result for each search . . .

Also, in the days leading up to the murders, someone searched several sites related to escort services. . . .

On Jan. 16, James said, someone logged onto Adult Friend Finder . . .

James said someone also used Entwistle's computer to again log onto Adult Friend Finder.

Jan. 18 was a busy day for escort-related searches. Beginning at 1:41 p.m., someone logged onto halfpriceescorts.com . . . and then someone logged onto Adult Friend Finder.

At 3:59 p.m., the user, “ENT,” did an online search . .

The same user, “ENT,” also searched for flights on Jan. 9. . . .

During that same time period, on Jan. 9, Jan. 16 and Jan. 17, the user “ENT,” and another password protected profile on the same computer, “Contract,” did several job searches on such sites as Hot Jobs and Monster.

James also testified that someone conducted a search on Entwistle's computer on Jan. 20, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., using the screen name of “ENT.”


http://www.dailynewstribune.com/archive/x1165648058/Searches-about-murder-escort-services-found-on-Entwistles-computer

Note that the computer forensic expert never testifies that Neil Entwistle did the searches. The implication is that Entiwistle did them, but James does not testify to that. And the searches on the Entwistle computer were done on a password protected account.

The Entwistle trial is very recent--July 2008. What advances in computer forensics have occurred in the last 8 or 9 months which would allow MR to claim that Ray Gricar did the searches? Did he actually claim that in the press release, or is that the interpretation of the press?

[2-B]

Another example, from Robert Petrick's 2005 murder trial:

Prosecutors had seized several computers from Petrick's home after Sutphen, a concert cellist, disappeared in January 2003. They used evidence collected from the hard drives to make their case. Internet histories showed that showing someone used Google to search the terms neck, snap break and hold and reviewed a document entitled "22 Ways to Kill a Man With Your Bare Hands." They also said that someone had researched body decomposition and the topography of the lake where Sutphen's body was found.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:32DZd9YusIUJ:www.informationweek.co m/news/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml%3FarticleID%3D174403074+murderer +computer+searches&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

If these prosecutors had been able to legitimately argue that Petrick made the searches, surely they would have made that argument. As with the computer forensic specialist in the Entiwistle case, the best these prosecutors could do was argue that someone made the searches.

For Entiwistle and Petrick, plenty of other evidence helped convict them. The google searches supported the other evidence, but the google searches alone would never have been enough since they could not be pinpointed to Entwistle or Petrick specifically.

That's where we are with this information about the searches done on the home computer in the Gricar case. The searches stand essentially alone and don't tell us very much at all about what happened to this missing prosecutor.

[Politigal]

I'm still very curious...*why* the family apparently wasn't told of these searches.

[Politigal]

It's very puzzling to me too...

If Gricar did these searches....

*why* would his quest leap from erasing a hard drive (in prep for retirement) to destroying a hard drive ?? That's a mighty big jump IMO.

And, I sure wish we knew the dates of these searches.

[J. J. in Phila]

Again 2-B, none these other cases have any relevance to this one. Different situation.

The was some consideration about RFG keeping the laptop after he retired, so it's not really an issue of returning it.

RFG wanted something on that laptop to never see the light of day. The thing is, that might not related to his disappearance.

[J. J. in Phila]

It's very puzzling to me too...

If Gricar did these searches....

*why* would his quest leap from erasing a hard drive (in prep for retirement) to destroying a hard drive ?? That's a mighty big jump IMO.

And, I sure wish we knew the dates of these searches.

Both destroy data. One just does it a lot better.

[gstickley]

(snip)

The was some consideration about RFG keeping the laptop after he retired, so it's not really an issue of returning it.

RFG wanted something on that laptop to never see the light of day. The thing is, that might not related to his disappearance.

B-2 already asked for a link to the bolded statement. Now I want to see a link to this information.

I also want to see a link to your second statement.

[J. J. in Phila]

B-2 already asked for a link to the bolded statement. Now I want to see a link to this information.

I also want to see a link to your second statement.

http://www.wrta.com/page.php?page_id=34663

It was quoted on another site.

I'd suggest that, in the future, you use Google. You also can look at the statements on erasure from last year, when it came out in the press. Hint: If you don't want something on a computer to see the light of day, you erase it.

[gstickley]

http://www.wrta.com/page.php?page_id=34663

(snip)
Hint: If you don't want something on a computer to see the light of day, you erase it.

DUH . . . but if you want it erased, you don't have to "fry your hard drive" to do so, nor do you throw it in a river . . . DUH :tonguewag:

[J. J. in Phila]

DUH . . . but if you want it erased, you don't have to "fry your hard drive" to do so, nor do you throw it in a river . . . DUH :tonguewag:

You do if you want to make very sure it won't be seen. The only real question is, was it relevant to the case. Hint: It might not have been.

If it wasn't, it might be murder (which is one of the reasons why I'm amused by the fuss your making over it).

[gstickley]

You do if you want to make very sure it won't be seen. The only real question is, was it relevant to the case. Hint: It might not have been.

If it wasn't, it might be murder (which is one of the reasons why I'm amused by the fuss your making over it).

The word is "you're", not "your" . . . :tonguewag:

[Politigal]

I was rereading the articles on the computer searches and didn't notice this til today:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/16/police_knew_of_evidence.aspx

The Bellefonte Police Department released early this week that missing District Attorney Ray Gricar had searched for information on "water damage to a notebook computer" on his home computer months before his county-issued laptop was discovered in the Susquehanna River.

This information, which Bellefonte Det. Matthew Rickard first discovered about two and a half years ago, was released Tuesday, one day before the four-year anniversary of the former prosecutor's disappearance.

So, Matt Rickard just had the home computer checked for evidence 2 1/2 yrs ago or ???? That would have been approx October 2006 if the article is accurate.

[ladyheartfixer]

You do if you want to make very sure it won't be seen.

One does not have to "fry the hard drive" in order to erase or remove permanently information from a hard drive. If you don't know this then you need to get in touch with your techie friends and fine out how to do this. Do you realize that every year there are computers thrown out that ppl think they have "erased'? Actually all they have done is deleted and epmtied rather than erased and wiped. It's a motherload of info for identity theft. A wiped hard drive is as clean as the day you bought it...that is if you bought it new and unused. There are very reputable programs that can do an efficient job at this...most government employees have access to it or an IT spec who can handle the problem...heck..I have one and have used it several times. Once I took my newly wiped hard drive to my local techie just for s***s and g*****s and he thought I had replaced my hard drive...so...you definitely don't have to fry it or drown it or run over it with a steam roller.

[day2day]

You do if you want to make very sure it won't be seen. The only real question is, was it relevant to the case. Hint: It might not have been.

If it wasn't, it might be murder (which is one of the reasons why I'm amused by the fuss your making over it).

J.J-
I think that this is just the MOST ridiculous "leak" I have ever read. I know that Mr. Gricar worked in his office most days and have been told and read that he also spent alot of time in his office at night. Are we sposed to believe he stayed up all nite doing searches on how to toss a harddrive? I would just LOVE to know how ANYONE can prove that Mr. Gricar performed those searches. And of course the computer was found in PF's home-how does LE decide that Mr. Gricar made those searches and not PF?

[J. J. in Phila]

One does not have to "fry the hard drive" in order to erase or remove permanently information from a hard drive. If you don't know this then you need to get in touch with your techie friends and fine out how to do this. Do you realize that every year there are computers thrown out that ppl think they have "erased'? Actually all they have done is deleted and epmtied rather than erased and wiped. It's a motherload of info for identity theft. A wiped hard drive is as clean as the day you bought it...that is if you bought it new and unused. There are very reputable programs that can do an efficient job at this...most government employees have access to it or an IT spec who can handle the problem...heck..I have one and have used it several times. Once I took my newly wiped hard drive to my local techie just for s***s and g*****s and he thought I had replaced my hard drive...so...you definitely don't have to fry it or drown it or run over it with a steam roller.


Actually, even looking at those programs, they won't do the job completely, at least not enough to defeat forensic recovery. Most of the tech boards boards even refer to smashing, grinding or melting the disk itself.

He is a thought. We know that one employee of the DA's office had "problems." What if there was something similar to that about an employee that RFG didn't want seen, ever?

[day2day]

DUH . . . but if you want it erased, you don't have to "fry your hard drive" to do so, nor do you throw it in a river . . . DUH :tonguewag:

IMO Mr. Gricar never tossed that hard drive in the river-and it was NOT in the river on 4/15!!

[ladyheartfixer]

Actually, even looking at those programs, they won't do the job completely, at least not enough to defeat forensic recovery. Most of the tech boards boards even refer to smashing, grinding or melting the disk.

then trust me...they aren't using the right program....one thing I know about is...actually...bodies....and I prefer them dead so they can't argue with me...but I digress....I am telling you...there is a program available..not necessarily to the genral public techies...that will completely wipe the hard drive without having to fry it, soak it, rust it, compress it, or blow it up....and if you don't believe me..oh well...I guess I'd have to kill ya...and then we get back to the dead body....:rolleyes:

[sherrijean981]

Doncha just luv a police agency that "leaks" investigative information to an out-of-the-area blobber & a so-called reporter who couldn't get any information from them at all just a year or so ago & who is now supposedly out of state??? :rolleyes: Or, is this "leaked", "hinted at" information just coming out now since it's election time???


S1 posted this link above, on Ray Gricar links that can not be posted on, but it needs to be here too. Very informative:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/16/police_knew_of_evidence.aspx

If they knew this information years ago and are bringing it out to keep the case alive why are they not releasing more info, something we haven't already heard about.

As to PF, is they have had the information for years, was it part of her lie detector testing? It was months after RG had disappeared and they already had the computer. Shouldn't take that long to do a search and see what sites he was on. What other sites were of interest that they could have put out to us.

[J. J. in Phila]

S1 posted this link above, on Ray Gricar links that can not be posted on, but it needs to be here too. Very informative:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/16/police_knew_of_evidence.aspx

If they knew this information years ago and are bringing it out to keep the case alive why are they not releasing more info, something we haven't already heard about.

As to PF, is they have had the information for years, was it part of her lie detector testing? It was months after RG had disappeared and they already had the computer. Shouldn't take that long to do a search and see what sites he was on. What other sites were of interest that they could have put out to us.

I think TG mention that was asked about the laptop, which was missing at the time. It was discovered 2.5 years ago, so it would post date PEF's polygraph test (and LG's, for that matter).

[Politigal]

S1 posted this link above, on Ray Gricar links that can not be posted on, but it needs to be here too. Very informative:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/16/police_knew_of_evidence.aspx

If they knew this information years ago and are bringing it out to keep the case alive why are they not releasing more info, something we haven't already heard about.

As to PF, is they have had the information for years, was it part of her lie detector testing? It was months after RG had disappeared and they already had the computer. Shouldn't take that long to do a search and see what sites he was on. What other sites were of interest that they could have put out to us.

The article I posted above said that Matt Rickard discovered the searches about 2 1/2 yrs ago....approx Oct 2006.....

weird huh

I'd still like to know if they waited that long to actually look at the home computer....or if that just means they had that info from the beginning and thought nothing of it...and Rickard found it in the case file in '06.

??

[J. J. in Phila]

then trust me...they aren't using the right program....one thing I know about is...actually...bodies....and I prefer them dead so they can't argue with me...but I digress....I am telling you...there is a program available..not necessarily to the genral public techies...that will completely wipe the hard drive without having to fry it, soak it, rust it, compress it, or blow it up....and if you don't believe me..oh well...I guess I'd have to kill ya...and then we get back to the dead body....:rolleyes:

The questions are:

1. Can the program defeat a forensic recovery service, not me or some really good hacker trying to read it?

2. Could RFG had access to it?

3. Could he count on new technical developments not being able to defeat it?

[day2day]

The article I posted above said that Matt Rickard discovered the searches about 2 1/2 yrs ago....approx Oct 2006.....

weird huh

I'd still like to know if they waited that long to actually look at the home computer....or if that just means they had that info from the beginning and thought nothing of it...and Rickard found it in the case file in '06.

??

That was a great find Pgal. I would like to know if they waited that long to go through that computer also!! And if so-why they didnt take the computer on day1

[Politigal]

That was a great find Pgal. I would like to know if they waited that long to go through that computer also!! And if so-why they didnt take the computer on day1

According to this article, it was a *later* search of the home computer when they learned of the various searches. And that in itself is weird IMO....I mean, if those searches weren't there the first go-round ???

Or did they really just wait a while before looking at the home computer?

http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/509910.html?nav=5009

Authorities said a later search of Gricar's home computer revealed he had been exploring methods of erasing a hard drive in the period of time before his disappearance.

[J. J. in Phila]

According to this article, it was a *later* search of the home computer when they learned of the various searches. And that in itself is weird IMO....I mean, if those searches weren't there the first go-round ???

Or did they really just wait a while before looking at the home computer?

http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/509910.html?nav=5009

Authorities said a later search of Gricar's home computer revealed he had been exploring methods of erasing a hard drive in the period of time before his disappearance.

Ah, the police took his home computer on 4/17/05; they have had it since then.

[Politigal]

Ah, the police took his home computer on 4/17/05; they have had it since then.

I don't know when they actually took the home computer...but regardless, they didn't find these searches until late 2006.

Or at least, that's what reports say.

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't know when they actually took the home computer...but regardless, they didn't find these searches until late 2006.

Or at least, that's what reports say.

It might not have been that in depth search. My point was, you definitely have a time frame.

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J-
I think that this is just the MOST ridiculous "leak" I have ever read. I know that Mr. Gricar worked in his office most days and have been told and read that he also spent alot of time in his office at night. Are we sposed to believe he stayed up all nite doing searches on how to toss a harddrive? I would just LOVE to know how ANYONE can prove that Mr. Gricar performed those searches. And of course the computer was found in PF's home-how does LE decide that Mr. Gricar made those searches and not PF?

I've indicated the how (ironically, some of it was before I knew about the story).

If the searches were time stamped, it would be fairly easy.

[Serendipitous1]

I think TG mention that was asked about the laptop, which was missing at the time. It was discovered 2.5 years ago, so it would post date PEF's polygraph test (and LG's, for that matter).So this information was not available when PF was polygraphed? Interesting.

[Cloudbuster]

S1 the newer bridge in Lewisburg that carries cars accross, do you know if they are new cars or old cars and where are they going with them? I read about the newer bridge early on in a article but I'd like to know where these cars go and are they new or are they being junked ect. Any info would be great!

[Politigal]

So this information was not available when PF was polygraphed? Interesting.

maybe they should re-polygraph her and ask if she did those searches then...

[2-B]

Again 2-B, none these other cases have any relevance to this one. Different situation.

The was some consideration about RFG keeping the laptop after he retired, so it's not really an issue of returning it.

RFG wanted something on that laptop to never see the light of day. The thing is, that might not related to his disappearance.

What's thoroughly relevant, and what you've completely failed to understand, is this:

a) there is no way to pinpoint who an individual searcher is on a computer and

b) apparently no forensic computer expert and no prosecutor has gone into court on any case and testified or argued that Person X did searches on a computer because that cannot be determined. Only the fact that someone did searches on a computer can be determined. Password protected accounts, etc. are not enough to allow testimony that Person X did the searching.

I see that Blogland is full of statements regarding how we now "know" that Gricar did these searches and how Gricar never wanted the data on his drive to "see the light of day." Blogland is right about this much:
"Anyone can make statements totally unsubstantiated by evidence about nearly anything."

Because it is totally unsubstantiated by evidence that Gricar himself did the searches on his home computer. Regardless of what LE knows or doesn't know, until we see court cases where forensic computer experts can testify that Person X, rather than "someone," did searches on a particular computer, and until there is a legitimate forensic and technological basis for the courts to allow such testimony, there is no legitimately substantiated reason to claim that Gricar searched for this, that, or the other thing on his home computer.

There may be the implication that he did so. But there is no legitimate legal or technological basis for arguing that Gricar, to the exclusion of anyone else, was the person who performed those searches.

Show us a court case in which a forensic computer expert testified that a specific person did searches on a computer. Show us how that expert linked the searches to the specific person in admissible testimony. Then those of us who resist the claim that Gricar did the searching will be perfectly willing to reconsider.

Otherwise, we'll continue to see the relevance of these other cases even if you are unable or unwilling to.

[Politigal]

Unless they have a time-stamped video of Gricar on that computer at the same time of those searches...there's no way for them to prove who the user was.

[2-B]

Unless they have a time-stamped video of Gricar on that computer at the same time of those searches...there's no way for them to prove who the user was.

Yep, Pgal, you're right. And lawyers' reaction to testimony in the Mark Jensen murder trial helps underscore that very thing:

A computer expert testified that someone searched the Internet on the family computer for antifreeze and ethylene glycol poisoning a week before a woman died.

Mark Jensen, now 48, was charged with first-degree intentional homicide in 2002 in the Dec. 3, 1998 death of his wife Julie Jensen, but legal wrangling over the admissibility of evidence delayed the trial.

Prosecutors have contended for years that Jensen poisoned his wife with antifreeze, although a pathologist who did the initial autopsy changed his testimony Tuesday and said he now believes she was suffocated.

State computer expert Rhonda Mitchell testified Friday that the first evidence of an ethylene glycol search on the Jensen family computer was Nov. 10, 1998, when computer records show the user also looked at suicide, euthanasia, toxicology and nicotine.

Ethylene glycol popped up again on Nov. 29, 1998, when someone logged onto www.sierraantifreeze.com.

That same apparent person, identified by the user name "Buddy," found a prescription Web site on Dec. 2, 1998. A search for Paxil about 2:35 a.m. was followed about 6:15 a.m. by a search on the stages of ethylene glycol poisoning.

The user also looked at oxalic acid, the ethylene glycol metabolite that causes crystals to form in human kidneys, as well as an article on poisoning treatments and a man who accidentally swallowed antifreeze.

Mitchell is expected to testify more Monday, but lawyers debated Friday whether the search results would give any insight into who was using the Jensens' computer.


http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/13735447.html

[J. J. in Phila]

What's thoroughly relevant, and what you've completely failed to understand, is this:

a) there is no way to pinpoint who an individual searcher is on a computer and


Yes there is, if you can establish it was the only person who had access to the computer at the time.


b) apparently no forensic computer expert and no prosecutor has gone into court on any case and testified or argued that Person X did searches on a computer because that cannot be determined. Only the fact that someone did searches on a computer can be determined. Password protected accounts, etc. are not enough to allow testimony that Person X did the searching.


Again, different cases. Let's see what developes.


I see that Blogland is full of statements regarding how we now "know" that Gricar did these searches and how Gricar never wanted the data on his drive to "see the light of day." Blogland is right about this much:
"Anyone can make statements totally unsubstantiated by evidence about nearly anything."


Perhaps there should be one on conspiracy theories and on reasonable doubt.

We know that RFG didn't want something on his laptop to see the light of day, because he asked about erasing something. In the real world, there is only one reason why people want to erase a hard drive, because they don't others reading it. There is nothing wrong in doing that.

They do not say, "Oh I'm going to erase my drive so somebody else can read the data on it."


Because it is totally unsubstantiated by evidence that Gricar himself did the searches on his home computer. Regardless of what LE knows or doesn't know, until we see court cases where forensic computer experts can testify that Person X, rather than "someone," did searches on a particular computer, and until there is a legitimate forensic and technological basis for the courts to allow such testimony, there is no legitimately substantiated reason to claim that Gricar searched for this, that, or the other thing on his home computer.

There may be the implication that he did so. But there is no legitimate legal or technological basis for arguing that Gricar, to the exclusion of anyone else, was the person who performed those searches.



Whoa! Where did you get that? He asked other people about erasing the drive. Remember? We knew that last summer!


Show us a court case in which a forensic computer expert testified that a specific person did searches on a computer. Show us how that expert linked the searches to the specific person in admissible testimony. Then those of us who resist the claim that Gricar did the searching will be perfectly willing to reconsider.

Otherwise, we'll continue to see the relevance of these other cases even if you are unable or unwilling to.

You need only show that he was the only one with access to the keyboard at the time.

This part isn't even a technical issue.

[Politigal]

PF had a laptop in her Victim's Advocate position, and then when she changed to her clerical position sometime around January 2005, she also had a laptop in that position.

Perhaps *she* needed to wipe the drive in the VA laptop?

and that time frame certainly fits the searches....

[J. J. in Phila]

PF had a laptop in her Victim's Advocate position, and then when she changed to her clerical position sometime around January 2005, she also had a laptop in that position.

Perhaps *she* needed to wipe the drive in the VA laptop?

and that time frame certainly fits the searches....

The inquiries were made about a yeart before that happened, if not longer.

Try again.

[Politigal]

The inquiries were made about a yeart before that happened, if not longer.

Try again.


JJ - you try again.

The searches that were just reported this week - occurred on the home computer. It wasn't purchased until approx Jan 2005.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - you try again.

The searches that were just reported this week - occurred on the home computer. It wasn't purchased until approx Jan 2005.

Not the searches P'gal, RFG's inquiries about how to erase the drive. He asked about it 14-16 months before he disappeared. 2/04 or earlier.

Try again.

[Politigal]

I was discussing the searches...and how they fell into the same time frame as Patty's change in position.

Try to stay on track JJ.

[2-B]

Yes there is, if you can establish it was the only person who had access to the computer at the time.

Nope. Impossible to go back in time and establish that one person and one person only had access to a computer at a particular time, which is why all these cases have the experts testifying that someone, rather than Person X, performed the search. Even in the Chandra Levy case, where it was assumed Chandra did the searches because she lived alone and there were no signs of struggle at her apartment, there was some early speculation that someone she knew might have abducted her from the apartment and left the searches on the computer as a red herring for police to follow. That turned out not to be the case, of course.

But while it is possible to exclude the presence of individual people through an alibi, it is not possible to exclude all other possible people who might have done a search on a computer, including only the one police (or you) want to say did a specific search. Hence part of the reason forensic experts must truthfully testify only that someone performed a search, not that Person X did.

You'll figure this out eventually.


Again, different cases. Let's see what developes.

Different cases, exactly the same principle in operation.

If different principles applied, you'd be able to find other cases where forensic computer experts were able to testify that a specific person did searches. I take it you have not been able to find such a case, correct?

Perhaps there should be one on conspiracy theories and on reasonable doubt.

That's your constant attack on anyone who doesn't agree with you--call him/her a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't work very well when you're simply being confronted with facts and you refuse to look at the facts.

We know that RFG didn't want something on his laptop to see the light of day, because he asked about erasing something. In the real world, there is only one reason why people want to erase a hard drive, because they don't others reading it. There is nothing wrong in doing that.

They do not say, "Oh I'm going to erase my drive so somebody else can read the data on it."

Actually, we had our hard drive erased to get rid of viruses. I'm sure others have had this experience. So there IS more than one reason to erase a hard drive.

And you keep ignoring the difference between wiping a hard drive clean and destroying a hard drive. As GS pointed out to you, wiping a drive clean, as in erasing it, doesn't require putting it in a river.

Whoa! Where did you get that? He asked other people about erasing the drive. Remember? We knew that last summer!

What are you talking about? I'm talking about what a forensic expert needs as evidence before he/she can legitimately claim/testify that a specific person performed searches on a computer, not whether Gricar asked people how to clean his hard drive before he retired. Gricar's prior questions about how to erase his hard drive aren't forensic evidence that he, himself, performed any specific searches, and no forensic computer expert in the world would use that as evidence of such.

You need only show that he was the only one with access to the keyboard at the time.

This part isn't even a technical issue.

And just what would you plan to use to show that? How would you prove that Gricar and only Ray Gricar could have accessed the computer at any particular time?

JJ, if it were that simple, all these other court cases would have computer experts testifying that the defendants in the case did the searches themselves, and the prosecution would be up there waving their arms in the air and huffing and puffing loudly about how Neil Entwistle or whoever MADE THE SEARCHES. It's not happening that way, and it's not happening because it's not as simple as you think it is and claim it is.

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry, 2-B, if it can be established that he was the only person with access to the keyboard at the time of the search, it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that he did the search. Period.

Can that be established. I'll wait for MR.

[J. J. in Phila]

I was discussing the searches...and how they fell into the same time frame as Patty's change in position.

Try to stay on track JJ.

RFG's stated intent in getting rid of the data predated that 10-12 months. It would very unlikely that she would be search for something he asked about 10-12 months before.

[2-B]

Sorry, 2-B, if it can be established that he was the only person with access to the keyboard at the time of the search, it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that he did the search. Period.

Can that be established. I'll wait for MR.

Well, good luck to MR in that regard.

If it were possible to establish that only one person had access to a keyboard at the time computer of computer searches, to the exclusion of all other people, we'd have seen court cases claiming that Defendant X or Defendant Y performed searches brought into evidence.

[Politigal]

And, do any of you really believe that law enforcement did such an in depth investigation that they researched their whereabouts (at the times of the searches) & eliminated anyone else who might have had access in Patty's home?

I don't.

Let's face it. They are only *assuming* RG did those searches.

[Politigal]

RFG's stated intent in getting rid of the data predated that 10-12 months. It would very unlikely that she would be search for something he asked about 10-12 months before.

Actually, it's even *more* likely that Patty did the searches, since her change in positions and change in laptops was in that very same time frame as the searches on the home computer.

[Politigal]

There are probably a number of people who may have had access to Gricar's desktop computer - Patty, her friends, relatives, Gricar's friends, relatives, etc.

I know at my home, I have visitors - friends, relatives, etc. and in the last couple of months alone, there have been at least 5 who asked to use my computer --- like hey, do you mind if I check my email?, or do you mind if I look at a map on your computer before I go?, or Nana, may I play a game on your computer?, or you've got to see this joke that so-in-so emailed to me..... etc etc etc....And, how many people do you know who get online actually stop at only one internet address before logging off? It usually involves clicking here, there or one more site.

[2-B]

And, do any of you really believe that law enforcement did such an in depth investigation that they researched their whereabouts (at the times of the searches) & eliminated anyone else who might have had access in Patty's home?

I don't.

Let's face it. They are only *assuming* RG did those searches.

I'd very much like to see the wording of the press release from MR and to see MR's own words. I want to know if MR said that Gricar did the searches or if the press has interpreted what MR said to mean that Gricar did the searches.

Last fall before Caylee Anthony's body was found, Florida authorities released the information that computer searches for chloroform (among other things) had been done on Casey's computer. The press releases did not state that Casey herself had done the searches. Yet at that time, authorities had evidence of chloroform in Casey's car and post-mortem hair consistent with Caylee's in Casey's car. That's strong evidence against Casey, and a whole lot stronger than Gricar asking someone how to erase a hard drive prior to returning a laptop to the county.

[puzzled]

Are you saying that the internet searches were done on Ray's home computer the morning of April 15th 2005?

[2-B]

Just reading the wording in the CDT news article, putting that together with crumb dropped here on board, a time proven that RG was home alone, April 15th is the only day thus far that we have been told about.

Possibly we will hear about more days where it is believed that it had to be him, but at this point we have only been left in on one day, April 15th, which is why I think it holds the highest possibility. I could be completely wrong; it's just my 'guess'.
JMO

The wording in the CDT article strikes me as deliberately vague, able to be read one of two ways:

1) the searches occurred on April 15 or

2) the searches occurred before the April 15 disappearance.

Again, we need to see the wording in the actual press release.

If that wording is as vague (which it may well be, deliberately chosen so the public doesn't know when the searches took place), we'll still be in the dark, so to speak.

But let's say for the moment that the searches occurred on April 15.

There is no hard evidence Ray Gricar was even alive on April 15. The last hard evidence he was alive is the videotape from Thursday night, April 14.

And if he was alive on Friday, what hard evidence is there that he was home alone? PF may well have left him there alone. What happened after she left for work? Did he invite someone over? Did someone force his way into the house? Can it be proven that neither of those things happened?

[Serendipitous1]

S1 the newer bridge in Lewisburg that carries cars accross, do you know if they are new cars or old cars and where are they going with them? I read about the newer bridge early on in a article but I'd like to know where these cars go and are they new or are they being junked ect. Any info would be great!What newer bridge are you referring to?

[Politigal]

The wording in the CDT article strikes me as deliberately vague, able to be read one of two ways:

1) the searches occurred on April 15 or

2) the searches occurred before the April 15 disappearance.

Again, we need to see the wording in the actual press release.

If that wording is as vague (which it may well be, deliberately chosen so the public doesn't know when the searches took place), we'll still be in the dark, so to speak.

But let's say for the moment that the searches occurred on April 15.

There is no hard evidence Ray Gricar was even alive on April 15. The last hard evidence he was alive is the videotape from Thursday night, April 14.

And if he was alive on Friday, what hard evidence is there that he was home alone? PF may well have left him there alone. What happened after she left for work? Did he invite someone over? Did someone force his way into the house? Can it be proven that neither of those things happened?

I've emailed the Daily Collegian, the Centre Daily Times and Matt Rickard, in an attempt to get a copy of the actual press release...

we'll see

[Cloudbuster]

RE:post 89 S1. Im refering to the bridge near where Rays car was found. It said there is one old bridge and one newer bridge that carries cars accrossed it. I was trying to figure out if it's possible that the cars go somewhere? Im looking at a possibility of Ray exiting the area by that way if he was trying to elude a person that he knew might be following him.

Im also looking at if there is any similartity in Roy's disappearance. I found this in the search engines, so just going by it would seem Roy was missing 12 or 13 days. His car is found by a park.

BODY FOUND IN RIVER.(NEWS)
The Cincinnati Post (Cincinnati, OH); May 21, 1996 ; 44 words ...A body recovered from the Great Miami River near Dayton on Saturday has been identified as Roy Gricar, 53, of West Chester. Officials said Gricar had been missing since May 8. His car was found at Veterans Park. The cause of death was not immediately determined, officials said Monday.

[Serendipitous1]

Still not following you Cb...isn't the purpose of most bridges to facilitate vehicles traveling over something, to get somewhere? There are 3 bridges within 1 block of the SoS.

To the north is a traffic bridge across a creek, and River Road running north along the river to Route 15. Between the SoS and the park is an abandoned railroad bridge across the river (no traffic). To the south is the Route 45 traffic bridge across the river (vehicles and pedestrians).

[gstickley]

I find the info. in this thread very confusing.

On or about 01/01/05, a new home computer is in use at the house.

On 04/16,05, the new home computer is "confiscated" from the house by LE.

In late 2006, a "more indepth search" was done on the home computer & the "searches" about "fry a hard drive", etc., were found.

(The home computer was still in the possession of LE. Why had the home computer been held from 04/16/05 until late 2006??? Why was there not a "more indepth search" done during that time??? Why wasn't there a "more indepth search" done in the very beginning??? Why didn't the PSP investigators find the "fry a hard drive" searches???)

Now, we "learn" that the home computer is STILL in the possession of LE: 04/16/05 until 04/09---4 years. Four (4) years for a personal computer (& the computer reportedly shared by PF) to be held by LE is a long time for a suicide/walkaway case. (Must be a humongous evidence room!) One would think the owner/part owner of the home computer would be taking steps to get the property back.

[J. J. in Phila]

I find the info. in this thread very confusing.

On or about 01/01/05, a new home computer is in use at the house.

On 04/16,05, the new home computer is "confiscated" from the house by LE.

In late 2006, a "more indepth search" was done on the home computer & the "searches" about "fry a hard drive", etc., were found.

(The home computer was still in the possession of LE. Why had the home computer been held from 04/16/05 until late 2006??? Why was there not a "more indepth search" done during that time??? Why wasn't there a "more indepth search" done in the very beginning??? Why didn't the PSP investigators find the "fry a hard drive" searches???)

Now, we "learn" that the home computer is STILL in the possession of LE: 04/16/05 until 04/09---4 years. Four (4) years for a personal computer (& the computer reportedly shared by PF) to be held by LE is a long time for a suicide/walkaway case. (Must be a humongous evidence room!) One would think the owner/part owner of the home computer would be taking steps to get the property back.

First, 4/17/05, not 4/16.

Second, it was indicated that RFG's "belongings" were available to the BPD.
wherehttp://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/426195.html

Third, I don't recall anyone asking where his stuff was. It's at the BPD, the last time I heard.

[sherrijean981]

Don't know if you have seen this site but I noticed there are at least 2 links under "office" that has computers up for auction through Centre County Government and Centre Crest which the Centre County Government and Commissioners are in charge of.

http://www.asset-auctions.com/cgi-bin/mndetails.cgi?sallen74

On another thought, was Ray's DA office computer confiscated also? Could the searches have been done on that computer also and that is how they know he was the one who made the searches?

[Politigal]

Don't know if you have seen this site but I noticed there are at least 2 links under "office" that has computers up for auction through Centre County Government and Centre Crest which the Centre County Government and Commissioners are in charge of.

http://www.asset-auctions.com/cgi-bin/mndetails.cgi?sallen74

On another thought, was Ray's DA office computer confiscated also? Could the searches have been done on that computer also and that is how they know he was the one who made the searches?

Even if searches were done on his office computer, other people had access to that computer, to his office & to his password. There's still no way to definitely say that RG was the user who did the searches.

[day2day]

I find the info. in this thread very confusing.

On or about 01/01/05, a new home computer is in use at the house.

On 04/16,05, the new home computer is "confiscated" from the house by LE.

In late 2006, a "more indepth search" was done on the home computer & the "searches" about "fry a hard drive", etc., were found.

(The home computer was still in the possession of LE. Why had the home computer been held from 04/16/05 until late 2006??? Why was there not a "more indepth search" done during that time??? Why wasn't there a "more indepth search" done in the very beginning??? Why didn't the PSP investigators find the "fry a hard drive" searches???)

Now, we "learn" that the home computer is STILL in the possession of LE: 04/16/05 until 04/09---4 years. Four (4) years for a personal computer (& the computer reportedly shared by PF) to be held by LE is a long time for a suicide/walkaway case. (Must be a humongous evidence room!) One would think the owner/part owner of the home computer would be taking steps to get the property back.

Well-in this investigation-it seems just about right gs!! Keep the car a few hours and the puter for 4 years!! I will never understand-ever -ever -ever!!

[Politigal]

Well-in this investigation-it seems just about right gs!! Keep the car a few hours and the puter for 4 years!! I will never understand-ever -ever -ever!!

Good point Day...

Maybe they realized the error of their ways with the car....lol

[day2day]

Good point Day...

Maybe they realized the error of their ways with the car....lol

If it wasn't so incredibly sad-it would be hilarious!! My my my -when will this ever stop!

[Politigal]

Since the PSP-CIA review was in late 2006, and PSP is who found this info on the computer, is it possible finding it was part of that review where they were looking to see if they could glean something more from the evidence? I would guess yes.
JMO


But why would they wait that long to actually look at the home computer data?

that's really puzzling to me

[gstickley]

But why would they wait that long to actually look at the home computer data?

that's really puzzling to me

And why would they wait over 2 years to release the info?

Did they think it would make more of an impact closer to election (or re-election) time???

And why release this particular info. at this particular time when there is other info. not being released, like the cell phone records? Ohhh, maybe it will be released even closer to election (or re-election) time . . .

[J. J. in Phila]

And why would they wait over 2 years to release the info?

Did they think it would make more of an impact closer to election (or re-election) time???

And why release this particular info. at this particular time when there is other info. not being released, like the cell phone records? Ohhh, maybe it will be released even closer to election (or re-election) time . . .

This was just a shot across the bow.

In reality, this little piece of data points to RFG destroying the hard drive, and there is more out there that points to it, from what I've heard. That, in itself, is not evidence that RFG disappearance was voluntary. It gets people thinking it was voluntary and easily dismissing those who question it as "conspiracy theorists." (And no way is Bob Buehner a conspiracy theorist.)

They probably have a lot more, and that will be released after the primary. My guess is, on or after July 1.

What is that stuff? I don't know, but I can guess that it is something they have been guarding.

[gstickley]

They may not make it through the primary . . .

[J. J. in Phila]

They may not make it through the primary . . .

"They," the police, don't have to run in the primary. MM has no problem in the primary, since he's the only one running.

[Politigal]

This was just a shot across the bow.

In reality, this little piece of data points to RFG destroying the hard drive, and there is more out there that points to it, from what I've heard. That, in itself, is not evidence that RFG disappearance was voluntary. It gets people thinking it was voluntary and easily dismissing those who question it as "conspiracy theorists." (And no way is Bob Buehner a conspiracy theorist.)

They probably have a lot more, and that will be released after the primary. My guess is, on or after July 1.

What is that stuff? I don't know, but I can guess that it is something they have been guarding.


In reality, the press release last week does *not* point to RG destroying anything. In reality, police cannot prove who made the searches on the home computer.

And so far, to my knowledge, the only thing they've "guarded" thus far in this case....is PF's feelings.

IMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Even if searches were done on his office computer, other people had access to that computer, to his office & to his password. There's still no way to definitely say that RG was the user who did the searches.


Not the same person, however.

Sure the county IT person may be able to access the office compute, but not the home one.

[J. J. in Phila]

In reality, the press release last week does *not* point to RG destroying anything. In reality, police cannot prove who made the searches on the home computer.

And so far, to my knowledge, the only thing they've "guarded" thus far in this case....is PF's feelings.

IMO

Of course it points to RFG, because it was established that he was interested in eliminating the data.

According to the, they can prove it was RFG. I'll withhold final judgment, and just say "points," but it looks they have that part down.

[2-B]

According to the, they can prove it was RFG.

So you've seen the actual wording of the press release?

Great. Thanks in advance for sharing it with us. The rest of us are anxious to see precisely what the language is in the press release.

[J. J. in Phila]

So you've seen the actual wording of the press release?

Great. Thanks in advance for sharing it with us. The rest of us are anxious to see precisely what the language is in the press release.


MR's quote was, and we've all seen it. Here is the second source: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/15/police_release_computer_data.aspx

Try again, and I do mean that. Every time you do, you give credence to the conspiracy theorist label.

[Politigal]

There seems to be an assumption that the Bellefonte Police Department is timing information releases to help Madeira.

Why would the BPD do that? Does BPD want to release more/something else and Madeira tells them not to? Does BPD not want to release anything, but Madeira tells them what and when to release?

I don't get it. The Bellefonte Police Department doesn't work for Madeira.

If there is this grand release of information "on or after July 1" (thanks for the quote Politigal and thanks for reminding me why I use the ignore function) it seems to me that falls under the realm of "conspiracy theory," since it would require an agreement between Madeira and the Bellefonte Police Department to determine what will be released and when it will be released.

I can see the BPD wanting to release something and Madeira advising them not to for some prosecutorial reason. But I can't see Madeira ordering the BPD to release any information - it's not his investigatory file, it's BPD's. So if there's a release of information in the early summer, that requires a conspiracy and that's a conspiracy theory, and anybody that believes it's going to happen should not deride others as being "conspiracy theorists."

For what it's worth, I don't think the BPD is releasing information to help or hurt anybody's (re)election campaign. If anybody was doing something like that on purpose, would they be doing it in such a ham-handed manner?

I'm puzzled....Bellefonte Police did issue the press release...but MM does seem to be involved with the release per this article:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/16/police_knew_of_evidence.aspx

Bellefonte police and the current Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira maintain that the information was released in response to the anniversary and was meant to encourage interest in the case.

[2-B]

MR's quote was, and we've all seen it. Here is the second source: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/15/police_release_computer_data.aspx

Try again, and I do mean that. Every time you do, you give credence to the conspiracy theorist label.

As I expected.

The only quote you're working from in the Collegian article is this one:

"It was believed that pending Mr. Gricar's retirement, he may have wanted to erase his county-issued laptop computer prior to returning the laptop to the District Attorney's office," police wrote in the release.

Everything else in the article is paraphrase and interpretation by the Collegian writer. With all due respect to the Collegian staff, because they have certainly been a neck ahead of the CDT on this story, paraphrase and interpretation in the press don't equal exact wording of the press release.

The quote above says nothing about police being able to prove that Gricar did the searches. Its passive voice construction (Who believed this?) and conditional verb choice (may have wanted) are significant.

Seeing the original wording of the entire press release would be equally significant.

Does it claim LE can prove Gricar did the searches as you assert? I would sincerely doubt it since that would be impossible to prove.

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, it's even *more* likely that Patty did the searches, since her change in positions and change in laptops was in that very same time frame as the searches on the home computer.

No, since she didn't have a county owned laptop.

2-B, now you are about to expand your "conspiracy theory."

[2-B]

2-B, now you are about to expand your "conspiracy theory."

WHAT conspiracy theory? I have none, have never created one, written one, mentioned one, pushed one, put forth one, or whatever verb you want to choose, including "expand."

"Conspiracy theory" is the charge you and your cohort(s) tend make here and elsewhere around the web when you

a) disagree with another poster's theory or

b) don't like facts that show your claims to be unsubstantiated.

Please document what conspiracy theory you now claim I am expanding upon, or in the absence of that, please retract your charges that I am expanding upon "[my] conspiracy theory."

[Politigal]

what a let down...the actual press release

http://politigal.googlepages.com/bellefontepressrelease

[2-B]

Thanks for getting us the press release, Pgal.

The Collegian writer did a good job capturing its essence without distortion, which is nice to see.

Unfortunately, it reveals nothing new, meaning all the questions we have had still stand.

[Politigal]

Thanks for getting us the press release, Pgal.

The Collegian writer did a good job capturing its essence without distortion, which is nice to see.

Unfortunately, it reveals nothing new, meaning all the questions we have had still stand.

I think perhaps what Sara Ganim (of the CDT) told me is true...police just "made the leap" that Gricar was indeed the one who made the searches...just because of his earlier comments about erasing the hard drive for retirement.

Pretty shabby evidence there IMO.

[Politigal]

I had read this article when it was first posted about Shawn Weaver defending the investigation..but I hadn't watched the actual video until last night.

http://wearecentralpa.com/content/fulltext/news/?cid=81841

Chief Weaver told a reporter from WTAJ on April 15, 2009 that "a month before his disappearance" Gricar searched "how to fry a hard drive" and "water damage to computer" on his personal computer.

A *month* before he vanished....

That's scary IMO....and in thinking of who had access to that home computer....

Interesting too, the timeframe of the computer searches - March 2005 - would have been his "anniversary" month of moving in with PF per this article

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/12/12-09-05tdc/12-09-05dnews-09.asp

[J. J. in Phila]

I had read this article when it was first posted about Shawn Weaver defending the investigation..but I hadn't watched the actual video until last night.

http://wearecentralpa.com/content/fulltext/news/?cid=81841

Chief Weaver told a reporter from WTAJ on April 15, 2009 that "a month before his disappearance" Gricar searched "how to fry a hard drive" and "water damage to computer" on his personal computer.

A *month* before he vanished....

That's scary IMO....and in thinking of who had access to that home computer....

Interesting too, the timeframe of the computer searches - March 2005 - would have been his "anniversary" month of moving in with PF per this article

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/12/12-09-05tdc/12-09-05dnews-09.asp

Yes, one of the folks who did have access asked a few people a 12-16 months before how to erase a hard drive. His name was Ray Gricar.

[Politigal]

Yes, one of the folks who did have access asked a few people a 12-16 months before how to erase a hard drive. His name was Ray Gricar.

yep, and I've posted it before ---

*why* would he need to destroy the hard drive if he already had software to erase the drive?

[J. J. in Phila]

yep, and I've posted it before ---

*why* would he need to destroy the hard drive if he already had software to erase the drive?

Because he wanted to make sure that whatever was on the hard drive would never see the light of day, and didn't want to take a chance on it.

[2-B]

Or, alternatively:

We're told that Gricar had openly asked people about software to erase a hard drive. That tells us he was not trying to hide those efforts. Sounds like those might well have been efforts directed toward wiping the hard drive before returning the laptop to the county.

Therefore, "people" knew of this interest. Is it possible someone among those people used this knowledge to his/her advantage in planning RG's "disappearance"?

It would certainly appear both the laptop and the hard drive were staged artifacts after the disappearance. The computer searches may be part of the staging. And not by RG.

[J. J. in Phila]

Or, alternatively:

We're told that Gricar had openly asked people about software to erase a hard drive. That tells us he was not trying to hide those efforts. Sounds like those might well have been efforts directed toward wiping the hard drive before returning the laptop to the county.

Therefore, "people" knew of this interest. Is it possible someone among those people used this knowledge to his/her advantage in planning RG's "disappearance"?

It would certainly appear both the laptop and the hard drive were staged artifacts after the disappearance. The computer searches may be part of the staging. And not by RG.

LG doesn't think so, but if they were, why not just say, "Oh, Ray mention to me about erasing the laptop." Why let it sit there, undiscovered, for more than a year? Why let it potentially be missed?

Considering that there was some discussion on RFG's part about keeping the laptop, and it was perhaps two years prior to the time of retirement, it is very unlikely.

[2-B]

LG doesn't think so, but if they were, why not just say, "Oh, Ray mention to me about erasing the laptop." Why let it sit there, undiscovered, for more than a year? Why let it potentially be missed?

Considering that there was some discussion on RFG's part about keeping the laptop, and it was perhaps two years prior to the time of retirement, it is very unlikely.

Sorry, JJ, but you'll have to translate. All those antecedent-less pronouns and some other vague references make understanding your post almost impossible for me.

LG doesn't think what?
What is "they" in sentence one?
What is "it" in sentence two?
"It" in sentence three?
"It" in your final claim "it is very unlikely"?

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry, JJ, but you'll have to translate. All those antecedent-less pronouns and some other vague references make understanding your post almost impossible for me.

LG doesn't think what?
What is "they" in sentence one?
What is "it" in sentence two?
"It" in sentence three?
"It" in your final claim "it is very unlikely"?

If someone else did the searches, why not just say, "Ray asked me about erasing the data in March (or whenever)?" Why sit there for more than a year and not say anything? Why take the chance on LE missing it?

[Politigal]

Sorry, JJ, but you'll have to translate. All those antecedent-less pronouns and some other vague references make understanding your post almost impossible for me.

LG doesn't think what?
What is "they" in sentence one?
What is "it" in sentence two?
"It" in sentence three?
"It" in your final claim "it is very unlikely"?


lol OOBrett would be sooooo proud of you. :laugh:

[J. J. in Phila]

lol OOBrett would be sooooo proud of you. :laugh:

I doubt if "OOBrett" will to happy with this board.

[2-B]

If someone else did the searches, why not just say, "Ray asked me about erasing the data in March (or whenever)?" Why sit there for more than a year and not say anything? Why take the chance on LE missing it?

I'm suggesting that someone else may have done the searches as staging to make it look as if Ray did them.

Someone who didn't have Ray's best interests in mind and may have been responsible for his disappearance.

Perhaps you didn't read this line in my previous post:

Therefore, "people" knew of this interest. Is it possible someone among those people used this knowledge to his/her advantage in planning RG's "disappearance"?

Makes perfect sense that person wouldn't say anything.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm suggesting that someone else may have done the searches as staging to make it look as if Ray did them.

Someone who didn't have Ray's best interests in mind and may have been responsible for his disappearance.

Perhaps you didn't read this line in my previous post:



Makes perfect sense that person wouldn't say anything.

Of course it makes no sense. There was no guarantee that LE would ever check that data. It is so easy to say, "Gee, Ray discussed this in March; isn't that unusual."

If this came up in regard to the PSP-CIA review, there was no guarantee that this review would ever take place.

[2-B]

Of course it makes no sense. There was no guarantee that LE would ever check that data. It is so easy to say, "Gee, Ray discussed this in March; isn't that unusual."

If this came up in regard to the PSP-CIA review, there was no guarantee that this review would ever take place.

In this day and age, searching computers is one of the first things done in investigations.

Rather than "no guarantee LE would ever check that data," the surprise is taking so long to deep search the hard drive.

[J. J. in Phila]

In this day and age, searching computers is one of the first things done in investigations.

Rather than "no guarantee LE would ever check that data," the surprise is taking so long to deep search the hard drive.

I don't dispute that LE should have checked this earlier, but the oint is, in 2005 they didn't. Why not just say even in September of 2005, "Hey the drive was destroyed. Ray asked about how do it it in March."

Like so much else of this theory, it relies on other folks making mistakes and no one could possibly count on that.

[2-B]

I don't dispute that LE should have checked this earlier, but the oint is, in 2005 they didn't. Why not just say even in September of 2005, "Hey the drive was destroyed. Ray asked about how do it it in March."

Like so much else of this theory, it relies on other folks making mistakes and no one could possibly count on that.

You're still missing my point. But oh well. Too late an hour to try a third explanation.

[Politigal]

Nothing has been corroborated on that account to my knowledge.

I think the bottom line is...there's no way law enforcement can prove who did the searches. Sure, they may be able to eliminate some, based on their whereabouts, other witnesses, other computer or phone usage, etc. But I seriously doubt they went that in-depth with their investigation.

IMO - I think there's at least a 50% chance that Patty did the searches - considering it was her home & her mutually owned computer.

[J. J. in Phila]

Nothing has been corroborated on that account to my knowledge.

I think the bottom line is...there's no way law enforcement can prove who did the searches. Sure, they may be able to eliminate some, based on their whereabouts, other witnesses, other computer or phone usage, etc. But I seriously doubt they went that in-depth with their investigation.

IMO - I think there's at least a 50% chance that Patty did the searches - considering it was her home & her mutually owned computer.

Yet, RFG talked to other folks about erasing data and they might be able to prove that he did the searches, especially if PEF was someplace else.

[gstickley]

I'd like to know about the "folks" with whom RG "supposedly" talked to about erasing data from the hard drive. Was it one person with whom he talked? Was it one person who told another person who told another person & that's how the saga of the "folks talked to" originated? Did RG go from person to person to person asking everyone how to erase data? RG had a perfect person to ask: TG. If RG wanted to erase Secret Squirrel, Never-To-Be-Seen-By-Others, personal, private things off the laptop, why would he ask "folks"?

[2-B]

I'd like to know about the "folks" with whom RG "supposedly" talked to about erasing data from the hard drive. Was it one person with whom he talked? Was it one person who told another person who told another person & that's how the saga of the "folks talked to" originated? Did RG go from person to person to person asking everyone how to erase data? RG had a perfect person to ask: TG. If RG wanted to erase Secret Squirrel, Never-To-Be-Seen-By-Others, personal, private things off the laptop, why would he ask "folks"?

Excellent question, GS.

If RG was looking for normal, everyday software to wipe a hard drive before returning the laptop to the county, I can see him going no further than "folks" around him. ("Hey, anybody know what software I can use to clean a hard drive?")

If RG was looking something that would erase Secret Squirrel, NTBSBO, personal, private stuff that was "never to see daylight," then two things would be true:

a) he wouldn't want "just folks" to know about it and

b) he had a super duper computer expert he could totally trust in TG.

Something else I really want to know. We keep getting this claim that LE has proved RG did the searches, that "they might be able to prove that he did the searches" if PF was elsewhere or if RG was "taking naps," etc.

No one making those claims has provided an explanation for how anyone could prove Gricar did the searches. I want to know, specifically, how this could be done.

To date, I do not believe this has ever been "proved" in any case involving computer searches as evidence. So I'm curious about the specifics. It would represent a "first" as far as I can see, proving that a specific individual was the one responsible for computer activity. I'm sure many of us would find the technological aspects of the proof fascinating, since the application in future cases could have quite an impact.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'd like to know about the "folks" with whom RG "supposedly" talked to about erasing data from the hard drive. Was it one person with whom he talked? Was it one person who told another person who told another person & that's how the saga of the "folks talked to" originated? Did RG go from person to person to person asking everyone how to erase data? RG had a perfect person to ask: TG. If RG wanted to erase Secret Squirrel, Never-To-Be-Seen-By-Others, personal, private things off the laptop, why would he ask "folks"?

There was at least one, not on the staff, not in that inner circle, not TG. I think the initial story was plural for people RFG talked to.

[gstickley]

I'd like to know about the "folks" with whom RG "supposedly" talked to about erasing data from the hard drive. Was it one person with whom he talked? Was it one person who told another person who told another person & that's how the saga of the "folks talked to" originated? Did RG go from person to person to person asking everyone how to erase data? RG had a perfect person to ask: TG. If RG wanted to erase Secret Squirrel, Never-To-Be-Seen-By-Others, personal, private things off the laptop, why would he ask "folks"?

Okay, so now we "learn" that RG talked to "a folk" or "folks" not on the staff, not in the inner circle, not TG. That must mean RG talked to "a folk" outside the circle, or talked to more than one "folk" outside the circle about erasing the hard drive. Was this a Secret Squirrel, NTBSBO, personal, private conversation, or did RG go from pillar to post asking "folks" willy-nilly about a Secret Squirrel, NTBSBO, personal, private way to erase a hard drive.

Did this/these "folk" or "folks" come forward on their own with this earth-shattering information, or did LE go door to door, since the "folk"/"folks" were "outside" the circle?

Or did the "folk" tell the "folks"? Or did the "folk"/"folks" blab to LE about this Secret Squirrel earth-shattering information that had to be held "close to the vest" for 4+ years, to be released to the public in time for the election/re-election?

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm sure LE will release that eventually. Suffice it to say, it does not add credence to any one theory.

[J. J. in Phila]

If he wanted to make sure that what was on that drive would never see the light of day, even after a forensic examination, his best bet would be to toss the drive.

It simply was not not found for nearly a year.

I don't believe the polygraph was announced before hand.

There was also the possibility that the drive, which was reasonably small, would either not be found or would not be turned over to LE. In the latter case, it could have been found by someone who didn't connect it with the case.

[2-B]

IMO tossing the hard drive near the car would never be the best way to ensure that "what was on that drive would never see the light of day, even after a forensic examination."

First, there's no guarantee water damage renders all data unreadable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have companies whose job it is to recover such data. Nor would the FBI and Kroll have made attempts to recover data from the drive. From what I understand, physically shredding the drive is the only guarantee of data destruction. (If it was RG who wanted to be sure no one saw data on that drive, he might have been better off with bullets or with a ham_mer and nails or a ham_mer and chisel.)

Second, tossing the drive near the car practically ensured it would be found. I think that's an important part of what Logic is getting at.

If RG didn't want the drive found, and if he was walking away, why not take the drive, destroy the drive physically, and dump the physically destroyed drive in the Georgian Bay or in a cistern in the woods in Virginia or wherever he wound up? If he could supposedly afford to hang out in a bar in WB several days after the Lewisburg disappearance, talking about the Cleveland Indians, surely he could slip a little hard drive in his pocket or a small backpack and get rid of the danged thing somewhere far away from Lewisburg where it would never be discovered.

If he committed suicide, his options for places to dump the drive would be fewer, but he could still physically destroy the drive and get rid of it somewhere in the woods in Pennsylvania--out in Black Moshannon or Bald Eagle State Park or wherever where again it would be more difficult to find and where it's unlikely anyone would be searching for the Gricar hard drive.

Leaving the damage up to water (and hoping it will be enough) and leaving the computer and drive so close to the car (and knowing the environs of the car will be searched thoroughly for any clues) would be foolish, IMO, for anyone whose goal was to make sure data on that hard drive never saw the light of day.

That's one major reason it looks to me as if it was planted there by someone other than Ray Gricar. He would have had to be stupid to leave it there himself, unless he didn't care if someone might possibly recover data from the hard drive. And if he didn't care, why go to such lengths to take the laptop from the home, separate drive from computer, and put both into the river?

[J. J. in Phila]

First, and I sited this in the comments on the blog on this subject, one of the best ways to destroy a driver is putting it in water. I actually mentioned the destruction of a drive to a computer salesman, who recommended water. It's probably better than software.

Second, RFG might have used the software first. This might have been a clincher.

The drive wasn't that close to the car. It appears to have been about 150 yards away. Tossing it in a remote area runs the risk that some data will eventually be recoverable. Ah, that's generally why there are not of drives found along roads.

[Politigal]

According to all the google searches I've done....water is not the best (or even a recommended) way to destroy a hard drive. As a matter of fact, there are several posts online where laptops were accidently dropped in swimming pools, etc and the data is still recoverable. Most of the sites on google say that you need to disassemble the hard drive, and destroy the "platters" inside.

When water is discussed as a method (after using hammers, sanders, acids, liquid nitrogen, guns and other means) - it is generally mentioned as *salt* water, which would be more corrosive.

Considering how intelligent RG was said to have been, by his family, friends, and co-workers, I have difficulty believing that he would use this means to destroy his hard drive.

Either it was someone less intelligent doing the searching, or the searches were simply part of a ruse, in a premeditated plot.

IMO

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=w4Y&q=best+way+to+destroy+a+hard+drive&btnG=Search

[2-B]

First, and I sited this in the comments on the blog on this subject, one of the best ways to destroy a driver is putting it in water. I actually mentioned the destruction of a drive to a computer salesman, who recommended water. It's probably better than software.

Water damage is probably enough to foil the average data thief, but labs like Kroll obviously have had success in recovering data from seriously water-damaged hard drives.

If you consult tech sites like CNET and the like, you'll find that advice on the best way to destroy data on a hard drive involves physical destruction of the drive itself, usually starting with basic things like ham_mers, nails, drills, hacksaws, etc. and moving to more sophisticated things like soaking it in acid, burning it in thermite, grinding it to a powder, degaussing it, etc.

I think water doesn't get mentioned prominently in such discussions among the true techies because they're aware of what good labs can do with recovery from water damaged drives.

Let's say for argument's sake that Gricar threw the hard drive into the river on 4/15. He would have had no way of knowing whether that hard drive would be recovered on 4/16, in October of 2005, in 2009, or never. If it had been recovered on 4/16, wanna bet Kroll could have recovered data from it?

Second, RFG might have used the software first. This might have been a clincher.

From what I've been reading, most software is good enough to foil the average data thief but again, not good enough to foil sophisticated recovery labs.

The drive wasn't that close to the car. It appears to have been about 150 yards away. Tossing it in a remote area runs the risk that some data will eventually be recoverable. Ah, that's generally why there are not of drives found along roads.

The drive wasn't that close to the car? You mean you think that if Gricar tossed the drive in the river, he was so thick-headed he wouldn't realize the entire area around the SOS would be gone over with a fine-tooth comb, including and especially the river, given his brother's history? That dog won't hunt!

And who mentioned tossing the drive along side of a road? I gave examples of the Georgian Bay (ever fished or camped there? I have. Pretty deep bay, pretty remote wilderness), a cistern in the VA woods (again, I've hiked in remote areas no one would find a hidden drive, especially where no one would think to be looking for the missing Gricar hard drive) and remote areas of PA forest land (same thing, where there would be plenty of spots to easily hide a small object like a hard drive). All of those suggestions make more sense than leaving the danged thing in your estimation within 150 yards of where Gricar's car was found!

The answer is simple: if someone really wanted to make sure the data never saw the light of day, physically destroy the drive. Then, dispose of it somewhere no one would think to look for it, not the first place LE will be looking for it.

[2-B]

According to all the google searches I've done....water is not the best (or even a recommended) way to destroy a hard drive. As a matter of fact, there are several posts online where laptops were accidently dropped in swimming pools, etc and the data is still recoverable. Most of the sites on google say that you need to disassemble the hard drive, and destroy the "platters" inside.

When water is discussed as a method (after using hammers, sanders, acids, liquid nitrogen, guns and other means) - it is generally mentioned as *salt* water, which would be more corrosive.

Considering how intelligent RG was said to have been, by his family, friends, and co-workers, I have difficulty believing that he would use this means to destroy his hard drive.

Either it was someone less intelligent doing the searching, or the searches were simply part of a ruse, in a premeditated plot.

IMO

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=w4Y&q=best+way+to+destroy+a+hard+drive&btnG=Search

Sorry, Pgal--you were posting while I was typing. Guess we've discovered essentially the same things in our research about data destruction.

Water ain't gonna do it.

Well, let's say your computer is packed with incriminating evidence, whether it's emails detailing business transactions or credit information that-- let's just say you forgot to file on your taxes. Bottom line, you’ve got to get rid of it. You pop the hard drive in the oven for a few hours, throw it in your pool for a few days, and heave it against a brick wall a few times. That solves that problem.

Not quite. Modern data recovery companies are able to get data off even the most physically damaged hard drives, and actually getting rid of files can be difficult. There have been cases in which drives were exposed to hazardous chemicals, burnt, covered in water for extended periods of time, and even struck by lightning and still were pronounced recoverable by tech savvy data recovery services. However, there are a few simple ways to destroy data from a hard drive—you just have to have a little knowledge of what you’re dealing with.

http://www.googobits.com/articles/270-how-to-securely-destroy-data.html

RG would have figured this out in about fifteen minutes worth of reading on the web if he had been the one doing the searching, don't you think?

[2-B]

One other quote from the above article which I think is worth having on the board:

Never assume that your files are gone from a hard drive if you haven’t either physically maimed the platters beyond recognition (we’re talking Friday the 13th style) or used the Department of Defense secure deletion standard. These methods are the only ways to make sure, and I mean sure, that your data doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. If you’re one of those people who really tends to worry about things, use both methods. With data recovery technology increasing every day, there’s no telling what forensic engineers will be able to do.

[nittany90]

I had read this article when it was first posted about Shawn Weaver defending the investigation..but I hadn't watched the actual video until last night.

http://wearecentralpa.com/content/fulltext/news/?cid=81841

Chief Weaver told a reporter from WTAJ on April 15, 2009 that ]"a month before his disappearance"[/B] Gricar searched "how to fry a hard drive" and "water damage to computer" on his personal computer.

A *month* before he vanished....

That's scary IMO....and in thinking of who had access to that home computer....

Interesting too, the timeframe of the computer searches - March 2005 - would have been his "anniversary" month of moving in with PF per this article

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/12/12-09-05tdc/12-09-05dnews-09.asp

Great find! But really, for me, the timeframe of the searches just brings up more questions........

[nittany90]

Does anyone know if Gricar's laptop was wi-fi compatible? Has that info ever been released? I would assume, since it was an expensive model, that it would. I'm just wondering if he had access to the internet other than the office/house.

[Politigal]

Does anyone know if Gricar's laptop was wi-fi compatible? Has that info ever been released? I would assume, since it was an expensive model, that it would. I'm just wondering if he had access to the internet other than the office/house.

IIRC, I think Tony Gricar said no on the Wi-fi.

[J. J. in Phila]

If you take a look at these methods, all of them require a lot of tools, i.e. a very powerful magnet, a plasma torch, a grinder, or a steam roller. http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6122_102-0.html?threadID=298466&tag=forum-w;forums06

Water, as can be seen, works nearly as well, and probably better than software. If used in combination with software, that would eliminate the data.

If RFG tossed the drive, he would know that it would be in the river for days, at least. First the laptop would have to be missed. Second, the laptop would have to be found without the drive. Third, the drive would then have to be found.

[Politigal]

Maybe it wasn't Tony on the wi-fi question...

Interesting that on 11/16/08 at 11:37 JJ posted that RG's laptop was an older one and definitely did not have Wi-fi.

But, according to this link and comments by Tim Boyde at Centre County:

http://www.yardbird.com/midnight_ride_gricars_laptop_found.htm

Centre County Director of Administrative Services Timothy T. Boyde says he believes Gricar had been issued a Micron laptop. "That's what the MIS department told me this afternoon," Boyde told yardbird.com. "It's a recent computer from the last year or so."

[Politigal]

If you take a look at these methods, all of them require a lot of tools, i.e. a very powerful magnet, a plasma torch, a grinder, or a steam roller. http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6122_102-0.html?threadID=298466&tag=forum-w;forums06

Water, as can be seen, works nearly as well, and probably better than software. If used in combination with software, that would eliminate the data.

If RFG tossed the drive, he would know that it would be in the river for days, at least. First the laptop would have to be missed. Second, the laptop would have to be found without the drive. Third, the drive would then have to be found.


"Water" isn't even mentioned once in your link as a means of destroying a hard drive.

???

[Politigal]

Sorry, Pgal--you were posting while I was typing. Guess we've discovered essentially the same things in our research about data destruction.

Water ain't gonna do it.

Well, let's say your computer is packed with incriminating evidence, whether it's emails detailing business transactions or credit information that-- let's just say you forgot to file on your taxes. Bottom line, you’ve got to get rid of it. You pop the hard drive in the oven for a few hours, throw it in your pool for a few days, and heave it against a brick wall a few times. That solves that problem.

Not quite. Modern data recovery companies are able to get data off even the most physically damaged hard drives, and actually getting rid of files can be difficult. There have been cases in which drives were exposed to hazardous chemicals, burnt, covered in water for extended periods of time, and even struck by lightning and still were pronounced recoverable by tech savvy data recovery services. However, there are a few simple ways to destroy data from a hard drive—you just have to have a little knowledge of what you’re dealing with.

http://www.googobits.com/articles/270-how-to-securely-destroy-data.html

RG would have figured this out in about fifteen minutes worth of reading on the web if he had been the one doing the searching, don't you think?

Exactly...you search/you find

And Tony once wrote that RG would have no problem searching Yahoo for info if he needed to.

[gstickley]

Great find! But really, for me, the timeframe of the searches just brings up more questions........

Good morning, Nittany90. Welcome to the world of questions.

[Politigal]

Good morning, Nittany90. Welcome to the world of questions.

ditto - Welcome Nittany

It was actually Nittany's post on another forum that lead me to watching the video about Shawn Weaver with the comments about the searches being done just 1 month before. Thanks Nittany!

[nittany90]

Good morning, Nittany90. Welcome to the world of questions.

Thanks for the welcome, gstickley. After 4 years of staying on the sidelines, I've found myself drawn back in -- seriously, this time.

[nittany90]

ditto - Welcome Nittany

It was actually Nittany's post on another forum that lead me to watching the video about Shawn Weaver with the comments about the searches being done just 1 month before. Thanks Nittany!

Thanks, Politigal. Glad I could add something to the conversation...I've been reading your posts for a long time.

[2-B]

Exactly...you search/you find



Right. It's not difficult. But there's a difference between 1) doing an actual thorough survey search and 2) doing a random or cherry pick search, where one just grabs a line from one or two web pages and then clings to that position without getting/giving the bigger picture.

I've always thought the first approach was the only way to go.

[Politigal]

Thanks, Politigal. Glad I could add something to the conversation...I've been reading your posts for a long time.

We discussed it a long time ago on this board, but I noticed you recently mentioned it on Websleuths....

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3781.html

Fornicola is checking Gricar's personal e-mail account for activity as well, Zaccagni said. So far, there has been none.

So obviously, she knew whatever passwords RG had...

I think this is important to remember with the news about the searches.....

[Politigal]

Right. It's not difficult. But there's a difference between 1) doing an actual thorough survey search and 2) doing a random or cherry pick search, where one just grabs a line from one or two web pages and then clings to that position without getting/giving the bigger picture.

I've always thought the first approach was the only way to go.

it's almost as if the reported searches were just done ...just to show those keywords on the system...with no in-depth searching on the actual topic of how to destroy a hard drive.

puzzling for sure

[2-B]

If you take a look at these methods, all of them require a lot of tools, i.e. a very powerful magnet, a plasma torch, a grinder, or a steam roller. http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6122_102-0.html?threadID=298466&tag=forum-w;forums06

Water, as can be seen, works nearly as well, and probably better than software. If used in combination with software, that would eliminate the data.

If RFG tossed the drive, he would know that it would be in the river for days, at least. First the laptop would have to be missed. Second, the laptop would have to be found without the drive. Third, the drive would then have to be found.

A lot of tools?

From your link:

Take a ham_mer or whatever's handy to it, and just pound the hell out of it.

From http://www.boydcreative.net/1/5-ways-to-destroy-your-hard-drive/:

Smash It With A Hammer And Hacksaw
This way is a little less corrosive or explosive, but it will still destroy your hard drive. It also means that you don’t need to worry about where you’ll get some acid or thermite, just have a look in your garage.

From http://www.googobits.com/articles/p2-270-how-to-securely-destroy-data.html:

Once inside the drive, you’ll see metal discs. These are the platters. These babies are what you’re looking for: destroy them. Use any necessary method; my favorite is running a belt sander over them and then throwing them at the neighbor’s dog, but anything that sufficiently scratches the disks will work. Breaking them is great too, because you can scatter the pieces and wait for Hard Drive Trees to grow. (Note: I haven’t gotten one to grow yet). Since they're highly magnetic, it's a good idea to grab a large magnet (off the back of a set of speakers, perhaps) and run that along them. Treat the platters like a murder weapon. After you destroy them, throw them away in different trash receptacles. Make sure that they’ll never be reassembled. However, if you properly scratch, bend, demagnetize, and break the platters, it won’t matter if a forensics team gets a hold of them; the data will physically be removed from the disk. At this point, data recovery is impossible because, well, there’s no data to recover.


Let's see. A ham_mer, a saw, a sander, a magnet, or the neighbor's dog. Who can't easily get his hands on one or more of those?

No, it can't be seen that water works as well. Data can be recovered from drives that have been in the water. Data cannot be recovered from drives that have been physically destroyed.

If Gricar tossed the drive in the river to assure complete destruction of data, he would have no idea how long it would be until it would be found, and he would have no idea whether a good forensics lab would be able to recover the data. Kroll didn't know whether they could recover data until they tried!

[2-B]

Ditto ------Welcome Nittany.

You can be our 'fresh eyes' here to check out what we're overlooking. Amazing how many different views every little piece of this puzzle can be looked at from. I would guess that's part of the problem. Nothing clear and concise, but that hasn't stopped us from remaining with the case for years. Welcome a-board!!

Echoing Logic's, Pgal's, and GS's welcome to the board to you N90.

And dubbing you N90 as your new board nickname. We all get one, lol.

We've enjoyed reading your posts elsewhere on the web and look forward to your contributions to our discussion here.

[nittany90]

Ditto ------Welcome Nittany.

You can be our 'fresh eyes' here to check out what we're overlooking. Amazing how many different views every little piece of this puzzle can be looked at from. I would guess that's part of the problem. Nothing clear and concise, but that hasn't stopped us from remaining with the case for years. Welcome a-board!!

Thanks, logicworks. That's exactly where I'm coming from. I'm just trying to track the evidence (and trying very hard to squelch my natural instincts to attribute a theory based upon that evidence) because if I do that, I might blind myself to potential pieces of the puzzle that may actually be very relevant to the true scenario.

I guess why I'm trying to say, is, I'm trying to look at the evidence with blinders on. And digging deeper than the "status quo".

[nittany90]

We discussed it a long time ago on this board, but I noticed you recently mentioned it on Websleuths....

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3781.html

Fornicola is checking Gricar's personal e-mail account for activity as well, Zaccagni said. So far, there has been none.

So obviously, she knew whatever passwords RG had...

I think this is important to remember with the news about the searches.....

I agree. Is it possible that LE hopes the public has forgotten the little detail that someone else knew his passwords? I think the whole "erasing the hard drive" and "computer searches a month before his disappearance" are very important to this case.

[2-B]

it's almost as if the reported searches were just done ...just to show those keywords on the system...with no in-depth searching on the actual topic of how to destroy a hard drive.

puzzling for sure

I agree. I was thinking about that a lot last night, about the phrasing of the one search which reportedly was something like "water damage to a notebook computer."

It's pretty clear that "dunking" a drive isn't one of top recommended ways to completely destroy data on a hard drive.

Yet most people know that water can pose a problem in accidental damage to hard drives.

We're back to linguistic analysis here in a sense, but that particular search phrase makes it look like someone wasn't really searching for the best ways to completely destroy data on a hard drive. It's simply too easy to find advice telling people that physical destruction of the hard drive is the only route to take. That phrasing makes it sound like one of two things might have been going on:

a) someone knew that accidental water damage could be a problem for hard drives, so he/she started searching with that term or

b) someone was planning to put that drive in the river and wanted to leave bread crumbs on the home computer, making it look as if there had been a search for water damage/notebook computers prior to planting the hard drive in the river.

[nittany90]

Echoing Logic's, Pgal's, and GS's welcome to the board to you N90.

And dubbing you N90 as your new board nickname. We all get one, lol.

We've enjoyed reading your posts elsewhere on the web and look forward to your contributions to our discussion here.

Thanks for the welcome and the compliment, 2-B :blushing:
I guess I'm officially, "N90".

I'm afraid I'll mostly just be contributing questions. But I'll do my best! Thank God a few people want this case solved, as long as it truly is "solved".

[Politigal]

I agree. Is it possible that LE hopes the public has forgotten the little detail that someone else knew his passwords? I think the whole "erasing the hard drive" and "computer searches a month before his disappearance" are very important to this case.

It's a little strange IMO...that PF would know his passwords on the home computer and "clerical staff" (which might also be PF) knew his passwords on his work computer....

did he not have any privacy???

[nittany90]

For those of you who aren't familiar with me, I'm a bugger for requesting links to verify/track statements. So.....

Can anyone provide a link listing who Gricar shared his desires (years before his disappearance) to erase a hard drive? Who were the elusive "friends and family"? I already have a link that Fornicola knew, who else?

[nittany90]

And, is there any reason why there have been no official reports narrowing down the date the hard drive was found (other than to say, "around October, 2005")? Did the mother who found it "skipping stones", hang on to it for awhile before turning it over to LE? If so, why?

Why so mysterious about the specific date of the find?

[2-B]

For those of you who aren't familiar with me, I'm a bugger for requesting links to verify/track statements. So.....

Can anyone provide a link listing who Gricar shared his desires (years before his disappearance) to erase a hard drive? Who were the elusive "friends and family"? I already have a link that Fornicola knew, who else?

Trying to track down sources for unsourced statements can be a full-time job around these parts.

A number of us have tried to get the same answer you're seeking, to no avail thus far.

[J. J. in Phila]

We discussed it a long time ago on this board, but I noticed you recently mentioned it on Websleuths....

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3781.html

Fornicola is checking Gricar's personal e-mail account for activity as well, Zaccagni said. So far, there has been none.

So obviously, she knew whatever passwords RG had...

I think this is important to remember with the news about the searches.....

She may not have known until after 4/15, or there could have been a separate account.

I kind of think MR used those words specifically. I think he knows something.

[nittany90]

She may not have known until after 4/15, or there could have been a separate account.

I kind of think MR used those words specifically. I think he knows something.

LE confirmed Fornicola was checking his email account as of June 4, 2005. PF didn't take or pass the LD test until July 15, 2005. I don't think LE would "provide" Fornicola his passwords after his disappearance when she was still, potentially, a POI.

And, the link did say "account" not "accounts" -- so I have to assume, based upon what's written, that it was just one account.

If he does, I sure wish he'd cough it up. Maybe he's waiting until after the Primary, but before the General Election to drop the big bombshell??? Please don't throw me into the CT ring -- I'm just wondering, if he has info, what's he waiting for?? Innocent-enough question, right?

[Serendipitous1]

And, is there any reason why there have been no official reports narrowing down the date the hard drive was found (other than to say, "around October, 2005")? Did the mother who found it "skipping stones", hang on to it for awhile before turning it over to LE? If so, why?

Why so mysterious about the specific date of the find?I think the two episodes (lucky fishermen, lucky stone skippers) would have made excellent human-interest stories in the media. Gotta love those anonymous, haystack needle finds.

[J. J. in Phila]

LE confirmed Fornicola was checking his email account as of June 4, 2005. PF didn't take or pass the LD test until July 15, 2005. I don't think LE would "provide" Fornicola his passwords after his disappearance when she was still, potentially, a POI.

And, the link did say "account" not "accounts" -- so I have to assume, based upon what's written, that it was just one account.


There may have been a personal account that PEF knew about, and then another account. That is al least one possibility and explains why it wasn't initially discovered.


If he does, I sure wish he'd cough it up. Maybe he's waiting until after the Primary, but before the General Election to drop the big bombshell??? Please don't throw me into the CT ring -- I'm just wondering, if he has info, what's he waiting for?? Innocent-enough question, right?

I think there is a political element to this case, now. Releasing 21/2 year old information in an election year that doesn't point too much to any one theory is an indication.

I will be doing some blogs on the political aspects of the case.

That LE has never said, "We checked the way out, and didn't find anything (or "and we found something")," is another indication. "The dog that did nothing in the night-time."

[nittany90]

I think the two episodes (lucky fishermen, lucky stone skippers) would have made excellent human-interest stories in the media. Gotta love those anonymous, haystack needle finds.

Gotta admit, it makes ya' wonder. Other "eyewitnesses" were identified publicly -- why would the identities of the people, who arguably, found the most important evidence to date,be shrouded in anonymity? And why the mystery surrounding the date of the find??

[Politigal]

What's puzzling to me is we know from reports that the laptop hard drive was immediately sent to State Police at Milton, then sent to the FBI, then sent to an agency in California for analysis, and then of course much later, sent to Kroll.

From what I can tell from the reports, the home computer apparently wasn't analyzed until approx October 2006 or somewhere around there...

Why did they wait so long to analyze the home computer?

[2-B]

She may not have known until after 4/15, or there could have been a separate account.



Yet in January 2008, you argued that PF and RG shared an email account with one password (when it was convenient to your argument that PF was a legitimate choice to be checking RG's email account).

And much earlier in discussions here, you have argued that PF could have sent an email to staff on the morning of 4/15 from RG's email account, which of course would have necessitated her knowing his password.

Now it's convenient to argue that she didn't know the password until after 4/15.

It can't be both ways.

[nittany90]

There may have been a personal account that PEF knew about, and then another account. That is al least one possibility and explains why it wasn't initially discovered.

Again, I'm trying very, very hard not to jump to conclusions with possiblities. I'm just trying to analyze known (and disclosed) evidence or lack thereof. We only know that LE was aware (and approved) of Fornicola monitoring his computer account. I think we can safely take the leap that she had his passwords in order to do that.

I simply used that link to show that we know, for a fact, that at least one other person had access to his known accounts. Quite simply, proving that, without more information, we don't definitively know who did the computer searches on the home computer.

[2-B]

Gotta admit, it makes ya' wonder. Other "eyewitnesses" were identified publicly -- why would the identities of the people, who arguably, found the most important evidence to date,be shrouded in anonymity? And why the mystery surrounding the date of the find??

I'm not necessarily bothered by a failure to identify the finders. Sometimes folks want to have their names kept out of the news. I don't recall, for instance, that we definitely learned the name of the dog walker who discovered Chandra Levy's remains in Rock Creek Park.

The date? That's a different story.

[Serendipitous1]

What's puzzling to me is we know from reports that the laptop hard drive was immediately sent to State Police at Milton, then sent to the FBI, then sent to an agency in California for analysis, and then of course much later, sent to Kroll.

From what I can tell from the reports, the home computer apparently wasn't analyzed until approx October 2006 or somewhere around there...

Why did they wait so long to analyze the home computer?My impression, reading the recent news articles, was that the home computer was searched early on by the PSP specialist...and that MR "found" the reported "searches" about 2-1/2 years ago. I envisioned MR going through pages of printouts provided by the PSP, line by line, and coming across the "searches". I could be wrong about that though...reporting being what it is.

[Politigal]

Yet in January 2008, you argued that PF and RG shared an email account with one password (when it was convenient to your argument that PF was a legitimate choice to be checking RG's email account).

And much earlier in discussions here, you have argued that PF could have sent an email to staff on the morning of 4/15 from RG's email account, which of course would have necessitated her knowing his password.

Now it's convenient to argue that she didn't know the password until after 4/15.

It can't be both ways.

I hear OOBrett stealthily coming...:)

[Politigal]

My impression, reading the recent news articles, was that the home computer was searched early on by the PSP specialist...and that MR "found" the reported "searches" about 2-1/2 years ago. I envisioned MR going through pages of printouts provided by the PSP, line by line, and coming across the "searches". I could be wrong about that though...reporting being what it is.

That's one interpretation, and I considered that too...

And if that's the correct one.....why did they (pre Rickard) sit on the info so long...did they not realize the importance or were they just not aware they had that info?

[nittany90]

What's puzzling to me is we know from reports that the laptop hard drive was immediately sent to State Police at Milton, then sent to the FBI, then sent to an agency in California for analysis, and then of course much later, sent to Kroll.

From what I can tell from the reports, the home computer apparently wasn't analyzed until approx October 2006 or somewhere around there...

Why did they wait so long to analyze the home computer?

From all the sources I've been reviewing, it seems as though the searches may have been found during the CIA investigation by the PSP Unit. It does seem to match the time frame that LE admitted they sat on the info for 2 1/2 years before reporting it.

snipped
The Internet searches came to light after the computer was analyzed by state police investigators nearly three years ago, but they were not disclosed at the time.

Is it possible the BPD didn't examine the home computer at all? :confused:

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_12146368

[Politigal]

From all the sources I've been reviewing, it seems as though the searches may have been found during the CIA investigation by the PSP Unit. It does seem to match the time frame that LE admitted they sat on the info for 2 1/2 years before reporting it.

snipped
The Internet searches came to light after the computer was analyzed by state police investigators nearly three years ago, but they were not disclosed at the time.

Is it possible the BPD didn't examine the home computer at all? :confused:

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_12146368

that certainly wouldn't surprise me...

considering they didn't do an initial forensic investigation at the home

and considering they didn't fingerprint the laptop case

who knows...

[nittany90]

You'd sure think that after over a year of investigation, BPD's notes and evidence would fill more than a banker's box. Yet, that's what they turned over the the PSP unit in June, 06.

Bellefonte police have turned over all their files on missing former prosecutor Ray Gricar to a state police team.

(snipped)
The state police's criminal investigative analysis team for Western Pennsylvania, based in Bedford County, took possession of a banker's box full of Bellefonte police paperwork last week to begin a six-week study of the case, Bellefonte police Chief Shawn Weaver said Friday.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/699292-85.stm

[nittany90]

Since we're discussing the computers, and since I'm not convinced the laptop and hard drive were in the River since April 15, 2005, thought I'd post something interesting I hadn't read before (or if I had, I'd forgotten it).

(snipped from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, August 2, 2005)
After the fishermen found the district attorney's laptop in the river on Saturday morning, members of the Sunbury Fire Department dive team immediately hit the water.Eight divers searched throughout the weekend, said Wade Lytle, captain of the team.The divers were in the water a dozen different times -- going under for 20- to 30-minute stretches. They dragged the bottom of the slow-moving river, searching for other possible evidence, including Gricar's sunglasses and car keys, which are still missing. "There's a lot of places there where you can swim through and see everything," Lytle said. "I'm almost 100 percent confident we didn't miss anything."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05214/547317-85.stm

[gstickley]

You'd sure think that after over a year of investigation, BPD's notes and evidence would fill more than a banker's box. Yet, that's what they turned over the the PSP unit in June, 06.

Bellefonte police have turned over all their files on missing former prosecutor Ray Gricar to a state police team.

(snipped)
The state police's criminal investigative analysis team for Western Pennsylvania, based in Bedford County, took possession of a banker's box full of Bellefonte police paperwork last week to begin a six-week study of the case, Bellefonte police Chief Shawn Weaver said Friday.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/699292-85.stm

I've also questioned the "all their files" & "banker's box full of Bellefont police paperwork" to the point I looked up the sizes of banker's boxes. Even the largest banker's box wouldn't hold as much information as what one would think LE would have gathered in a year's time. With as many members of the CIA team as reported, I don't understand why it would take six weeks to go over it, since the CIA team didn't do any investigation of their own, as they just went over the BPD material. And, if a banker's box is all they had, I don't understand why it's taken/or took Rickard so long to read it, even it is being/was read "page by "page.

[gstickley]

". . . took possession of a banker's box full of Bellefonte police paperwork last week to begin . . . ."

Maybe one banker's box wasn't all of the evidence. Maybe they took possession of one box to begin the review, then a week later took possession of another box, etc.

Good point, OOB. One would hope . . .

[gstickley]

"Is it possible the BPD didn't examine the home computer at all?"

My semi-uneducated guess (it's purely a guess) is that the least little bit of any kind of detailed analysis would be conducted by the State Police. I wouldn't expect Bellefonte Borough to fund a computer-forensics position/department in its police department. That's what the State Police is for.

This is good too, OOB. But, all along, LE had been stating they had all the resources needed, including the PSP. And it still took an entire year to either get the computer to PSP for analysis or to get a report from PSP ref. an anaylsis.

[nittany90]

"Is it possible the BPD didn't examine the home computer at all?"

My semi-uneducated guess (it's purely a guess) is that the least little bit of any kind of detailed analysis would be conducted by the State Police. I wouldn't expect Bellefonte Borough to fund a computer-forensics position/department in its police department. That's what the State Police is for.

Agreed. For any detailed analysis, I agree it would have most likely been turned over to a specialist, most likely the PSP. But, I would think monitoring internet searches would be pretty mundane. Hell, I frequently do it to monitor my teens, and I am by no means a computer forensics "expert".

Maybe I should submit my application to BPD....

[2-B]

I try never to consider reportage as gospel

Good policy, and good policy especially with regard to reporting in this case. Or maybe I just notice the reporting more in this case because I can practically recite most of the reporting done in it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Agreed. For any detailed analysis, I agree it would have most likely been turned over to a specialist, most likely the PSP. But, I would think monitoring internet searches would be pretty mundane. Hell, I frequently do it to monitor my teens, and I am by no means a computer forensics "expert".

Maybe I should submit my application to BPD....

I believe it was reported that the PSP found it.

[nittany90]

I believe it was reported that the PSP found it.


You are correct, JJ. The information in the link I provided, did say "state police investigators" -- I just wasn't sure if that meant one of the many times that PSP assisted BPD, or perhaps, not until the state police team (cia)reviewed the evidence between June and November 2006. The actual press release was much more vague as to which agency found the searches, only listing "the investigation learned......"

Maybe one day, the "investigators" will tell us how they've determined, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it was Gricar who performed the searches.

[Politigal]

I have searched for an earlier news article but haven't found it online. I will check tomorrow to see if I saved a hard copy--------it was in a news article where Zaccagni was being interviewed, the interviewer described the office as having five or six boxes and duffel bags with evidence regarding the RG case. This was months prior to the PSP-CIA entering the picture.

I questioned a number of times why it took Z months to get the files ready for the PSP, and exactly what did and didn't go to the PSP-CIA, knowing full well, that it would be impossible to put all of the evidence described earlier in one banker's box for the PSP to pick up.

Hopefully I printed it out so I can reference exactly what it said about the large quantity of evidence. I have always been curious as to what exactly would have been placed in duffel bags.
JMO

here ya go

http://cbs3.com/local/Richard.Gricar.Centre.2.297625.html

"We have had all the help we needed, but that's not saying we're not open to getting more help," Weaver said. In a corner of his new office, four boxes were stacked on a hand truck and a duffle bag was stuffed—all with Gricar case files.

[Politigal]

is it a possibility that PSP weren't actually given all the case files for their review?

[2-B]

That's quite a discrepancy in sheer bulk, four boxes and a duffel bag vs. one banker's box.

Trying to come up with a reasonable way to think that everything went to the PSP-CIA unit for review. All the materials on the hand truck were transcribed onto Word documents and transferred onto CD's, which were then placed into a banker's box? Or the review only "reviewed" a portion of the materials?

[J. J. in Phila]

That's quite a discrepancy in sheer bulk, four boxes and a duffel bag vs. one banker's box.

Trying to come up with a reasonable way to think that everything went to the PSP-CIA unit for review. All the materials on the hand truck were transcribed onto Word documents and transferred onto CD's, which were then placed into a banker's box? Or the review only "reviewed" a portion of the materials?

First, there is a difference between looking the record and looking at the evidence, which might explain the difference alone.

Second, I have no objections to the PSP-CIA review being released. I would paraphrase Willoughby, however, and say, "Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it."

[Politigal]

The finding of the searches has been reported a couple of different ways (imagine that..)

1) that PSP found them and 2) that Rickard discovered them

If PSP found them - don't you think they would have reviewed their findings with Bellefonte Police?

yet we're told that Rickard "discovered" the searches 2 1/2 yrs ago.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Rickard discovers the truth about no identifiable prints...

And he discovers the computer searches.

What the heck was going on *before* Rickard came on board???

[2-B]

Yes, JJ, most of us have seen Willoughby's comment to that effect. It seems to imply he thinks (and perhaps you must think, since you echo it) that there are people following this case as if they were reading a novel or watching a movie--which is to say wanting a particular ending (in Willoughby's mind, apparently murder, given his comments).

Hogwash, I say.

You say that you have followed the evidence.

That is exactly what the rest of us have been doing.

No one I have discussed this case with either online or in real life hopes for any particular outcome or wants any particular outcome other than this: that the truth about what happened to Ray Gricar be known, that his family eventually has some peace regarding what has happened to him, and that--if he was the victim of foul play--he receives the same justice he worked so hard to deliver for others during his career as a prosecutor.

Why in God's name should we have to be careful what we wish for?

[J. J. in Phila]

The finding of the searches has been reported a couple of different ways (imagine that..)

1) that PSP found them and 2) that Rickard discovered them

If PSP found them - don't you think they would have reviewed their findings with Bellefonte Police?

yet we're told that Rickard "discovered" the searches 2 1/2 yrs ago.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Rickard discovers the truth about no identifiable prints...

And he discovers the computer searches.

What the heck was going on *before* Rickard came on board???

When did DZ leave however; I thought it was 2007. This was 2 1/2 years ago, so wasn't DZ the lead officer at that time?

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B in the last 16 months, with one exception, every time new information was released, a sizable number of folks on this board end up complaining about it.

This last release is an example. I've said it really doesn't add too much new to the story. Yet we are seeing these threads about how the police know and how they are wrong and who found them. It's a minor piece of the puzzle at best, and explainable under nearly any scenario.

[Serendipitous1]

That's quite a discrepancy in sheer bulk, four boxes and a duffel bag vs. one banker's box.

Trying to come up with a reasonable way to think that everything went to the PSP-CIA unit for review. All the materials on the hand truck were transcribed onto Word documents and transferred onto CD's, which were then placed into a banker's box? Or the review only "reviewed" a portion of the materials?I seem to recall that there was one box marked "real evidence", one marked "psychics", and one marked "internet conspiracy theories (see also duffel bag)"; and that the PSP unit was only interested in the first box...go figure.

[Serendipitous1]

Forgot to mention that there had been a fourth box, marked "Maria's Pizza & Sub Shop"...which was eventually discarded, being unrelated to the investigation.

[gstickley]

I seem to recall that there was one box marked "real evidence", one marked "psychics", and one marked "internet conspiracy theories (see also duffel bag)"; and that the PSP unit was only interested in the first box...go figure.

S1, you're probably right, as usual. The box marked "real evidence" probably was the smallest banker's box, because there wasn't much evidence gathered (no interviews with neighbors/co-workers/close friends because "it might lead to a new theory"; no forensic examination at the house (no blood dripping off anything or holes in the walls); no attempts at latent prints off the laptop case, etc.). The box marked "psychics" was probably bigger: after all, all the time spent with the "psychic" had to be documented, & videos take up a lot of room); the "internet conspiracy theories" box was probably the largest, possibly drawer size & possibly more than one box because all the "conspiracy theorists" had to be checked out by LE; maybe because "internet conspiracy theorists" haven't "let up"; maybe because "internet conspiracy theoriests" include anyone who dares ask questions or give opinions & who doesn't want Ray Gricar deemed a "walkaway" without an independent, unbiased investigation. (Sorry,
S1, that makes you an "internet conspiracy theorist too!)

As far as the boxes or dufflebag(s) containing "evidence", I don't think so. No credible, law-abiding law enforcement agency would leave "evidence" just setting around in a room unless it was an "evidence room", where it should have been documented, tagged, & secured.

[Politigal]

When did DZ leave however; I thought it was 2007. This was 2 1/2 years ago, so wasn't DZ the lead officer at that time?


that's why I said *before* Rickard came on board

[Politigal]

I seem to recall that there was one box marked "real evidence", one marked "psychics", and one marked "internet conspiracy theories (see also duffel bag)"; and that the PSP unit was only interested in the first box...go figure.

problem is....the box marked "real evidence" was empty

[JD1974]

I'd very much like to see the wording of the press release from MR and to see MR's own words. I want to know if MR said that Gricar did the searches or if the press has interpreted what MR said to mean that Gricar did the searches.

Last fall before Caylee Anthony's body was found, Florida authorities released the information that computer searches for chloroform (among other things) had been done on Casey's computer. The press releases did not state that Casey herself had done the searches. Yet at that time, authorities had evidence of chloroform in Casey's car and post-mortem hair consistent with Caylee's in Casey's car. That's strong evidence against Casey, and a whole lot stronger than Gricar asking someone how to erase a hard drive prior to returning a laptop to the county.

Hi, I have jumped in a few times but usually just like to read what you all post. I think there is a huge difference in what can be released to the press and what can actually be proven in a court of law. I seen a post about Neil Entwhistle, I watched the case, not once did they say his name in court. They always said someone but alluded to him. Now on the other hand, press releases state Neil himself made the searches.

Titled Entwhistle searched for ways to kill..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11252372/

So I honestly think that it just comes down to who the speaker is and what their belief at the time is.

[2-B]

2-B in the last 16 months, with one exception, every time new information was released, a sizable number of folks on this board end up complaining about it.

This last release is an example. I've said it really doesn't add too much new to the story. Yet we are seeing these threads about how the police know and how they are wrong and who found them. It's a minor piece of the puzzle at best, and explainable under nearly any scenario.

You (and some of your sidekicks) apparently have difficulty distinguishing between analysis and complaint, at least with regard to whatever actual facts have been released. The actual facts released have been few and far between, and they have been for the most part small and (at least at this point) without any great meaning to the case.

Analysis of these facts is what one should expect, and it is what one should welcome on a message board devoted to any case.

If there has been disgruntlement, IMO that has been relegated to the how and not to the what. That is fair and reasonable, IMO.

And it does not add up to what has been implied, i.e., that anyone following this case will be disappointed or (as we've read) "angry" if the facts of the case turn out to be X, Y, or Z. We've all heard that charge leveled in the past. It's inaccurate. It's condescending. And it's unfair to those who are simply seeking the truth.

[2-B]

S1, you're probably right, as usual. The box marked "real evidence" probably was the smallest banker's box, because there wasn't much evidence gathered (no interviews with neighbors/co-workers/close friends because "it might lead to a new theory"; no forensic examination at the house (no blood dripping off anything or holes in the walls); no attempts at latent prints off the laptop case, etc.). The box marked "psychics" was probably bigger: after all, all the time spent with the "psychic" had to be documented, & videos take up a lot of room); the "internet conspiracy theories" box was probably the largest, possibly drawer size & possibly more than one box because all the "conspiracy theorists" had to be checked out by LE; maybe because "internet conspiracy theorists" haven't "let up"; maybe because "internet conspiracy theoriests" include anyone who dares ask questions or give opinions & who doesn't want Ray Gricar deemed a "walkaway" without an independent, unbiased investigation. (Sorry,
S1, that makes you an "internet conspiracy theorist too!)

As far as the boxes or dufflebag(s) containing "evidence", I don't think so. No credible, law-abiding law enforcement agency would leave "evidence" just setting around in a room unless it was an "evidence room", where it should have been documented, tagged, & secured.


What GS said.

[2-B]

Hi, I have jumped in a few times but usually just like to read what you all post. I think there is a huge difference in what can be released to the press and what can actually be proven in a court of law. I seen a post about Neil Entwhistle, I watched the case, not once did they say his name in court. They always said someone but alluded to him. Now on the other hand, press releases state Neil himself made the searches.

Titled Entwhistle searched for ways to kill..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11252372/

So I honestly think that it just comes down to who the speaker is and what their belief at the time is.

Hi JD1974 and welcome aboard!

Your point is well taken. What can be said in the press and what can actually be proven (as in a court of law) are two different things. I have yet to find a case taken to court where computer searches could be directly linked to any specific individual as the searcher.

I also researched the opposite angle to a lesser extent--that is, has computer activity been used in court as an alibi?

This story from CNET's police blotter involves a man who tried to use computer activity as one of three defenses to the charge he'd broken a protective order forbidding him to be in the area of his ex-wife's property:

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Web-cookies-become-defendants-alibi/2100-1047_3-6129993.html?tag=mncol;txt

He had a witness who placed him at home, a witness who placed him on the phone, and a disk with computer cookies purportedly placing him on the computer at the time of the alleged protective order violation.

He was convicted, and also lost his appeal. The relevant portion of the appeals' judge statement:

James Willingham, a felony investigator for the district attorney's office working in computer forensics, testified as a rebuttal witness. He explained that a "cookie," like the ones that Russell had copied to the disk, gets its date and time from the computer and that the computer's date and time are set by the user. Thus, he concluded that the dates and times on the disk purporting to show when Russell allegedly visited the Web sites are "valueless, absent any other context, to say when they were actually done."

And, as some in the comments section point out, software can automate web browsing to make it appear that someone was home and on the computer when that person was not actually there.

The thing is, though, where Ray Gricar is concerned: there's no court case. The assertion that Gricar conducted the searches isn't being held to the stricter standards required in court. It's being said in the press, and the public will either accept it without thinking it through, or they will question it and ask what actual proof exists Gricar made those searches himself.

[gstickley]

Hi, I have jumped in a few times but usually just like to read what you all post. I think there is a huge difference in what can be released to the press and what can actually be proven in a court of law.
(snip)
So I honestly think that it just comes down to who the speaker is and what their belief at the time is.

I agree, JD. I'd like to add that the press isn't always diligent in reporting "exactly what was said" at the time either.

However, I think the big "bone of contention" is that LE has had the tendency to release info. only on or about the yearly anniversary date. This last tidbit, according to them, has been known since late 2006; why wait until now to release it?

[JD1974]

Hi JD1974 and welcome aboard!

Your point is well taken. What can be said in the press and what can actually be proven (as in a court of law) are two different things. I have yet to find a case taken to court where computer searches could be directly linked to any specific individual as the searcher.

I also researched the opposite angle to a lesser extent--that is, has computer activity been used in court as an alibi?

This story from CNET's police blotter involves a man who tried to use computer activity as one of three defenses to the charge he'd broken a protective order forbidding him to be in the area of his ex-wife's property:

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Web-cookies-become-defendants-alibi/2100-1047_3-6129993.html?tag=mncol;txt

He had a witness who placed him at home, a witness who placed him on the phone, and a disk with computer cookies purportedly placing him on the computer at the time of the alleged protective order violation.

He was convicted, and also lost his appeal. The relevant portion of the appeals' judge statement:

James Willingham, a felony investigator for the district attorney's office working in computer forensics, testified as a rebuttal witness. He explained that a "cookie," like the ones that Russell had copied to the disk, gets its date and time from the computer and that the computer's date and time are set by the user. Thus, he concluded that the dates and times on the disk purporting to show when Russell allegedly visited the Web sites are "valueless, absent any other context, to say when they were actually done."

And, as some in the comments section point out, software can automate web browsing to make it appear that someone was home and on the computer when that person was not actually there.

The thing is, though, where Ray Gricar is concerned: there's no court case. The assertion that Gricar conducted the searches isn't being held to the stricter standards required in court. It's being said in the press, and the public will either accept it without thinking it through, or they will question it and ask what actual proof exists Gricar made those searches himself.

Hi and I agree. I know you can change the timestamp on your computer and everything will show up as being done at that time, isn;t there another way of founding out though? Like using ISP logs, or whatever service you were connected to and compare it to your time zone or does that also show up as the time on the computer? If it all shows up as the time/date of your computer then who knows when those searches really took place?

[JD1974]

I agree, JD. I'd like to add that the press isn't always diligent in reporting "exactly what was said" at the time either.

However, I think the big "bone of contention" is that LE has had the tendency to release info. only on or about the yearly anniversary date. This last tidbit, according to them, has been known since late 2006; why wait until now to release it?


Does sound pretty strange! Mr Gricar worked in the DA's office, I cannot understand why they wouldn't want to solve the case of one of their own? It seems that they aren't even trying though imo....

[J. J. in Phila]

You (and some of your sidekicks) apparently have difficulty distinguishing between analysis and complaint, at least with regard to whatever actual facts have been released. The actual facts released have been few and far between, and they have been for the most part small and (at least at this point) without any great meaning to the case.

Analysis of these facts is what one should expect, and it is what one should welcome on a message board devoted to any case.

If there has been disgruntlement, IMO that has been relegated to the how and not to the what. That is fair and reasonable, IMO.

And it does not add up to what has been implied, i.e., that anyone following this case will be disappointed or (as we've read) "angry" if the facts of the case turn out to be X, Y, or Z. We've all heard that charge leveled in the past. It's inaccurate. It's condescending. And it's unfair to those who are simply seeking the truth.

I think we only have to look at the comments on this board to see that yes, the folks get angry when some evidence is released. This last release doesn't even really tell us too much new, and we're getting comments like the last one.

I really have not said too much on it other than, the police seem to to know it was RFG. We have folks here claiming that they couldn't/

JD1974, it is very possible that RFG had some interaction online that set the time. He might have posted on a web site, like I'm doing now. He might have gotten an e-mail and responded quickly; the response might have been so technical or individual that only he could do it. Those are the two situations that I can think of for a non-technical explanation.

The thing is, the detective releasing the information is noted for being precise.

[nittany90]

2-B in the last 16 months, with one exception, every time new information was released, a sizable number of folks on this board end up complaining about it.

This last release is an example. I've said it really doesn't add too much new to the story. Yet we are seeing these threads about how the police know and how they are wrong and who found them. It's a minor piece of the puzzle at best, and explainable under nearly any scenario.

JJ - my only question is how do you know that it is a minor piece of the puzzle? My self-imposed job is to analyze the evidence. IMO, everything surrounding the laptop/hard drive, appears, at least on the purest level, suspicious. Was it used in the weeks prior to April 15, 2005, was it not used, how it "disappeared" with him, to how it re-appeared in the exact same location of Gricars "disappearance" months after, despite several massive searches by professionals. Hell, to the mystery surrounding the very date the hard-drive was found. Why would LE not tell us exactly when the hard drive was found? To the fact that LE tells us they've had the search/software box info for 2 1/2 years, but only decided to release it on the 4th anniversary, to the fact that, at least in my mind, the timing of the searches themselves are puzzling. Put together, it clearly raise red flags, if you (not you personally, but everyone) bother to analyze the data. There are so many conflicting comments from LE (are the conflicts due to reporter error, poor investigation by LE, or something else?) Part of the problem is, it appears that nobody with the means/avenue to question the computer information, has given it much thought. So, LE is given permission to be complacent. I refuse to give them that permission.
I'm not ready to swallow the information that LE gives us, hook line and sinker. Until proven otherwise, I continue to believe that all information regarding the laptop/hard drive/searches may be a major piece of the investigation.
Of course, that's just my opinion.

[nittany90]

Hi JD1974 and welcome aboard!

The thing is, though, where Ray Gricar is concerned: there's no court case. The assertion that Gricar conducted the searches isn't being held to the stricter standards required in court. It's being said in the press, and the public will either accept it without thinking it through, or they will question it and ask what actual proof exists Gricar made those searches himself.

Ditto, welcome to the craziness, JD1974!
Ditto, 2-B. WHY isn't the media demanding more info? Why aren't they asking the hard questions about the contradicting info we have? Why aren't they forcing LE to show their hand (or at least, give us a little peak?) There's no suspect in custody, there's no POI, there's no-one for a defense attorney to want to protect. Why, then, no tough questions? It seems since PB left the CDT, no one is asking. I hesitate to attack members of my own, but IMO, accepting and reporting the "status quo" is a mistake and a disservice to the community. They should be asking the tough questions for any "Joe Smith" who disappears. To fail to do so, for a highly respected DA, is puzzling and disheartening.
I'll step off my soapbox now.

[JD1974]

Ditto, welcome to the craziness, JD1974!
Ditto, 2-B. WHY isn't the media demanding more info? Why aren't they asking the hard questions about the contradicting info we have? Why aren't they forcing LE to show their hand (or at least, give us a little peak?) There's no suspect in custody, there's no POI, there's no-one for a defense attorney to want to protect. Why, then, no tough questions? It seems since PB left the CDT, no one is asking. I hesitate to attack members of my own, but IMO, accepting and reporting the "status quo" is a mistake and a disservice to the community. They should be asking the tough questions for any "Joe Smith" who disappears. To fail to do so, for a highly respected DA, is puzzling and disheartening.
I'll step off my soapbox now.

That is my biggest question, or at least what bothers me the most. It seems no one is doing anything to find out what happened to one of their own??

[nittany90]

That is my biggest question, or at least what bothers me the most. It seems no one is doing anything to find out what happened to one of their own??

It bothers me, too, JD. But in their defense, a few of his friends have tried to push LE to do something more (BB, TM, JKA come to mind). Sadly, their efforts have been negatively politicized and mostly ignored. I think BPD knew early on, that this case was beyond their capabilities, but for whatever reason, (pride? arrogance? politics?) they didn't pass it on to a larger agency with the experience, manpower and resources to solve the case.

[2-B]

Ditto, welcome to the craziness, JD1974!
Ditto, 2-B. WHY isn't the media demanding more info? Why aren't they asking the hard questions about the contradicting info we have? Why aren't they forcing LE to show their hand (or at least, give us a little peak?) There's no suspect in custody, there's no POI, there's no-one for a defense attorney to want to protect. Why, then, no tough questions? It seems since PB left the CDT, no one is asking. I hesitate to attack members of my own, but IMO, accepting and reporting the "status quo" is a mistake and a disservice to the community. They should be asking the tough questions for any "Joe Smith" who disappears. To fail to do so, for a highly respected DA, is puzzling and disheartening.
I'll step off my soapbox now.

No need to step off the soapbox, N90. It's the same one many of us have been on for several years now.

What's being misinterpreted as anger at the what is in reality frustration with the why and the how. The press seems to have become a mouthpiece for the investigation, and the tough questions remain hidden away here, in a dark corner of the internet.

I have never been one to accept things without hard evidence, which is why I have spent so much energy digging into and questioning certain facets of what we've been told publicly about this investigation.

With regard to the computer searches specifically, I'm not willing to buy the premise that "the police seem to to know it was RFG" without seeing an explanation for how they "seem to know" and then examining and analyzing that explanation. As I've pointed out before, if that claim were to go into court fully supported by irrefutable evidence, it would likely be the first time. Password protected accounts have not been sufficient in court nor have time stamps.

[gstickley]

It bothers me, too, JD. But in their defense, a few of his friends have tried to push LE to do something more (BB, TM, JKA come to mind). Sadly, their efforts have been negatively politicized and mostly ignored. I think BPD knew early on, that this case was beyond their capabilities, but for whatever reason, (pride? arrogance? politics?) they didn't pass it on to a larger agency with the experience, manpower and resources to solve the case.

I just wanted to see this post again. At first, I thought I'd written it!

[nittany90]

i just wanted to see this post again. At first, i thought i'd written it!


lol - gmta!

[nittany90]

No need to step off the soapbox, N90. It's the same one many of us have been on for several years now.

What's being misinterpreted as anger at the what is in reality frustration with the why and the how. The press seems to have become a mouthpiece for the investigation, and the tough questions remain hidden away here, in a dark corner of the internet.

I have never been one to accept things without hard evidence, which is why I have spent so much energy digging into and questioning certain facets of what we've been told publicly about this investigation.

With regard to the computer searches specifically, I'm not willing to buy the premise that "the police seem to to know it was RFG" without seeing an explanation for how they "seem to know" and then examining and analyzing that explanation. As I've pointed out before, if that claim were to go into court fully supported by irrefutable evidence, it would likely be the first time. Password protected accounts have not been sufficient in court nor have time stamps.

:thumbsup: That's all I have to say. :thumbsup:

[nittany90]

Since it appears that so many of us are cross-posting on several different message boards, I sure wish we could have some kind of "central" posting board, so I don't have to keep jumping around.
Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time remembering what I posted on which board.

But, then, I suppose, there's a chance we'd miss some new insight of a new poster on another "other board" .

Never mind, forget it. I'll just keep jumping around.

[2-B]

Since it appears that so many of us are cross-posting on several different message boards, I sure wish we could have some kind of "central" posting board, so I don't have to keep jumping around.
Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time remembering what I posted on which board.

But, then, I suppose, there's a chance we'd miss some new insight of a new poster on another "other board" .

Never mind, forget it. I'll just keep jumping around.

With all due respect to other boards (and it's great to have other boards interested in this case, don't misunderstand me), IMVHO CTV/In Session has always pretty much been the board "of record" when it comes to Ray Gricar. At the very least we're the place where the conversation has kept going, even when there was nothing to report, lol.

[nittany90]

With all due respect to other boards (and it's great to have other boards interested in this case, don't misunderstand me), IMVHO CTV/In Session has always pretty much been the board "of record" when it comes to Ray Gricar. At the very least we're the place where the conversation has kept going, even when there was nothing to report, lol.

Gotcha. I do not disagree.

[gstickley]

With all due respect to other boards (and it's great to have other boards interested in this case, don't misunderstand me), IMVHO CTV/In Session has always pretty much been the board "of record" when it comes to Ray Gricar. At the very least we're the place where the conversation has kept going, even when there was nothing to report, lol.

And, IMO, the CTV/InSession board is the one where *most* participants are interested in finding out what happened to Ray Gricar whether it be suicide, walkaway, or foul play. We're not "pushing" any of the three (3) theories. We're just wanting an independent, unbiased, thorough investigation.

This is just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[Politigal]

S1, you're probably right, as usual. The box marked "real evidence" probably was the smallest banker's box, because there wasn't much evidence gathered (no interviews with neighbors/co-workers/close friends because "it might lead to a new theory"; no forensic examination at the house (no blood dripping off anything or holes in the walls); no attempts at latent prints off the laptop case, etc.). The box marked "psychics" was probably bigger: after all, all the time spent with the "psychic" had to be documented, & videos take up a lot of room); the "internet conspiracy theories" box was probably the largest, possibly drawer size & possibly more than one box because all the "conspiracy theorists" had to be checked out by LE; maybe because "internet conspiracy theorists" haven't "let up"; maybe because "internet conspiracy theoriests" include anyone who dares ask questions or give opinions & who doesn't want Ray Gricar deemed a "walkaway" without an independent, unbiased investigation. (Sorry,
S1, that makes you an "internet conspiracy theorist too!)

As far as the boxes or dufflebag(s) containing "evidence", I don't think so. No credible, law-abiding law enforcement agency would leave "evidence" just setting around in a room unless it was an "evidence room", where it should have been documented, tagged, & secured.

great post Gstickley....and isn't it a shame...the time they wasted on that so-called "psychic."

[J. J. in Phila]

It bothers me, too, JD. But in their defense, a few of his friends have tried to push LE to do something more (BB, TM, JKA come to mind). Sadly, their efforts have been negatively politicized and mostly ignored. I think BPD knew early on, that this case was beyond their capabilities, but for whatever reason, (pride? arrogance? politics?) they didn't pass it on to a larger agency with the experience, manpower and resources to solve the case.


I don't that the initial solution is beyond the BPD's abilities. There as been a string of things that they've known about, but were not released. Fenton, the cop in Wilkes-Barre, the request for erasure, the searches. All of these things were at least two years, and some nearly four years old.

The question is why?

[2-B]

And away we go---------------------> none of the other 'stuff' released had nor has anything to do with what had already taken place; simply stuff that they knew was not relevent to the case, as diversionary as using Baron to keep the focus on Lewisburg.


I couldn't agree more. When I read JJ saying above, "The question is why?," before I even read your post, my first thought was, "Because none of what's been released means anything significant."

CF's sighting can't be and hasn't been confirmed; releasing it has merely fanned the flames of the walkaway theorists.

The revelation that one witness in Wilkes-Barre was a cop was preceded here by many cat-that-ate-the-canary hints, as if some Great Reveal were on the horizon. But it's a great reveal only to those who assume that police officers somehow have better powers of recall and better abilities to make identifications than the average person, a conclusion contradicted by researchers.

The requests for software were apparently made with no effort to conceal Gricar's desire to wipe his laptop hard drive clean and therefore most logically represent a step toward his impending retirement, especially considering RG's statement that he had "always known" he wanted to retire at age 60. Retirement was something he had been carefully planning for, not something decided at the last minute or forced upon him by ill health or other circumstances.

And the computer searches--we've discussed those at great length on this thread. They, too, mean little without hard proof that Gricar himself conducted the searches and conducted them with the intent of destroying data on his laptop hard drive.

There is, perhaps, another explanation for the "why," however. And that is this: these carefully selected details may well add up in the minds of some in the public to form the basis of a walkaway theory.

My question: what else has not been released? And if four or five other carefully selected details had been released instead, would the minds of the public be getting a different picture altogether? That, unfortunately, is something we can't answer.

[Politigal]

I couldn't agree more. When I read JJ saying above, "The question is why?," before I even read your post, my first thought was, "Because none of what's been released means anything significant."

CF's sighting can't be and hasn't been confirmed; releasing it has merely fanned the flames of the walkaway theorists.

The revelation that one witness in Wilkes-Barre was a cop was preceded here by many cat-that-ate-the-canary hints, as if some Great Reveal were on the horizon. But it's a great reveal only to those who assume that police officers somehow have better powers of recall and better abilities to make identifications than the average person, a conclusion contradicted by researchers.

The requests for software were apparently made with no effort to conceal Gricar's desire to wipe his laptop hard drive clean and therefore most logically represent a step toward his impending retirement, especially considering RG's statement that he had "always known" he wanted to retire at age 60. Retirement was something he had been carefully planning for, not something decided at the last minute or forced upon him by ill health or other circumstances.

And the computer searches--we've discussed those at great length on this thread. They, too, mean little without hard proof that Gricar himself conducted the searches and conducted them with the intent of destroying data on his laptop hard drive.

There is, perhaps, another explanation for the "why," however. And that is this: these carefully selected details may well add up in the minds of some in the public to form the basis of a walkaway theory.

My question: what else has not been released? And if four or five other carefully selected details had been released instead, would the minds of the public be getting a different picture altogether? That, unfortunately, is something we can't answer.

The thing is.....on the computer searches....if someone else actually did those searches innocently....why would they not tell police that info?

[2-B]

The thing is.....on the computer searches....if someone else actually did those searches innocently....why would they not tell police that info?

The obvious answer would be that maybe they weren't done innocently.

But let's say for argument's sake that someone else did do them, completely innocently. It could be possible for someone to worry that suspicion might be cast on him/her if anybody were to theorize that the searcher might have a reason to set RG up.

Just thinking out loud here. . . .

[J. J. in Phila]

Or, they were done by RFG, but possibly not for a nefarious reason.

[2-B]

Or, they were done by RFG, but possibly not for a nefarious reason.

Yes, that's been mentioned elsewhere, that for the searches to mean anything to the walkaway theory, not only would there have to be proof Gricar did the searches, but there would have to be proof of his intent. See my post above and Logic's and Pgal's explorations of whether RG might have been looking at the terms for something related to one of his cases.

The question Pgal is asking here, however, is about someone else potentially doing the searches innocently.

[gstickley]

And, is there any reason why there have been no official reports narrowing down the date the hard drive was found (other than to say, "around October, 2005")? Did the mother who found it "skipping stones", hang on to it for awhile before turning it over to LE? If so, why?

Why so mysterious about the specific date of the find?

FWIW, I found this in "Courthouse Steps Mavens", dated 04/28/06. I don't remember seeing the exact date the hard drive was recovered listed elsewhere.

On September 23, a woman walking the low banks of the river came across a piece of electronic equipment one inch by three inches — a hard drive. This was near a railroad bridge a half mile upstream from where the Mini Cooper was parked. The hard drive is the same make and model as Gricar’s laptop, but Centre County did not keep tabs on the serial numbers, so Zaccagni can only assume it’s the one he’s looking for while he awaits confirmation from a lab in California. Says Zaccagni: “It looks like a duck, but we’re waiting to see if it quacks like a duck.” After the five months the equipment spent in the water, he’s not holding his breath.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, that's been mentioned elsewhere, that for the searches to mean anything to the walkaway theory, not only would there have to be proof Gricar did the searches, but there would have to be proof of his intent. See my post above and Logic's and Pgal's explorations of whether RG might have been looking at the terms for something related to one of his cases.

The question Pgal is asking here, however, is about someone else potentially doing the searches innocently.

Actually, the searches don't point to the walkaway theory any more that they do to either murder scenario. My numbers on walkaway stayed the same after the announcement; suicide went up one point (and I probably should have kept them higher when RFG's questions about searches became public).

So far as I know, however, he didn't have any pending cases relating to data erasure, and, if so, he'd probably ask a forensic recovery service.

[2-B]

Actually, the searches don't point to the walkaway theory any more that they do to either murder scenario.

I don't think the searches point toward anything until and unless it can be proven who actually did the searches and what the motivation for the searches was.

I've seen plenty of cases where those issues have been argued, but never a case where those issues have been proven.

What bothers me in the RG case is the manner in which this has been announced and the manner in which it has been spun toward walkaway in the press.

[nittany90]

FWIW, I found this in "Courthouse Steps Mavens", dated 04/28/06. I don't remember seeing the exact date the hard drive was recovered listed elsewhere.

On September 23, a woman walking the low banks of the river came across a piece of electronic equipment one inch by three inches — a hard drive. This was near a railroad bridge a half mile upstream from where the Mini Cooper was parked. The hard drive is the same make and model as Gricar’s laptop, but Centre County did not keep tabs on the serial numbers, so Zaccagni can only assume it’s the one he’s looking for while he awaits confirmation from a lab in California. Says Zaccagni: “It looks like a duck, but we’re waiting to see if it quacks like a duck.” After the five months the equipment spent in the water, he’s not holding his breath.

Thanks GS -- I had read that article, and totally missed the date. So much for "fresh eyes".

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't think the searches point toward anything until and unless it can be proven who actually did the searches and what the motivation for the searches was.

I've seen plenty of cases where those issues have been argued, but never a case where those issues have been proven.

What bothers me in the RG case is the manner in which this has been announced and the manner in which it has been spun toward walkaway in the press.


First 2-B, I'd guess that LE actually does have evidence it was RFG. I am saying that even if it can be shown RFG did the searches, it doesn't add to walkaway. The evidence of motivation is there and was since last summer.

The problem is, all the evidence that has come out in the last 14 months, could either point to all three possibilities or point to walkaway. Some have come from the BPD as a release, some has come from various LE sources. Some have come from outsiders looking at the case. It's not a spin attempt by the BPD; they, in fact, suppressed evidence that pointed in that direction.

[2-B]

First 2-B, I'd guess that LE actually does have evidence it was RFG. I am saying that even if it can be shown RFG did the searches, it doesn't add to walkaway. The evidence of motivation is there and was since last summer.


And I would make the educated and researched guess that it's unlikely they have evidence which could be used as sworn testimony in court.

It is one thing to assert in a press release or in media coverage that Gricar did the searches. It is quite another to have evidence of such that would stand up in court. I keep repeating this, but it seems not to sink in: it would apparently be a first. Imagine, BPD, the first police department to prove that computer searches were done by a specific person, not merely to prove that computer searches were done! That would be quite a feather in their caps. More power to them if they've accomplished this, but I find it less likely than more likely given some of the high power prosecutorial teams that have taken this issue on.

And no, we don't have evidence of motivation and haven't had it "since last summer." What we had last summer was the report that Gricar was interested in software to wipe his hard drive clean. That is distinctly different from searches that included the terms "wreck" and "fry" a hard drive. And no one has done that old Vulcan mind meld you keep talking about to discern a) what Gricar's motivations were for certain in asking about the software in the first place, much less b) discerned what Person X's motivations were in doing the searches found on the home computer.

[Politigal]

Perhaps JJ could spell out for us "mental defectives" exactly how law enforcement were able to prove it was RG who did the searches.

we'll all be very blue in the face...waiting

[J. J. in Phila]

Perhaps JJ could spell out for us "mental defectives" exactly how law enforcement were able to prove it was RG who did the searches.

we'll all be very blue in the face...waiting

1. He was known to be in the house (without anyone else present) when the searches were done.

2. They were done on a password protected account.

3. They could have some time of electronic interaction which would be unique to him at the time of the searches.

[Politigal]

1. He was known to be in the house (without anyone else present) when the searches were done.

2. They were done on a password protected account.

3. They could have some time of electronic interaction which would be unique to him at the time of the searches.


1) how exactly would they prove he was in the house?
2) Patty (and possibly others) knew his passwords
3) and again, how would they prove it was him


Face it JJ - they cannot

[2-B]

1) how exactly would they prove he was in the house?
2) Patty (and possibly others) knew his passwords
3) and again, how would they prove it was him


Face it JJ - they cannot

You pretty much stole my answers, Pgal. :smile:

These approaches have not worked in other cases. What would make the Gricar situation different?

The only difference I can see is that no one has to go into court and present evidence to support the claim that Gricar did the searches.

[Politigal]

You pretty much stole my answers, Pgal. :smile:

These approaches have not worked in other cases. What would make the Gricar situation different?

The only difference I can see is that no one has to go into court and present evidence to support the claim that Gricar did the searches.

It is still very puzzling though why Rickard would release that info about the searches...knowing that it cannot be proven who actually did them.

IMO

[2-B]

It would be a first if anything sunk in, too.

I recall UndertheRadar seeming to have the same problem (trying to sink stuff into unsinkable into skulls, that is). Good luck.

We all, apparently, must take whatever torches are passed to us, OOB.

Yet some tasks are Sisyphean.

[Politigal]

We all, apparently, must take whatever torches are passed to us, OOB.

Yet some tasks are Sisyphean.

at least my vocabulary is expanding a little thx to you guys...lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

[J. J. in Phila]

1) how exactly would they prove he was in the house?
2) Patty (and possibly others) knew his passwords
3) and again, how would they prove it was him


Face it JJ - they cannot

1. He had a phone call while doing the search.

2. He responded to an e-mail. His response dealt with some subject to which he had specific knowledge.

3. It happened at a point where PEF was accounted for, so these "others" would not only need a password but a key to the house.

[2-B]

1. He had a phone call while doing the search.

2. He responded to an e-mail. His response dealt with some subject to which he had specific knowledge.

3. It happened at a point where PEF was accounted for, so these "others" would not only need a password but a key to the house.

#1. Remember this case, JJ? See my post #224. This guy had time-stamped cookies, an alibi witness, and a phone call witness:

Russell's alibi after he was charged consisted of three portions. First, his mother said that he was at home at 9:45 a.m. that day--which, if true, wouldn't have given him enough time to drive some 45 minutes to Shady Shores. Second, his brother said that he spoke to Russell on the house phone between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.

The third component of the alibi is what makes this case relevant to Police blotter. Russell claimed he was surfing the Web that morning, checking on an IRS income tax return and shopping online at Home Depot's and Lowe's Web sites.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Web-cookies-become-defendants-alibi/2100-1047_3-6129993.html?tag=mncol

Not only was he convicted, but he also lost his appeal.

So much for #1.

#2. Prove that someone else couldn't have answered the email.

#3. Prove that Gricar was there. Prove that Gricar didn't invite someone over, or that someone didn't stop over while Gricar was there. Prove that someone else didn't use the computer.

Much luck. High power prosecutorial teams have not been able to do this.

[Politigal]

I don't think I've seen it mentioned (although it may have been)..there's also the possibility of some sort of remote computer connectivity...

There are all sorts of programs out there where you can access one pc remotely from another.

[2-B]

I don't think I've seen it mentioned (although it may have been)..there's also the possibility of some sort of remote computer connectivity...

There are all sorts of programs out there where you can access one pc remotely from another.

Yep, Pgal. I saw that issue raised in the comments section of one of the CNET Police Blotter articles I found. Those techie folks saw right away (faster than I did, for sure) that a perfect defense to "He/She searched for X on the computer" is "Prove that I did it and not some bot program."

I don't think necessarily that there was any bot program automating searches on RG's computer. But it goes to show one more difficulty in actually proving he was the one who did the searches.

[Politigal]

Yep, Pgal. I saw that issue raised in the comments section of one of the CNET Police Blotter articles I found. Those techie folks saw right away (faster than I did, for sure) that a perfect defense to "He/She searched for X on the computer" is "Prove that I did it and not some bot program."

I don't think necessarily that there was any bot program automating searches on RG's computer. But it goes to show one more difficulty in actually proving he was the one who did the searches.

here's just a few of the programs -- they aren't really "bots"....

https://secure.logmein.com/products/pro/home2.asp?lang=en

LogMeIn Pro enables you to access work PCs securely over the web from anywhere with an Internet connection - at home, on the road, at customer sites or on vacation. Work as though you were right in front of your computer.

http://iremotepc.en.softonic.com/

RemotePC offers you unrestricted secure access and full view of your home/office PC via any web-browser from a distance. With iRemotePC, you have the ability to see and work on your PC in real-time and have immediate access to your files, emails and programs.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/mobility/getstarted/remoteintro.mspx

With Remote Desktop, you can connect to your work computer from home and access all of your programs, files, and network resources as though you were actually sitting in front of your computer at work.

http://pcnow.webex.com/remoteaccess-overview.html

WebEx PCNow gives you access to your PC or Mac regardless of where you are.
From any Internet-connected computer or mobile phone, you can quickly, easily and securely access and control your PC or Mac.

[2-B]

here's just a few of the programs -- they aren't really "bots"....



Sorry, Pgal. My mistake. I didn't realize you were referring to something different than what I'd read about on CNET.

The programs you're talking about could definitely muddy the waters, couldn't they?

[Politigal]

Sorry, Pgal. My mistake. I didn't realize you were referring to something different than what I'd read about on CNET.

The programs you're talking about could definitely muddy the waters, couldn't they?

Definitely...and the most interesting part to me is that you can access in some cases with a mobile phone.

[nittany90]

My question (and I am so not a technophile) is......would there be evidence left behind showing it was accessed from a mobile phone, or through a remote access program? For example, if I log onto my email from my cellphone, wouldn't my cellphone records show that internet activity?

Of course, in order to check the cellphone records/computer activity, you would have to know what cellphone or remote computer was used to request the access.

With the right records, though, might it be traceable?

If Rickard has proof that Gricar himself did the searches a month before his disappearance, real unrefutable proof (which I'm not convinced he CAN have) then why not just release the information? If Gricar himself did the searches, would releasing HOW they know that jeopardize the case in any way? The sad thing is, if they stamp the case as a "Walkaway" with no proof of Gricar's new existance, LE wouldn't have to have the evidence be "court-worthy" because there'd be no court case, right? No crime committed. No jury other than that of public opinion. Proof that he did the searches would not HAVE to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" factor. It can simply sound good and would fly, to most of the general public. And what would be left for the family and the rest of us?

I just want real evidence, proof pointing to whatever scenario, before the case is closed. Is that really too much to ask?

[J. J. in Phila]

#1. Remember this case, JJ? See my post #224. This guy had time-stamped cookies, an alibi witness, and a phone call witness:

Russell's alibi after he was charged consisted of three portions. First, his mother said that he was at home at 9:45 a.m. that day--which, if true, wouldn't have given him enough time to drive some 45 minutes to Shady Shores. Second, his brother said that he spoke to Russell on the house phone between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.

The third component of the alibi is what makes this case relevant to Police blotter. Russell claimed he was surfing the Web that morning, checking on an IRS income tax return and shopping online at Home Depot's and Lowe's Web sites.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Web-cookies-become-defendants-alibi/2100-1047_3-6129993.html?tag=mncol

Not only was he convicted, but he also lost his appeal.

So much for #1.

#2. Prove that someone else couldn't have answered the email.

#3. Prove that Gricar was there. Prove that Gricar didn't invite someone over, or that someone didn't stop over while Gricar was there. Prove that someone else didn't use the computer.

Much luck. High power prosecutorial teams have not been able to do this.

Did it ever occur to you that the witnesses here might not be family members, but might be other lawyers or even a judge, and that what they were discussing was very technical, beyond the average persons understanding?

Even the highest standard would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and this would meet it.

[Politigal]

My question (and I am so not a technophile) is......would there be evidence left behind showing it was accessed from a mobile phone, or through a remote access program? For example, if I log onto my email from my cellphone, wouldn't my cellphone records show that internet activity?

Of course, in order to check the cellphone records/computer activity, you would have to know what cellphone or remote computer was used to request the access.

With the right records, though, might it be traceable?

If Rickard has proof that Gricar himself did the searches a month before his disappearance, real unrefutable proof (which I'm not convinced he CAN have) then why not just release the information? If Gricar himself did the searches, would releasing HOW they know that jeopardize the case in any way? The sad thing is, if they stamp the case as a "Walkaway" with no proof of Gricar's new existance, LE wouldn't have to have the evidence be "court-worthy" because there'd be no court case, right? No crime committed. No jury other than that of public opinion. Proof that he did the searches would not HAVE to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" factor. It can simply sound good and would fly, to most of the general public. And what would be left for the family and the rest of us?

I just want real evidence, proof pointing to whatever scenario, before the case is closed. Is that really too much to ask?

I'm not sure if it would be traceable... But, the simplest way to use a remote connection is simply thru Windows XP. Gricar's home computer would just need to be turned on and remote enabled. And then the computer that is going to access it would need to do the following.

(Here are the instructions from Microsoft) -

To create a new connection
Open Remote Desktop Connection by clicking Start, clicking Programs or All Programs, clicking Accessories, and then clicking Remote Desktop Connection.
In the Computer box, type a computer name or IP address.
The computer can be a terminal server or it can be a computer running Windows Vista, Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (SP2), or Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) that has Remote Desktop enabled and for which you have Remote Desktop permissions.

Click Connect.
Depending on which version of Windows you are using, the Windows Security or the Log On to Windows dialog box appears.

In the Windows Security or Log On to Windows dialog box, type your user credentials (for example, user name, password, and domain), and then click OK or Submit.
Notes

To change your connection settings, (such as screen size, automatic logon information, and performance options), click Options before you connect. For more information, see To change connection settings.
You cannot use Remote Desktop Connection to connect to computers running Windows XP Home Edition.

But seriously, I don't think anyone went to this length. I think the bottom line is, there really is just no way to prove *who* actually did the searches on RG's home computer. Law enforcement have no way of actually proving who was in the home at the time, or who was sitting at the computer.

[2-B]

If Rickard has proof that Gricar himself did the searches a month before his disappearance, real unrefutable proof (which I'm not convinced he CAN have) then why not just release the information? If Gricar himself did the searches, would releasing HOW they know that jeopardize the case in any way? The sad thing is, if they stamp the case as a "Walkaway" with no proof of Gricar's new existance, LE wouldn't have to have the evidence be "court-worthy" because there'd be no court case, right? No crime committed. No jury other than that of public opinion. Proof that he did the searches would not HAVE to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" factor. It can simply sound good and would fly, to most of the general public. And what would be left for the family and the rest of us?

I just want real evidence, proof pointing to whatever scenario, before the case is closed. Is that really too much to ask?

This is exactly what I have been saying, N90. The difference between the Gricar situation and every court case I've found with computer searches as part of the argument against a defendent is, precisely, court.

[2-B]

Did it ever occur to you that the witnesses here might not be family members, but might be other lawyers or even a judge, and that what they were discussing was very technical, beyond the average persons understanding?

Even the highest standard would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and this would meet it.

Lawyers and people involved with the law were a dime a dozen in Gricar's circle. Prove that it was Gricar and not some other lawyer or law type person.

[nittany90]

This is exactly what I have been saying, N90. The difference between the Gricar situation and every court case I've found with computer searches as part of the argument against a defendent is, precisely, court.

Troubling, 2B, to say the very least. If anything could make this case sadder (and more frustrating) that would be it. If the investigation doesn't produce a suspect, no court proceedings necessary. No need to shoulder the burden of proof. No court proceedings, no judge/jury evalution of the evidence/suspect. No need to prove anything. Wrapped up in a neat little package and delivered to MM as a feather in his political cap. Lovely.

I think I know the answer, but if that happened, and if the family was so inclined, would they have any basis for a lawsuit against the BPD and/or DA's office for "dereliction of duty/negligence/slander" based upon the poor investigation?" Without a doubt, Gricar's personal and professional reputation would be ruined, based upon no proof proffered by the investigators.

[Politigal]

Troubling, 2B, to say the very least. If anything could make this case sadder (and more frustrating) that would be it. If the investigation doesn't produce a suspect, no court proceedings necessary. No need to shoulder the burden of proof. No court proceedings, no judge/jury evalution of the evidence/suspect. No need to prove anything. Wrapped up in a neat little package and delivered to MM as a feather in his political cap. Lovely.

I think I know the answer, but if that happened, and if the family was so inclined, would they have any basis for a lawsuit against the BPD and/or DA's office for "dereliction of duty/negligence/slander" based upon the poor investigation?" Without a doubt, Gricar's personal and professional reputation would be ruined, based upon no proof proffered by the investigators.

Hopefully, OOBrett could chime in on this one...

[2-B]

I think I know the answer, but if that happened, and if the family was so inclined, would they have any basis for a lawsuit against the BPD and/or DA's office for "dereliction of duty/negligence/slander" based upon the poor investigation?" Without a doubt, Gricar's personal and professional reputation would be ruined, based upon no proof proffered by the investigators.

I wish I knew the answer in the United States and specifically in Pennsylvania. Maybe OOB can help.

In the UK, the answer would be spelled out:

3.1 DUTY OF POSITIVE ACTION
The Human Rights Act 1998 places a positive obligation on police officers to take reasonable action within their powers, to safeguard the rights of individuals who may be at risk. Those rights that may be relevant to missing persons are: the right to life (Article 2. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)): the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR); the right to prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 ECHR); the right to private and family life (Article 8 ECHR) and, the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to receive information (Article 10 ECHR). Failure to thoroughly investigate a report of a missing person may leave an individual at risk and the police service vulnerable to a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act or the law relating to negligence. Where a missing person has been identified as being high or medium risk, positive action becomes an obligation at every stage of a missing person investigation.

http://74.125.113.132/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#27

Using the UK's parameters, RG would fit into the medium risk category at the very least.