Evidence of passing

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm starting a new thread, since we were off topic.

JJ, He got to Lewisburg without being seen and having evidence, why couldn't he have left without any? You keep asking it but I must be slow, I don't know what more you want us to say or do?

There was evidence. People saw him in Lewisburg and driving the Mini. The Mini itself is a key piece. It was in Lewisburg.

I don't think anyone will dispute that the Mini was in Bellefonte during that week. I doubt that anyone will dispute that the Mini was in Lewisburg on 4/16/05. That was evidence of the Mini's passing into Lewisburg. Anyone who drove the Mini to Lewisburg had to be in Bellefonte to drive the Mini to Lewisburg. There is another piece of evidence. The Mini wasn't in Bellefonte.

Now, whomever drove that Mini to Lewisburg (unless they lived there), had to get out of Lewisburg. If it was RFG, there will be evidence that he left. If he acted alone, something, another vehicle, in Lewisburg will have left with him.

If it was RFG, and he had help, it is very likely that only a very few people would have helped him, and kept quiet about it.

Eliminate the people that could have helped him, eliminate the possibility of another vehicle, and RFG did not get out of Lewisburg. It doesn't make any real difference if he was ever there or not. You just have to show it was very unlikely that he got out.

[J. J. in Phila]

Walking is a definite option, assuming Gricar was in Lewisburg in the first place. And maybe while you are at it, you could check out the bicycle thefts as well.

A short distance, yes. If we were talking about RFG being in Milton, maybe. It would be difficult to walk for 3-4 days without being spotted. I have not heard of any reports of a "mountain man" walking around in the Lewisburg area.

Same with hitchhiking, there would probably be reports of this middle aged man walking along the road.

[Politigal]

There were no reports of a middle-aged man driving a Mini Cooper *out* of Bellefonte.....

[Serendipitous1]

Getting out of Lewisburg is as easy as two legs or an anonymous, totally untraceable helper. Prove me wrong.

[J. J. in Phila]

Getting out of Lewisburg is as easy as two legs or an anonymous, totally untraceable helper. Prove me wrong.

Where do you sleep unseen? Where do eat unseen? How do you keep you scent from being detected?

It's there.

I'm sure MM is hanging on every point of your claim.

[J. J. in Phila]

There were no reports of a middle-aged man driving a Mini Cooper *out* of Bellefonte.....

Makes no difference, since the Mini was in Lewisburg. It had to get there somehow. And there were reports, multiple of a middle aged man, identified as RFG driving it in Lewisburg.

[Politigal]

Makes no difference, since the Mini was in Lewisburg. It had to get there somehow. And there were reports, multiple of a middle aged man, identified as RFG driving it in Lewisburg.

and none were corroborated

It could easily have been a middle-aged woman who drove the Mini.

[J. J. in Phila]

I should add one other point refuting S1's post. Where to go 4-7 days afterward?

[J. J. in Phila]

and none were corroborated

It could easily have been a middle-aged woman who drove the Mini.

Yes they were. There was witness corroboration in six of them involving the Mini, minimum.

Now we're back to someone putting on their Ray Gricar mask.

That really doesn't make a difference, however, to the point. If it wasn't RFG in Lewisburg, he couldn't have walked away from Lewisburg.

[Politigal]

Yes they were. There was witness corroboration in six of them involving the Mini, minimum.

Now we're back to someone putting on their Ray Gricar mask.

That really doesn't make a difference, however, to the point. If it wasn't RFG in Lewisburg, he couldn't have walked away from Lewisburg.

And your last line says it all IMO. Because I don't believe he was ever there that weekend.

[J. J. in Phila]

And your last line says it all IMO. Because I don't believe he was ever there that weekend.

What you believe really doesn't have a bearing on what happened.

If RFG didn't walk away, then it is probably murder.

If RFG walked away, there will probably be evidence of how he got of Lewisburg.

Therefor, if there is no evidence that RFG got out of Lewisburg, then it was probably murder.

The police are not saying if there is no evidence that that RFG got out of Lewisburg.

[Serendipitous1]

Where do you sleep unseen? Where do eat unseen? How do you keep you scent from being detected?

It's there.

I'm sure MM is hanging on every point of your claim.It would be flattering if MM was hanging on to to my every rambling statement. Hey Madeira...you are a dufus (can you hear me now?)! But somehow I think he, and you, are not getting the message. Centre County desperately needs a new DA. That person is Stacy Parks Miller. And I trust only her to give the public the real lowdown on the Gricar mess.

[J. J. in Phila]

It would be flattering if MM was hanging on to to my every rambling statement. Hey Madeira...you are a dufus (can you hear me now?)! But somehow I think he, and you, are not getting the message. Centre County desperately needs a new DA. That person is Stacy Parks Miller. And I trust only her to give the public the real lowdown on the Gricar mess.


I've obviously answered your question. Walkaway will leave evidence.

[2-B]

A walkaway might leave evidence.

But no one can argue that a walkaway would definitely, 100% be certain to leave evidence.

And therein lies the rub with JJ's plan of attack on this particular problem.

The absence of evidence of a walkaway does not prove that a walkaway did not happen. It proves only that evidence of a walkaway was not found.

S1 is correct. Motive has to be considered. It's irrelevant that motive for a crime is not necessary for a court case to be built. In missing persons' cases, motive for walkaway is always, or should always be, considered.

Dateline recently featured a twenty-two year old missing persons' cold case that was just solved through the dogged determination of one amazing detective. A thirteen-year-old girl had disappeared, and the case was essentially written off as a walkaway, even though she was described as a poster child for the kind of teenager who would never run away from home. Two friends of the girl had given police all the information they needed at the time she disappeared to pinpoint her abductor and murderer, but they were ignored in favor of the runaway theory. As a result, she spent twenty-two years in an unmarked grave and her family suffered for twenty-years not knowing where she was or what had become of her. Shameful!

What the Gricar case needs is its equivalent of Derek McLaughlin, the detective in the missing girl's case. He wouldn't quit until her family was able to know what had really happened to her. That is what Ray Gricar's family deserves.

[J. J. in Phila]

It's more than might leave evidence. It probably would leave evidence. That probability is exceptionally high, probably beyond a reasonable doubt that there would be evidence.

If that evidence isn't there, he probably didn't walk away.

While motive is not necessary to show, there may be two, singularly or in combination.

1. A desire of RFG to show just how brilliant he is and fool Central PA's entire LE establishment. A battle of wits (that he's winning so far). He gets to pull off the "perfect crime," with the added advantage that it isn't criminal (interestingly, a theme in 20/20 Vision).

2. Money. We know what his public income was in the eight years prior to 4/15/05. While he was divorced, wife # 2 worked, so their household income was higher. Even looking a favorable settlement to his wife, RFG should have some assets left. He could have had some hidden assets.

In that regard, no one is releasing the financial data. I understand, and don't disagree, but from what is public, there should be more.

There might be other motives, that we know nothing of. I never did a Vulcan mind meld with RFG. Did you?

As RFG once said to Judge Lunsford, ""Motive, your honor, is something we never have to prove."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040430192511/www.post-gazette.com/neigh_north/20020530deerlakes4.asp

[2-B]

^^^ Despite all your repeated emphasis over the years on means of getting out of Lewisburg, two concepts have always been absent from your arguments on that issue:

1) Choose the word might. Choose the word probably. Choose whatever word you want with regard to leaving evidence of means out of Lewisburg.

But until and unless you can choose would, as in 100% probability, no exceptions, this line of thinking is impotent except in its potential for uncovering a possible means out of Lewisburg. The reverse can never be true. Failure to uncover means will never be of any investigatory value in this case.

Why? Because S1 is correct, as are all the others here who have tried to point out the variety of means Gricar had out of Lewisburg which wouldn't necessarily leave any trail to be uncovered. S1 has mentioned a few in a recent post. I'll add a few others. He could have had a helper with tight lips and no timeline that can be accounted for. (Someone who is retired, on disability leave, working freelance, working third shift, etc. would have no work hours to account for; someone without a SO or with an SO at work would have no SO to question an absence.) He could have hitched a ride with someone who had no knowledge of the case and no idea who RG was (and I vaguely remember a case where something on that order happened and wasn't uncovered until long after the case was solved).

2) Unless you can start your search for means out of Lewisburg with hard evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15, every bit of reasoning that follows thereafter is based on a faulty premise. Short of actually finding that Gricar used method X to leave Lewisburg on 4/15 or 4/16 (and that would be hard evidence he was there if it can be proven he used some specific method to leave Lewisburg), you are still at square one if you fail to find the means out. There is no hard evidence he was there to begin with. How can anyone possibly hope to reason, then, that failure to find the way he got out of Lewisburg translates into X, Y, or Z in terms of what happened to him? It cannot logically be done without first having irrefutable proof that he was there to start with. And that irrefutable proof does not exist, at least not in anything that has been released to the public.

With regard to motive, that has to be examined in the context of character. Perhaps you should take a look at the UK's national policy on missing persons. The UK doesn't mock looking at the character of the missing person as doing some kind of Vulcan mind meld.

Instead, the UK points out that LE should consider whether behavior is out of character because it is often a strong indicator of risk. The UK tells investigating officers to consider whether the circumstances of going missing are different from normal behavior patterns.

This absence was clearly out of character for RG and clearly different from normal behavior patterns. Forget the one-time trip to see the Cleveland Indians game. We know it was out of character and different from normal behavior patterns because of PF's reactions on 4/15. She was concerned by 5 p.m. and frantic by early evening, leaving dozens of messages on his voice mail. Clearly, Gricar's routine behavior was to be where he was expected to be, and when he wasn't, PF was frantic enough to call in a missing persons' report by 11:30 that night.

We also know the disappearance is out of character because of his relationship with his adult daughter. This is a man who spoke with his daughter at least three times a week, who instructed his staff to patch her through immediately if she called or face the consequences.

We know it's out of character with regard to the rest of his family. If you don't think Tony and Ray's other nephews are still being hurt by the disappearance, think again.

And we know it's out of character with regard to his sense of responsibility to his work as a district attorney. Is the man who "just disappeared" the same one KA saw try a case when he was clearly ill or the one who made it on time to a trial the morning all four of his tires were slashed?

Prosecutors don't have to prove a motive in bringing a case to trial. But as the UK national policy on missing persons clearly shows, whether a missing person has a motive to disappear himself/herself is absolutely something investigators need to consider.

An assertion that Ray Gricar, who never sought the limelight, wanted to become a legend by disappearing paints an out of character picture of the man.

And money? How would he gain monetarily by disappearing? He would have been far richer by staying to collect his retirement funds at the end of 2005.

[Cloudbuster]

In speaking about RG's way out of Lewisburg, where does the newer bridge nearby transport their cars too? Is it by rail tracks to where? Or do they mean cars? If railcars where do they end up at? ECT.

[J. J. in Phila]

^^^ Despite all your repeated emphasis over the years on means of getting out of Lewisburg, two concepts have always been absent from your arguments on that issue:

1) Choose the word might. Choose the word probably. Choose whatever word you want with regard to leaving evidence of means out of Lewisburg.

But until and unless you can choose would, as in 100% probability, no exceptions, this line of thinking is impotent except in its potential for uncovering a possible means out of Lewisburg. The reverse can never be true. Failure to uncover means will never be of any investigatory value in this case.

Why? Because S1 is correct, as are all the others here who have tried to point out the variety of means Gricar had out of Lewisburg which wouldn't necessarily leave any trail to be uncovered. S1 has mentioned a few in a recent post. I'll add a few others. He could have had a helper with tight lips and no timeline that can be accounted for. (Someone who is retired, on disability leave, working freelance, working third shift, etc. would have no work hours to account for; someone without a SO or with an SO at work would have no SO to question an absence.) He could have hitched a ride with someone who had no knowledge of the case and no idea who RG was (and I vaguely remember a case where something on that order happened and wasn't uncovered until long after the case was solved).


Wrong, as noted. There is a huge probability that there would be a trail.


2) Unless you can start your search for means out of Lewisburg with hard evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15, every bit of reasoning that follows thereafter is based on a faulty premise. Short of actually finding that Gricar used method X to leave Lewisburg on 4/15 or 4/16 (and that would be hard evidence he was there if it can be proven he used some specific method to leave Lewisburg), you are still at square one if you fail to find the means out. There is no hard evidence he was there to begin with. How can anyone possibly hope to reason, then, that failure to find the way he got out of Lewisburg translates into X, Y, or Z in terms of what happened to him? It cannot logically be done without first having irrefutable proof that he was there to start with. And that irrefutable proof does not exist, at least not in anything that has been released to the public.

With regard to motive, that has to be examined in the context of character. Perhaps you should take a look at the UK's national policy on missing persons. The UK doesn't mock looking at the character of the missing person as doing some kind of Vulcan mind meld.

Instead, the UK points out that LE should consider whether behavior is out of character because it is often a strong indicator of risk. The UK tells investigating officers to consider whether the circumstances of going missing are different from normal behavior patterns.

This absence was clearly out of character for RG and clearly different from normal behavior patterns. Forget the one-time trip to see the Cleveland Indians game. We know it was out of character and different from normal behavior patterns because of PF's reactions on 4/15. She was concerned by 5 p.m. and frantic by early evening, leaving dozens of messages on his voice mail. Clearly, Gricar's routine behavior was to be where he was expected to be, and when he wasn't, PF was frantic enough to call in a missing persons' report by 11:30 that night.

We also know the disappearance is out of character because of his relationship with his adult daughter. This is a man who spoke with his daughter at least three times a week, who instructed his staff to patch her through immediately if she called or face the consequences.

We know it's out of character with regard to the rest of his family. If you don't think Tony and Ray's other nephews are still being hurt by the disappearance, think again.

And we know it's out of character with regard to his sense of responsibility to his work as a district attorney. Is the man who "just disappeared" the same one KA saw try a case when he was clearly ill or the one who made it on time to a trial the morning all four of his tires were slashed?

Prosecutors don't have to prove a motive in bringing a case to trial. But as the UK national policy on missing persons clearly shows, whether a missing person has a motive to disappear himself/herself is absolutely something investigators need to consider.

An assertion that Ray Gricar, who never sought the limelight, wanted to become a legend by disappearing paints an out of character picture of the man.

And money? How would he gain monetarily by disappearing? He would have been far richer by staying to collect his retirement funds at the end of 2005.

Well, he gets to become a legend and not be in the limelight. It is not out of character for him to match wits with others. He'd been doing that for more than a quarter of a century. Some people enjoy the game.

The question is money, one that has been discouraged. I don't access to it, but others do.

As for Lewisburg, there is solid evidence he was there.

[2-B]

Wrong, as noted. There is a huge probability that there would be a trail.

You still having trouble grasping the difference between probability and certainty, I see. Probability, no matter how high, gets you nowhere.

Well, he gets to become a legend and not be in the limelight. It is not out of character for him to match wits with others. He'd been doing that for more than a quarter of a century. Some people enjoy the game.

Lots of people enjoy matching wits. Doesn't mean they would abandon their families and other loved ones or their responsibilities to do so.

In Gricar's case, abandoning his daughter and his nephews and abandoning his responsibilities to his career--those things are OUT OF CHARACTER.

The UK national policy is correct in instructing investigators that out of character behavior is a strong indicator of risk.

The question is money, one that has been discouraged. I don't access to it, but others do.

Translation needed. This makes no sense, nor did your earlier claim that money was a motivation for walkaway. Gricar would have been financially better off collecting his retirement funds no matter how you slice it. Money is no motivation to walk away, unless you're suggesting that someone paid him significant amounts to disappear or suggesting that he left with some rich sugar mama who's keeping him in some luxurious lifestyle (which was never his style anyway).

As for Lewisburg, there is solid evidence he was there.

Keep telling yourself that. The rest of us will deal with the reality that there is no hard evidence of Gricar's presence in Lewisburg, only the suggestion he was there, the possibility he was there.

Suggestion and possibility do not equal solid evidence. There's nothing even close to beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise so many good thinkers you see on this very forum would not have so many doubts about whether Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15. Your belief that he was there is just that--your belief.

But your belief is not backed up by anything that does not have an equally plausible alternative explanation--hence the reasonable doubt.

[J. J. in Phila]

On assets, most people looking at the case cannot match the claimed amount left with RFG's income. I'm not the only one saying it, nor the first.

Sorry, Lewisburg on 4/15 is beyond a reasonable doubt. Even those folks that are positive that RFG was murdered, Buehner, for example, think he was there, simply because there is enough evidence.

[2-B]

On assets, most people looking at the case cannot match the claimed amount left with RFG's income. I'm not the only one saying it, nor the first.

We all know that some people claim Gricar's assets don't match his income.

How is that a motive for walkaway? It might be supporting evidence of walkaway, but hardly motive.

Typical motives for adult walkaway: financial problems, love relationship problems, financial fraud, running from the law, etc.

If Gricar stashed money away (and I'm not saying he did), that's not a motive unless he embezzled the money from somewhere. You're not implying embezzlement since you're saying you believe he actually earned money that isn't showing up in his accounts.

Can you come up with an actual motive for Ray Gricar to walk away from his daughter, his nephews, the last eight months of the career he'd been so dedicated to, his retirement funds, the woman he'd supposedly told friends had finally brought him "true love", the retirement he had planned with no alarm clock and traveling with the aforementioned girlfriend to visit his beloved daughter, etc.?

What real motive would he have to abandon all those things? Stashing some of his salary wouldn't explain anything except a means to get started on a new life. It's not motive.

Sorry, Lewisburg on 4/15 is beyond a reasonable doubt. Even those folks that are positive that RFG was murdered, Buehner, for example, think he was there, simply because there is enough evidence.

If Lewisburg on 4/15 is "beyond a reasonable doubt," why did Dixon say there was no actual proof Gricar was there and that LE was simply assuming that he was?

If Lewisburg on 4/15 is "beyond a reasonable doubt," why are there perfectly plausible alternative explanations for the slim things you offer as evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg on that day?

If Lewisburg on 4/15 is "beyond a reasonable doubt," why do reasonable, intelligent people on this board and elsewhere have doubts about whether he was actually there?

Reasonable doubt is ultimately not a legal concept a single person--you--can arrive at. On a jury, reasonable doubt would be decided by twelve people. Out of twelve regular posters on this forum, I wouldn't be surprised if at least half of them have a reasonable doubt as to whether Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15.

You are unable or unwilling to understand the reasonable alternative explanations for your so-called evidence that Gricar was there. Others are not.

[J. J. in Phila]

I do, and so did the former investigating officer and the current District Attorney of Montour County, who is quite convinced RFG was murdered (and he may be right).

I'll ask the question again, what evidence do have that refutes the claim that RFG was someplace else or could not have been in Lewisburg on 4/15/05? It doesn't have to be too strong. Just something beyond opinion.

[2-B]

I'll ask the question again, what evidence do have that refutes the claim that RFG was someplace else or could not have been in Lewisburg on 4/15/05? It doesn't have to be too strong. Just something beyond opinion.

That's not "the" question. It may be "your" question, but that's not how things would proceed if some prosecution were in court trying to prove to a jury that Gricar had been in Lewisburg on 4/15.

The prosecution would offer whatever evidence it had. In your case, that would purportedly be a) the witnesses and b) the scent in the parking lot.

The defense would a) cross-examine on those points and b) present its own evidence regarding the weaknesses of eyewitness identifications and a dog handling expert to testify that Gricar's scent could very possibly have been the result of his vehicle being in the lot, even if Gricar was never there.

The jury would be the trier of fact and decide whether the poor rate of accurate witness identifications in missing persons' cases and the dog handler testimony amounted to reasonable doubt.

[Politigal]

I don't believe Gricar's presence in Lewisburg on April 15, 2005, has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt through what's been reported in credible media.

credible and accurate....seem to be tough shoes to fill these days

[Politigal]

That's not "the" question. It may be "your" question, but that's not how things would proceed if some prosecution were in court trying to prove to a jury that Gricar had been in Lewisburg on 4/15.

The prosecution would offer whatever evidence it had. In your case, that would purportedly be a) the witnesses and b) the scent in the parking lot.

The defense would a) cross-examine on those points and b) present its own evidence regarding the weaknesses of eyewitness identifications and a dog handling expert to testify that Gricar's scent could very possibly have been the result of his vehicle being in the lot, even if Gricar was never there.

The jury would be the trier of fact and decide whether the poor rate of accurate witness identifications in missing persons' cases and the dog handler testimony amounted to reasonable doubt.

very nicely put...and simple enough for anyone to understand

[sherrijean981]

I read public transportation was checked, and assume that means transportation out of Lewisburg, such as Greyhound Bus and auto rental businesses, possibly the smaller airports.

What about the local cab company, Aurora at the time? Were their log books ever checked to see if there was someone who needed a ride to a location near a local auto dealership, possibly too far to walk? Can't think that a man used to hiking the mountains and walking would need to take a cab, but am curious as to whether those logs were ever checked. Not certain how far out of town a cab will take someone but if it then borders on another area, such as Sunbury where there is another cab company, that certainly broadens the area.

I have been checking out the auto lots down Route 45 near Mifflinburg into Lewisburg area on Google Earth, since the satellite scan is April 9, 2005, six days before disappearance. Checking for anything that might match the metallic gold or silver Fenton claims she saw him in, and see nothing of those I can view. Unfortunately, the lot I want to view past Aaronsburg, business name beginning with a Z, can't be seen through the Centre County 'blur'. Just thinking----------if the travel route was 45, may have been a specific reason for choosing that route, IF it was him in that area.
JMO


Is this lot you want to see between Aaronsburg and Woodward? I have a friend that lives just past Aaronsburg but the only place I remember having cars down there was Cowher's Garage and I don't know if they sell cars or just repair. There were a lot of junk cars the last time I went that route. It is also at the end of Woodward on Rt 45 going into the mountain.

I will get iin touch with her.

[sherrijean981]

In speaking about RG's way out of Lewisburg, where does the newer bridge nearby transport their cars too? Is it by rail tracks to where? Or do they mean cars? If railcars where do they end up at? ECT.


CB I am in agreement with S1. I too don't know what you mean. The bridges are what we travel on, Rt 45 would go to Danville. The railroad bridge goes nowhere, but had gone over the river. The other bridge S1 said about goes to Rt 15, in either direction.
If large trucks are allowed on these bridges, which Rt 45 probably does, they could use car carriers to transport cars going to car dealers from I-80, Rt 45, Rt 11/15, Rt 192 north - south- east and west.

By the way, couldn't get an email through to you, it came back. Must be loaded again.

[J. J. in Phila]

That's not "the" question. It may be "your" question, but that's not how things would proceed if some prosecution were in court trying to prove to a jury that Gricar had been in Lewisburg on 4/15.

The prosecution would offer whatever evidence it had. In your case, that would purportedly be a) the witnesses and b) the scent in the parking lot.

The defense would a) cross-examine on those points and b) present its own evidence regarding the weaknesses of eyewitness identifications and a dog handling expert to testify that Gricar's scent could very possibly have been the result of his vehicle being in the lot, even if Gricar was never there.

The jury would be the trier of fact and decide whether the poor rate of accurate witness identifications in missing persons' cases and the dog handler testimony amounted to reasonable doubt.

The rate of witness error, for multiple witnesses, is not that high and the fact that dog detected RFG's scent is unlikely to be wrong.

That is why even those those folks, like Buehner, who absolutely believe RFG was murdered, still say he was there. Sorry, but the more you try to contact a scenario where the all the witnesses are wrong, the dog handler (and dog) were wrong, the more people will dismiss it.

[Politigal]

The rate of witness error, for multiple witnesses, is not that high and the fact that dog detected RFG's scent is unlikely to be wrong.

That is why even those those folks, like Buehner, who absolutely believe RFG was murdered, still say he was there. Sorry, but the more you try to contact a scenario where the all the witnesses are wrong, the dog handler (and dog) were wrong, the more people will dismiss it.

JJ, it really doesn't matter what you say, or what Buehner says, or what any of us say.

We are *not* privy to the evidence. What evidence we *are* privy to....does not show Ray Gricar was anywhere after Thursday night.

Period.

[Serendipitous1]

JJ, it really doesn't matter what you say, or what Buehner says, or what any of us say.

We are *not* privy to the evidence. What evidence we *are* privy to....does not show Ray Gricar was anywhere after Thursday night.

Period.Quite true. And now it is up to the voters in Centre County. Is MM being "up front" in the Gricar matter? Not in a million years!

At this point I do not care who the next DA of Centre County is, so long as it is not MM. But if I were a Centre County voter I would choose Stacy Parks Miller...now and in the fall.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, it really doesn't matter what you say, or what Buehner says, or what any of us say.

We are *not* privy to the evidence. What evidence we *are* privy to....does not show Ray Gricar was anywhere after Thursday night.

Period.


Wrong again. There is evidence for 4/15 and some until 4/18/05.

[2-B]

The rate of witness error, for multiple witnesses, is not that high

Your basis for making this statement?

To my knowledge, no scientific studies exist on witness error rate, multiple or otherwise, in missing persons' cases. We can only look to sightings (multiple and otherwise) in MP cases, and to experts with years of experience handling such cases. Those factors tell us that even single valid witness sightings in MP cases are extremely rare.

A few scientific studies have looked at multiple witness identifications in criminal cases, but the findings cannot be transferred to MP cases. The variables in those studies include witness non-identifications and conclude that addition of non-identifying witnesses reduce the probability of guilt more than addition of identifying witnesses increases the probability of guilt.

Obviously, unless LE went around Lewisburg asking people if they saw the same person witnesses identified as RG and had some of them say, "No, that wasn't RG," those studies have no application whatsoever to the Lewisburg sightings. And it is highly unlikely anything of the sort happened.

I would, however, suggest you google the case of Kirk Bloodsworth if you want to see how wrong multiple witnesses in a criminal case can be.


and the fact that dog detected RFG's scent is unlikely to be wrong.

You're not understanding what an expert in scent theory would testify to, which is that the dogs could identify Gricar's scent in the parking lot without Gricar ever having set foot there.

That is why even those those folks, like Buehner, who absolutely believe RFG was murdered, still say he was there. Sorry, but the more you try to contact a scenario where the all the witnesses are wrong, the dog handler (and dog) were wrong, the more people will dismiss it.

No one has to concoct a scenario where the witnesses could all be mistaken. That is what typically and usually happens with witness sightings in an MP case. That is what is more likely than not to be the case. And therefore, on the issue of the witnesses, most intelligent, thinking people would have reasonable doubt as to whether the witness sightings were valid identifications, especially if they heard expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification.

And no one on these boards has ever said the dog handler or the dogs were wrong, with one exception. You have argued that the dogs couldn't work a less than 48 hour trail or that dogs who were almost certainly certified to work drop trails on a highway somehow got bamboozled by cars in a tiny parking lot. The bottom line on the scent evidence is that there is a plausible alternative explanation for the dogs picking up Gricar's scent in the lot, and that leads to reasonable doubt.

None of this needs to be made up, concocted, twisted, invented, or whatever. It is simply a matter of what is true and factual, and a matter of what creates reasonable doubt for many intelligent, thinking people on this issue of whether Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg.

What's interesting to me is that, while many have expressed their reasonable doubt, I don't recall anyone on these boards ever arguing "Ray Gricar was definitely NOT in Lewisburg on 4/15." I honestly don't think anyone takes that position.

Yet from your very first posts on this board in September 2006, you have argued vociferously that Ray Gricar HAD to have been in Lewisburg on 4/15 and that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt he was there--despite all the evidence for plausible alternative explanations.

[Cloudbuster]

RE" post 30 SJ. I read early on in the CDT that a abandoned old bridge is near a newer bridge that carries cars accross it and I was wondering what they meant by cars like as in railroad cars or cars going accross a bridge lol. I will have to refind the article then you will be able to see what I mean roflmao. My email keeps clogging up from searches and classes Im in lol. I keep cleaning it out though. I have no more room in my favorites. Researching can take up the whole puter in this case lolThanks!

[Politigal]

Your basis for making this statement?

To my knowledge, no scientific studies exist on witness error rate, multiple or otherwise, in missing persons' cases. We can only look to sightings (multiple and otherwise) in MP cases, and to experts with years of experience handling such cases. Those factors tell us that even single valid witness sightings in MP cases are extremely rare.

A few scientific studies have looked at multiple witness identifications in criminal cases, but the findings cannot be transferred to MP cases. The variables in those studies include witness non-identifications and conclude that addition of non-identifying witnesses reduce the probability of guilt more than addition of identifying witnesses increases the probability of guilt.

Obviously, unless LE went around Lewisburg asking people if they saw the same person witnesses identified as RG and had some of them say, "No, that wasn't RG," those studies have no application whatsoever to the Lewisburg sightings. And it is highly unlikely anything of the sort happened.

I would, however, suggest you google the case of Kirk Bloodsworth if you want to see how wrong multiple witnesses in a criminal case can be.




You're not understanding what an expert in scent theory would testify to, which is that the dogs could identify Gricar's scent in the parking lot without Gricar ever having set foot there.



No one has to concoct a scenario where the witnesses could all be mistaken. That is what typically and usually happens with witness sightings in an MP case. That is what is more likely than not to be the case. And therefore, on the issue of the witnesses, most intelligent, thinking people would have reasonable doubt as to whether the witness sightings were valid identifications, especially if they heard expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification.

And no one on these boards has ever said the dog handler or the dogs were wrong, with one exception. You have argued that the dogs couldn't work a less than 48 hour trail or that dogs who were almost certainly certified to work drop trails on a highway somehow got bamboozled by cars in a tiny parking lot. The bottom line on the scent evidence is that there is a plausible alternative explanation for the dogs picking up Gricar's scent in the lot, and that leads to reasonable doubt.

None of this needs to be made up, concocted, twisted, invented, or whatever. It is simply a matter of what is true and factual, and a matter of what creates reasonable doubt for many intelligent, thinking people on this issue of whether Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg.

What's interesting to me is that, while many have expressed their reasonable doubt, I don't recall anyone on these boards ever arguing "Ray Gricar was definitely NOT in Lewisburg on 4/15." I honestly don't think anyone takes that position.

Yet from your very first posts on this board in September 2006, you have argued vociferously that Ray Gricar HAD to have been in Lewisburg on 4/15 and that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt he was there--despite all the evidence for plausible alternative explanations.

awesome post as usual 2-B

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B, after literally dozens of claims about how terrible eyewitnesses are, how the "science" claims it, how it doesn't make any difference what a veteran prosecutor thinks about them, it still comes back to there being a very low error rate, one that puts it well beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry, but this pushed in the conspiracy theory realm, and didn't take any pushing.

[Serendipitous1]

awesome post as usual 2-BDitto that. Is there any way we could cede Philadelphia to New Jersey?

[Politigal]

Ditto that. Is there any way we could cede Philadelphia to New Jersey?

I'd prefer Kamchatka :laugh:

[2-B]

2-B, after literally dozens of claims about how terrible eyewitnesses are, how the "science" claims it, how it doesn't make any difference what a veteran prosecutor thinks about them, it still comes back to there being a very low error rate, one that puts it well beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry, but this pushed in the conspiracy theory realm, and didn't take any pushing.

If you have evidence there's a low error rate of witness identifications in missing persons' cases, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble posting a list of cases where police confirmed eyewitness ID's of missing people after they disappeared.

After extensive research, here's the list I've compiled of confirmed post-disappearance eyewitness ID's in the U.S. for missing people:


David Edgar Landis, a mentally handicapped man who wandered away. Confirmed by K-9 Unit.
Hannah Upp, a mentally disturbed young woman who disappeared, likely suicidal. Confirmed by person known to Upp and by video.
Elizabeth Smart, abuducted. Confirmed by LE face-to-face and by family.
Shasta Groene, abducted. Confirmed by LE face-to-face.
Brandon Patton, circumstances unclear. This is a current case, with the sighting confirmed on April 14 of this year. Confirmed by family review of video.


That's five LE confirmed sightings of missing people in the U.S.

I'd list the thousands upon thousands of witness sightings of missing people that turned out to be inaccurate, but that would take up a lot of space. Googling any high profile MP case will take you to those numbers, though.

We await evidence for your claim that there's a very low error rate for witness identifications in missing persons' cases. Thanks in advance.

[2-B]

One other thing, JJ. Here is the exact wording from the flyer put out by the Bellefonte Police Department with regard to sightings of Gricar:

There have been “sightings" of Ray over the past two years (unconfirmed).

http://bellefonte.net/departments/police/criminal-investigations/current-investigations/

I call your attention to two items above.

The word sightings is in quotations marks.

The word unconfirmed is used to describe the sightings.

[J. J. in Phila]

One other thing, JJ. Here is the exact wording from the flyer put out by the Bellefonte Police Department with regard to sightings of Gricar:

There have been “sightings" of Ray over the past two years (unconfirmed).

http://bellefonte.net/departments/police/criminal-investigations/current-investigations/

I call your attention to two items above.

The word sightings is in quotations marks.

The word unconfirmed is used to describe the sightings.

First, we are notdiscussing the numerous sightings of RFG in the two years after he disappeared, only those withing the 96 hours after that.

Second, we have the statement from DZ that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/16/05. He used the word "definitely." That does not sound "unconfirmed."

Third, UTR before you insisted that there were "scientific studies" showing a high error rate of multiple eyewitnesses. When asked, she could not produce any. When I looked, I found at least one that said just the opposite. Okay, where are these studies? Do you have a secret source?

[2-B]

No scientific studies exist with regard to witnesses in missing persons' cases. Data from criminal witness studies cannot be automatically extrapolated to MP witnesses. This has been pointed out.

We can only use a) actual cases and b) LE experts with significant experience in MP cases. These both show that even single accurate witness ID's in MP cases are highly unusual.

Your claim is this: "it still comes back to there being a very low error rate, one that puts it well beyond a reasonable doubt."

If the error rate of witness ID in MP cases is, in your words, "very low," then you should be able to produce a long list of missing persons' cases in which witness sightings were confirmed by LE as accurate sightings.

The number of accurate identifications you're able to cite should significantly exceed the number of false sightings in MP cases if your claim is accurate.

We await the list. Thanks in advance.

[Politigal]

First, we are notdiscussing the numerous sightings of RFG in the two years after he disappeared, only those withing the 96 hours after that.

Second, we have the statement from DZ that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/16/05. He used the word "definitely." That does not sound "unconfirmed."

Third, UTR before you insisted that there were "scientific studies" showing a high error rate of multiple eyewitnesses. When asked, she could not produce any. When I looked, I found at least one that said just the opposite. Okay, where are these studies? Do you have a secret source?


the last police flyer was put up in 2007 as to *unconfirmed* sightings

When was DZ's statement made JJ? and please provide the link

[J. J. in Phila]

the last police flyer was put up in 2007 as to *unconfirmed* sightings

When was DZ's statement made JJ? and please provide the link

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/30/the-rivers-edge-homicide-suicide-hoax-a-prosecutor-vanishes-and-the-clues-point-everywhere-and-nowhere-at-oncethe-rivers-edge

It's also included in Renner's book.

You know, we've discussed this article, it was mentioned and linked in PB's blog. It should not be unknown to you.

[2-B]

the last police flyer was put up in 2007 as to *unconfirmed* sightings

When was DZ's statement made JJ? and please provide the link

I think that when a flyer for a missing person is drawn up by a police department, the wording on that flyer probably represents the official position of the department, and it probably underwent some review by higher-ups before it was disseminated.

That would not necessarily be true of anything a specific officer said to a writer when being interviewed, nor would it be true of words the writer himself chose.

[2-B]

You know, we've discussed this article, it was mentioned and linked in PB's blog. It should not be unknown to you.

My hunch: Pgal knew exactly where the reference came from (as did I). Likely she wanted the admission it came from the Renner article, since we're all familiar with the inaccuracies in Renner's piece.

[Politigal]

So, Zaccagni's statement was made sometime in Nov *2005*

and the latest police flyer is dated sometime in *2007*


got it

[Politigal]

There's probably still internet service.

2-B, you might not get this, but I call shenanigans. And stable shoveling. And rolling a big rock up hill. Thanks for your efforts.

darn...lol

and "ditto" on the thanks to 2-B for continuing to plow thru.

[sherrijean981]

RE" post 30 SJ. I read early on in the CDT that a abandoned old bridge is near a newer bridge that carries cars accross it and I was wondering what they meant by cars like as in railroad cars or cars going accross a bridge lol. I will have to refind the article then you will be able to see what I mean roflmao. My email keeps clogging up from searches and classes Im in lol. I keep cleaning it out though. I have no more room in my favorites. Researching can take up the whole puter in this case lolThanks!


Sorry, I thought you meant regular bridges and not train bridges. Would there be a new one over the river near that spot if there are no trains running through town now?

I will be going down to Danville again tomorrow with my daughter and want to stop at a new store in Lewisburg. I will see what is down there.

[J. J. in Phila]

So, Zaccagni's statement was made sometime in Nov *2005*

and the latest police flyer is dated sometime in *2007*


got it


The FBI are not interviewing witnesses. Got it.

You've been one of those folks that has been trying to redefine words like "corroboration."

[Politigal]

The FBI are not interviewing witnesses. Got it.

You've been one of those folks that has been trying to redefine words like "corroboration."


who said anything about the FBI?

The flyer from *2007* is by the Bellefonte Police Dept.....

got it?

[2-B]

Particularly the specific officer in question.

2-B it's too bad you started posting here after UndertheRadar got banned. The two of you working together would have really been an asset to this forum. Both of you seem to specialize in clear, concise, compelling, and well-reasoned posts that address specific issues and don't seem like a bad dance under cross-examination trying to defend in any way possible a totally and utterly indefensible position/opinion.

Thank you for the nice compliment, OOB. :blushing:

This board has some very good minds, yours definitely included. It's unfortunate so many of them have to spend so much time rolling that large rock up that large hill.

[J. J. in Phila]

Particularly the specific officer in question.

2-B it's too bad you started posting here after UndertheRadar got banned. The two of you working together would have really been an asset to this forum. Both of you seem to specialize in clear, concise, compelling, and well-reasoned posts that address specific issues and don't seem like a bad dance under cross-examination trying to defend in any way possible a totally and utterly indefensible position/opinion.

I have no idea why UTR got banned, but recall no suggestions of hers that there would not be evidence of walkaway.

I wonder why a few posters here don't want to look to if that evidence exists. The may be be afraid of what they'd find (or who'd they find).