Hypothetically speaking

[Politigal]

1) ^^ preplanned the murder on her own (the computer searches, etc)

But she had to have an accomplice – at least for getting rid of the car

Told accomplice RG's death was an accident (fell down the stairs or something like that)…but how would she know in advance or be assured that an accomplice would be willing to help her stage evidence (the car, etc) in such a scenario?



2) Or, ^^ preplanned *with* an accomplice from the get-go

And in that case, what would be the reason for needing to kill RG?

She & the accomplice (who also works in the DA's office) were having an affair – got caught by RG and both stood to lose their jobs, gossip would ensue, and possibly he was married, and that's why RG was so distraught. The walk in the park was a goodbye walk.

I can’t think of any other reasons why RG would need to be killed other than that.



3) ^^ really wasn't involved - but who wanted RG dead and why? S1 has posted several times about AVM & the death penalty looming. But, how would an *outsider* being responsible fit with the other known evidence such as the computer searches, taking off work that day, etc?? IMO, an outsider being responsible just doesnt fit.



4) RG really walked & the computer searches, etc were all just part of an elaborate scheme to keep investigators wondering (this one seems the most unlikely scenario IMO) but possible I guess.


IMO - #2 seems to fit the best with the evidence that we know of.

[Politigal]

Looking closer at hypothetical #3 - there was a case of a tanning salon owner who was spying on his clientele, and it was reported that police had also searched his computer records....perhaps he was the one who had searched for how to fry a hard drive and Gricar entered the salon owner's keywords just to see what it would bring up in searches? The investigation into this guy actually began sooner than charges were filed, and another article even said that the lady who was involved had actually visited the tanning salon several times *after* becoming aware that he was spying on her....so perhaps there was an ongoing sting of sorts that she was assisting with??

3/25/05 (which would fall into Gricar's reported computer search time frame)
http://tinyurl.com/cq979c

but the case doesn't really fit with anything else in RG's disappearance IMO

[2-B]

3) ^^ really wasn't involved - but who wanted RG dead and why? S1 has posted several times about AVM & the death penalty looming. But, how would an *outsider* being responsible fit with the other known evidence such as the computer searches, taking off work that day, etc?? IMO, an outsider being responsible just doesnt fit.



It wouldn't have to be an outsider. I think GS's original VCF/R scenario is a very real possibility when one considers the evidence.

For the record, after spending all this time looking at the evidence, I can only conclude that if Gricar was the victim of foul play, he likely met his end at the hands of someone who knew a great deal about him.

[Politigal]

I'm really losing track with all the abbreviations....what does VCF/R stand for?

[2-B]

I'm really losing track with all the abbreviations....what does VCF/R stand for?

I guess we need a sticky with abbreviations, lol!

VCF/R=Very close friend or relative

[Politigal]

I guess we need a sticky with abbreviations, lol!

VCF/R=Very close friend or relative

thx...and yep...we need a legend :)

[J. J. in Phila]

Hypothetically.

1) ^^ preplanned the murder on her own (the computer searches, etc)

But she had to have an accomplice – at least for getting rid of the car

Told accomplice RG's death was an accident (fell down the stairs or something like that)…but how would she know in advance or be assured that an accomplice would be willing to help her stage evidence (the car, etc) in such a scenario?


Not nearly enough time and couldn't "stage" all the evidence.



2) Or, ^^ preplanned *with* an accomplice from the get-go

And in that case, what would be the reason for needing to kill RG?

She & the accomplice (who also works in the DA's office) were having an affair – got caught by RG and both stood to lose their jobs, gossip would ensue, and possibly he was married, and that's why RG was so distraught. The walk in the park was a goodbye walk.

I can’t think of any other reasons why RG would need to be killed other than that.


No, sues for sexual harassment and wrongful termination. Seriously. RFG would be the one with the legal problem. Besides, he won't be there in 8 1/2 months.

Also fits NONE of the evidence.



3) ^^ really wasn't involved - but who wanted RG dead and why? S1 has posted several times about AVM & the death penalty looming. But, how would an *outsider* being responsible fit with the other known evidence such as the computer searches, taking off work that day, etc?? IMO, an outsider being responsible just doesnt fit.


Another woman, who got really bent out of shape when RFG saw the 4/18/05 press conference, ad decided to cut their little trip short.

Murder II

And BTW, that fits with most of the evidence.



4) RG really walked & the computer searches, etc were all just part of an elaborate scheme to keep investigators wondering (this one seems the most unlikely scenario IMO) but possible I guess.


IMO - #2 seems to fit the best with the evidence that we know of.

There could have been a financial reason (though I'm still not seeing it).

Also fits most of the evidence.

[Politigal]

JJ - why do you always says there wasn't enough time to stage the scene or clean up?

There was plenty of time

All night Thursday, Friday evening, all night Friday night, etc.

[Politigal]

and JJ....#4 doesn't fit the *evidence* ....it might fit some of the news reports...big difference

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - why do you always says there wasn't enough time to stage the scene or clean up?

There was plenty of time

All night Thursday, Friday evening, all night Friday night, etc.

Well, on Thursday, you have to come up with a theory where someone is wearing an RFG mask on Friday somehow spewing forth his scent, and not leaving any physical trace. Someone suggested it sounds more like the plot of 24.

On Friday, all VCF/R are accounted for. You have to extend this beyond the VCF/R to make it work.

Both scenarios 3 and 4 match the known evidence, as has been demonstrated.

[2-B]

Well, on Thursday, you have to come up with a theory where someone is wearing an RFG mask on Friday somehow spewing forth his scent, and not leaving any physical trace. Someone suggested it sounds more like the plot of 24.

Yes, we've certainly heard this before, the suggestion that it would take an RG look-alike who could fake RG's scent to create the scene in Lewisburg (regardless of who staged it).

The problem with that suggestion is this: it's absolutely inaccurate, and it's specifically designed and distorted to make people think there are no plausible alternative explanations for the witness accounts and the scent in Lewisburg other than RG himself actually being there.

On Friday, all VCF/R are accounted for. You have to extend this beyond the VCF/R to make it work.

All of them? We all know that many were not even interviewed by the BPD (that might have just led to another theory, remember?). Since many weren't even interviewed, what's your basis for claiming that ALL are accounted for?

Both scenarios 3 and 4 match the known evidence, as has been demonstrated.

Scenario 4 doesn't really match the known evidence in many respects.

It requires behavior that is completely out of character for a man who has a long, consistent history of being dedicated to his career and responsible to his commitments.

It's apparently a break in RG's normal behavior patterns in terms of his usual way of operating with PF--hence the fact that she began to be concerned at 5 p.m. when he was not home and was in full panic mode early in the evening. If PF's account and her reactions are to be believed, this was not a man who typically even went carousing with the boys for a few hours in the evening without telling her where he was, much less a man who would disappear without telling her.

If PF's account is to be believed, there was no history, recent or otherwise, of domestic discord as a motivation to walk away.

LE has not uncovered (or at least they have not announced) any other of the typical motivations for walkaway--no financial troubles, no fraud, no gambling, no secret life of any type. (Compare to the Craig's List Killer case, where evidence of Markoff's secret life surfaced in the news almost simultaneously with LE identifying him as a suspect. Or compare RG to any other case of suspected voluntary walkaway where clear motivations for the possible walkaway are uncovered and announced early in the investigations.)

There is no known drug or alcohol dependency, no known "racial, sexual, homophobic or local community concerns and/or cultural issues" which might have motivated RG to walk away.

There are no evident preparations for leaving. RG's clothes and belongings remain at PF's house; only his wallet and sunglasses are missing as far as the public knows, and these are things anyone would take along on a day trip.

His retirement money sits untouched. His bank accounts and credit cards have not been used since his disappearance.

In short, scenario 4 matches the "known evidence" only if one ignores a great deal of the evidence, IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

Unless B-2, you are claiming some other evidence is out there, nothing is being ignored. All known evidence is listed.

[2-B]

It requires behavior that is completely out of character for a man who has a long, consistent history of being dedicated to his career and responsible to his commitments.

It's apparently a break in RG's normal behavior patterns in terms of his usual way of operating with PF--hence the fact that she began to be concerned at 5 p.m. when he was not home and was in full panic mode early in the evening. If PF's account and her reactions are to be believed, this was not a man who typically even went carousing with the boys for a few hours in the evening without telling her where he was, much less a man who would disappear without telling her.

If PF's account is to be believed, there was no history, recent or otherwise, of domestic discord as a motivation to walk away.

LE has not uncovered (or at least they have not announced) any other of the typical motivations for walkaway--no financial troubles, no fraud, no gambling, no secret life of any type. (Compare to the Craig's List Killer case, where evidence of Markoff's secret life surfaced in the news almost simultaneously with LE identifying him as a suspect. Or compare RG to any other case of suspected voluntary walkaway where clear motivations for the possible walkaway are uncovered and announced early in the investigations.)

There is no known drug or alcohol dependency, no known "racial, sexual, homophobic or local community concerns and/or cultural issues" which might have motivated RG to walk away.

There are no evident preparations for leaving. RG's clothes and belongings remain at PF's house; only his wallet and sunglasses are missing as far as the public knows, and these are things anyone would take along on a day trip.

His retirement money sits untouched. His bank accounts and credit cards have not been used since his disappearance.


The above is what's being ignored, JJ. I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly the first time, but I repeated it and bolded the most critical phrases so that you could look again.

[J. J. in Phila]

What "commitments?" He had no spouse, no debt, no minor children, no private clients, and a job that he was planning on leaving in 8 months.

How does going to the gym and assuming he stopped some place to eat equate with "panic mode?"

When does walkaway, if a long standing plan, require a recent history of "domestic discord?" Same with the other things mentioned.

As for "preparations" some things might be considered such, putting the Mini in PEF's name, the lack of assets. Likewise, even the attempts to "clear his schedule" could point to preparation, as would his change in demeanor.

[2-B]

What "commitments?" He had no spouse, no debt, no minor children, no private clients, and a job that he was planning on leaving in 8 months.

You want to nitpick the definition of "commitment"; I want you to focus on RG's long-established history of being dedicated to his career and responsible to his commitments. That history is what reveals his character.

But if nitpick you must, KA tells us this regarding Gricar:

He maintained his professionalism and met his court commitments no matter what else might have been going on in his personal life, no matter what criticism was leveled at him for his decisions, no matter how many irons he had in the fire.

Now, with regard to that Monday morning alone, April 18, RG had a court commitment:

On Monday, April 18, 2005, the DA staff were gathered together for an in-office meeting with a County official. Ray was supposed to testify that morning as a witness on some matter which had come up in a case being handled by the ADA who was assigned to drug cases brought by the Office. There was some anticipation that he might still show up in time to testify at the hearing.

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

Failure to show up for that hearing alone was out of character for RG, to say nothing of failure to show up for the next eight months during which time he still had the responsibility for DA duties in the county.

He did not have a spouse, but he had a significant other, one he'd reportedly told friends with whom he'd "finally found true love." Surely you can't be implying that commitments exist only when people are legally bound to one another? If that were true, we would never see heroic acts of friendship out of commitment or lifelong partnerships in the gay and lesbian community.

He had no minor children, but he has/had a daughter who loves him and a daughter whom he adores/adored, as well as nephews for whom he is/was more or less a surrogate father since his brother's passing. Again, you seem to mistake legal obligation for real commitment.

How does going to the gym and assuming he stopped some place to eat equate with "panic mode?"

And where did you find me saying that PF was in full panic mode when she went to the gym? I said she was concerned when he was not there at 5 p.m. (when she got home from work and went to the gym) but in near full panic mode by early evening (that is, by the time she called her brother seeking advice). She was already leaving multiple messages on a phone that was going straight to voicemail; that's either panic, or it's another emotion, and you can take your pick. I said panic.

When does walkaway, if a long standing plan, require a recent history of "domestic discord?" Same with the other things mentioned.

The other things I mentioned are all typical things uncovered in classic walkaway cases and actually come from questions asked in the UK policy on missing persons. Financial problems, fraud, gambling problems, domestic problems, drug and/or alcohol dependency, problems with cultural issues such as homophobia or racism, a secret double life, a documented history of trouble with the law, a documented history of mental illness--these are ALL things that can classically be found in adult voluntary walkaway cases.

None of these things have been uncovered and announced in Ray Gricar's case, yet they are typically uncovered and announced quite rapidly in other adult voluntary walkaway cases.

As for "preparations" some things might be considered such, putting the Mini in PEF's name, the lack of assets. Likewise, even the attempts to "clear his schedule" could point to preparation, as would his change in demeanor.

The "might" here, of course, indicates plausible alternative explanations. KA says Gricar announced to the staff that the Mini-Cooper was a gift to PF, so putting the Mini in her name would make sense under that scenario. (And yes, JJ, couples often do give gifts to the other that get used by both.) N90 says she works for an attorney who advises putting assets in another name as protection. Take your pick; those are plausible alternative explanations for the car.

What attempts to "clear his schedule" are you talking about?

And how in heavens name could his change in demeanor be construed as preparation for leaving? Preparation indicates deliberate steps taken toward an exit. A change in mood isn't a deliberate step toward anything. Are his clothes and belongings still there? Are his bank accounts and credit cards untouched? Did he write anyone a goodbye letter? Did he purchase any bus or airline tickets? Did he {{cough cough}} buy a new car under a fake name? Did he email an old girlfriend and ask her to run away with him? Those might be considered preparations for leaving, not being distraught.

[Politigal]

On RG's character....bringing over my post from the Crockpot thread

char·ac·ter audio (krk-tr) KEY

NOUN:

1. The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another.

Just a few of the adjectives that have been used to describe Ray Gricar's *character*

meticulous
responsible
loving
intelligent
private
devoted
reserved
compassionate
patient
professional
committed
organized
productive
methodical
ethical
aware
busy

[2-B]

Thanks Pgal. I'm going to add another descriptor, a phrase BG, his ex-wife, used to describe him: "a man of the highest integrity." I highlight "ex-wife" because former spouses don't usually speak with such high regard about someone they are divorced from.

It would be out of character for a man of the highest integrity to plan a voluntary walkaway.

It would be out of character for RG to do so when he had a documented history of being responsible, loving, devoted, compassionate, professional, committed, and ethical. All of these qualities would argue against such an action.

Would out of character behavior be impossible?

No.

But as the UK national policy points out, such out of character behavior is a strong indicator that the missing person may be at risk.

[2-B]

One other thing I want to add while we're on this topic.

IMHO, except for the purposes of our discussions here, it matters little which of the three main theories of the disappearance is paramount in anyone's mind, meaning any poster or any member of the public. Certainly any one person's percentages, guesses really, about what happened matter little.

What IS crucial, IMVHO, is that the investigation treat the disappearance first and foremost as a case of potential foul play. Everything else will fall into place if that is done, IMO.

[Politigal]

One other thing I want to add while we're on this topic.

IMHO, except for the purposes of our discussions here, it matters little which of the three main theories of the disappearance is paramount in anyone's mind, meaning any poster or any member of the public. Certainly any one person's percentages, guesses really, about what happened matter little.

What IS crucial, IMVHO, is that the investigation treat the disappearance first and foremost as a case of potential foul play. Everything else will fall into place if that is done, IMO.

I doubt we'd all be here on this forum had Bellefonte done exactly that. They quite possibly might have solved this mystery.

[2-B]

I doubt we'd all be here on this forum had Bellefonte done exactly that. They quite possibly might have solved this mystery.

This comparison has been made before, but I think it bears repeating.

When Cindy Song disappeared, in many respects she and her case actually fit "possible walkaway" and "possible suicide" in more compelling ways than RG.

College students as a group are considered more likely to be voluntarily missing than are 59-year-old prosecutors (which is why many college student murders, unfortunately, don't get proper attention at the outset when the student goes missing). Cindy could have been written off as a walkaway for that reason alone.

Or she could have been classified as a potential suicide. She reportedly had broken up with a boyfriend and had been despondent about that breakup.

Yet her disappearance was classified fairly early on as a case of potential foul play based largely on indications that she had plans for the future, specifically that she had registered for classes for the following semester and that she had ordered a part or supplies (I forget which) for her computer.

Why would RG's "toasts" to his impending retirement, his plans to go to Vermont in October, his plans to travel after retirement to see LG, etc. not be considered in the same way?

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B, the concern was, RFG was in a rural area (from what he said), no cell service, and we've found out, liked to drive fast, and he wasn't answering his voice mail. It looked like, possibly, there was an accident. Had he called and "I'm heading for Cleveland," there may have been no call to LE that day.

In terms of professionalism, he was leaving in the practice of law. That commitment would end even if RFG showed up on 4/16/05.

No spouse, no minor children, no debt, no major tangible property, not even a car. No going to continue on in his profession. Not planning to run for public office; no other plans other than to travel.

Sorry, there is no way to call these things "commitment."

And as to be "investigated as foul play," how would that have been different? I'm curious about that. I can see one thing, but I'm wondering what else you would say.

[Politigal]

If the concern initially was that RG had possibly been in an accident --- why then did police wait until Saturday morning approx 11am to start looking/investigating???

and, why didn't Patty drive out on 192 and look early Sat morning?

[gstickley]

"RG & His Commitment":

Spouse: RG didn't have a "spouse", but he did have a "soulmate" with whom he'd lived for a couple years. According to the various "sources" we've heard from, he was planning on traveling with her after retirement; spending his life with her; they appeared content with each other; they had a routine together. There were no "sources" giving indications of any problems noticed in the relationship. If there were unknown problems in the relationship, all he had to do was pack his bags & leave the house.

No Minor Children: This doesn't even merit a consideration. Once you're a parent, you're a parent for life, regardless of the age of the child. Yes, his child was no minor, but they obviously had a great, caring, keeping-in-touch-with-each-other relationship. As parents know, you don't walk away from your child; apparently, RG's child was special to him. The fact she was to get married is another reason this doesn't even merit a consideration; no father would disappear with his only daughter about to be married, especially one who was devoted to is daughter.

No Debt: So what if he didn't have any debt. He surely had bills to have been paid in the past: the "horse" thing, college debts, maybe new home debts for his daughter, the Mini, the mortgage, maybe the new patio/whatever at the house.

No Major Tangible Property: Another so what. His "major tangible property" may have been his daughter & her "major tangible property". Apparently, RG had full use of the Mini; why would he need another car?

Profession: The man planned on retiring in 8 short months after 20 yrs. on the job. He planned on traveling after retirement. He apparently had 'filled his need' for a profession & even announced the date of his retirement, which wasn't 04/15/05.

Plans: Apparently, it was well known that RG planned on traveling after retirement. He apparently felt he had or would have the funds to allow this. Apparently, he planned on traveling with "the soulmate", which also was well known by "the sources". And, apparently these "plans" were what "the soulmate" understood too.

Commitment: Yes, RG had a commitment. No, there probably wasn't a signed, notarized "commitment", but there was one; in fact, more than one: to his daughter, to his constituents; to the soulmate.

[Politigal]

"RG & His Commitment":

Spouse: RG didn't have a "spouse", but he did have a "soulmate" with whom he'd lived for a couple years. According to the various "sources" we've heard from, he was planning on traveling with her after retirement; spending his life with her; they appeared content with each other; they had a routine together. There were no "sources" giving indications of any problems noticed in the relationship. If there were unknown problems in the relationship, all he had to do was pack his bags & leave the house.

No Minor Children: This doesn't even merit a consideration. Once you're a parent, you're a parent for life, regardless of the age of the child. Yes, his child was no minor, but they obviously had a great, caring, keeping-in-touch-with-each-other relationship. As parents know, you don't walk away from your child; apparently, RG's child was special to him. The fact she was to get married is another reason this doesn't even merit a consideration; no father would disappear with his only daughter about to be married, especially one who was devoted to is daughter.

No Debt: So what if he didn't have any debt. He surely had bills to have been paid in the past: the "horse" thing, college debts, maybe new home debts for his daughter, the Mini, the mortgage, maybe the new patio/whatever at the house.

No Major Tangible Property: Another so what. His "major tangible property" may have been his daughter & her "major tangible property". Apparently, RG had full use of the Mini; why would he need another car?

Profession: The man planned on retiring in 8 short months after 20 yrs. on the job. He planned on traveling after retirement. He apparently had 'filled his need' for a profession & even announced the date of his retirement, which wasn't 04/15/05.

Plans: Apparently, it was well known that RG planned on traveling after retirement. He apparently felt he had or would have the funds to allow this. Apparently, he planned on traveling with "the soulmate", which also was well known by "the sources". And, apparently these "plans" were what "the soulmate" understood too.

Commitment: Yes, RG had a commitment. No, there probably wasn't a signed, notarized "commitment", but there was one; in fact, more than one: to his daughter, to his constituents; to the soulmate.

Great post Gstickley...

I guess some would have us believe Ray Gricar was some sort of Jekyll/Hyde type character.

[nittany90]

And as to be "investigated as foul play," how would that have been different? I'm curious about that. I can see one thing, but I'm wondering what else you would say.

Here's my thoughts, for what it's worth. Had LE suspected, from the very beginning, that Gricar was a victim of foul play, then they would have concentrated on:

1. Who had motive/means? Simply, based upon sheer numbers of Gricar's past, present and pending criminal cases, BPD would have realized the futility of their manpower/resources and would have handed the case (at least that portion) over to a larger agency, with the numbers, experience and resources to do the job appropriately. Zaccagni admitted publicly that BPD did not have the manpower to initiate such a search. And we know Madeira hasn't handed the case over to the AG's office. Even if the AG's office or a specially-assigned task force were to attempt such a huge undertaking at this time, 4 years after the fact, who thinks that anyone will be able to produce verifiable alibis to narrow the search to the "true suspects"? Despite the fact that I know I'm innocent, I can't account for all my activities on April 15, 2005. Can you?

2. Evidence: If it had not been initially believed that he was "off for a weekend jaunt" perhaps, a canine unit would have been brought in immediately to the SOS parking lot, while the mini was still there, untouched. Perhaps having the full scent in the car, would have resulted in a different outcome from the dogs. Who knows what might have come from that immediate effort? Who knows how much potential evidence/direction was lost when investigators stumbled upon testimony/evidence that didn't fit their theory or timeline?

3. Suspects: Everyone would have been considered a suspect, until proven otherwise. That clearly WAS NOT the assumption of LE.

4. Getting a "true" profile of Gricar: [/B]If, those responsible for conducting the investigation did not go into interviews holding onto the assumption that he had walked away/committed suicide. Their assumptions/point of view could very well have skewed their line of questioning and interpretation/direction of the respondant's answers. In effect, they found only what they were looking for.

5. Lost opportunity for "fresh" memories: As time goes on, we forget details. If witnesses, suspects, POIs, family members, friends were all interviewed early, memories may have been clearer (Judge Grine, for example, J. Karen Arnold for another).

I could go on, but unfortunately, don't have the time right now. The point is, we have no way of knowing if the outcome would have been different if it had been treated as a "suspected foul play" from the beginning. But if I was a gambler, I'd put my odds on "you betcha'"

If Gricar was the victim of foul play, then someone has gotten away with murder. Each day that passes with no resolution, the murderer laughs a little louder. It's time to silence the laughter.

[2-B]

2-B, the concern was, RFG was in a rural area (from what he said), no cell service, and we've found out, liked to drive fast, and he wasn't answering his voice mail. It looked like, possibly, there was an accident. Had he called and "I'm heading for Cleveland," there may have been no call to LE that day.

In terms of professionalism, he was leaving in the practice of law. That commitment would end even if RFG showed up on 4/16/05.

No spouse, no minor children, no debt, no major tangible property, not even a car. No going to continue on in his profession. Not planning to run for public office; no other plans other than to travel.

Sorry, there is no way to call these things "commitment."

And as to be "investigated as foul play," how would that have been different? I'm curious about that. I can see one thing, but I'm wondering what else you would say.

Exactly what kind of specious argument are you making, JJ?

You appear to be saying that if a missing person has no legal obligations, it should not be considered out of character if that person suddenly vanishes from the face of the planet. That viewpoint verges on reprehensible since it would create a wide open playing field for criminals. In essence, you're arguing that police should just ignore the disappearance of a 65-year-old widow with grown children whose mortgage is paid off and who does not work because she has funds from her late husband's estate. After all, she has no legal commitments to anyone. Who cares if her disappearance would be out of character? Let's just write her off!

It's also a completely illogical argument with regard to RG. You keep wanting to look forward with regard to commitment. I keep telling you (nod to OOB) that the issue of out of character behavior is not forward looking but backward looking: what is the history of this person? How has this person acted in the past?

This is one of the primary questions to appear on the initial report form in the UK: is the disappearance out of character behavior?

There's a reason that question is asked.

The risk to the missing person needs to be assessed early on, and that risk continuously re-evaluated throughout the investigation.

As the UK policy puts it, the initial stages of any missing person enquiry should commence on the basis that the case may escalate into a serious crime enquiry. It is always easier to rein back from the early stages of a major enquiry than it is to recover missed opportunities resulting from miscalculating in the early stages.


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

I'm not sure what's true in the U.S. since we seem not to have a national policy on missing persons, but in the UK, police can actually be vulnerable to legal challenge for failure to investigate missing persons' cases thoroughly. Perhaps this accounts for the insistence in the UK on continuous risk assessment and perhaps this accounts for the insistence on thinking murder if in doubt. It may also account for the UK policy spelling out specific advice, for instance, the advice that investigators should not assume a stable relationship between the reporting person and the missing person or the advice that investigators should always consider an abduction a possibility when a person goes missing. It may well account for some specific policy matters, too. IIRC, the premises of the reporting person and the missing person may be thoroughly searched in the UK, whether the reporting person agrees to it or not.

Unfortunately, the early stages of the RG investigation were based on the premise that RG had taken off voluntarily for the weekend. What opportunities were missed that will never be recovered due to possible miscalculation on that score?

[2-B]

Here's my thoughts, for what it's worth. Had LE suspected, from the very beginning, that Gricar was a victim of foul play, then they would have concentrated on:

1. Who had motive/means? Simply, based upon sheer numbers of Gricar's past, present and pending criminal cases, BPD would have realized the futility of their manpower/resources and would have handed the case (at least that portion) over to a larger agency, with the numbers, experience and resources to do the job appropriately. Zaccagni admitted publicly that BPD did not have the manpower to initiate such a search. And we know Madeira hasn't handed the case over to the AG's office. Even if the AG's office or a specially-assigned task force were to attempt such a huge undertaking at this time, 4 years after the fact, who thinks that anyone will be able to produce verifiable alibis to narrow the search to the "true suspects"? Despite the fact that I know I'm innocent, I can't account for all my activities on April 15, 2005. Can you?

2. Evidence: If it had not been initially believed that he was "off for a weekend jaunt" perhaps, a canine unit would have been brought in immediately to the SOS parking lot, while the mini was still there, untouched. Perhaps having the full scent in the car, would have resulted in a different outcome from the dogs. Who knows what might have come from that immediate effort? Who knows how much potential evidence/direction was lost when investigators stumbled upon testimony/evidence that didn't fit their theory or timeline?

3. Suspects: Everyone would have been considered a suspect, until proven otherwise. That clearly WAS NOT the assumption of LE.

4. Getting a "true" profile of Gricar: [/B]If, those responsible for conducting the investigation did not go into interviews holding onto the assumption that he had walked away/committed suicide. Their assumptions/point of view could very well have skewed their line of questioning and interpretation/direction of the respondant's answers. In effect, they found only what they were looking for.

5. Lost opportunity for "fresh" memories: As time goes on, we forget details. If witnesses, suspects, POIs, family members, friends were all interviewed early, memories may have been clearer (Judge Grine, for example, J. Karen Arnold for another).

I could go on, but unfortunately, don't have the time right now. The point is, we have no way of knowing if the outcome would have been different if it had been treated as a "suspected foul play" from the beginning. But if I was a gambler, I'd put my odds on "you betcha'"

If Gricar was the victim of foul play, then someone has gotten away with murder. Each day that passes with no resolution, the murderer laughs a little louder. It's time to silence the laughter.


Thanks for this excellent list, N90. You've touched on things I wanted to get to but couldn't because I've been waiting for several hours for my internet connection to stop spinning its wheels.

Just wanted to address a couple points quickly.

2. Evidence: If it had not been initially believed that he was "off for a weekend jaunt" perhaps, a canine unit would have been brought in immediately to the SOS parking lot, while the mini was still there, untouched. Perhaps having the full scent in the car, would have resulted in a different outcome from the dogs. Who knows what might have come from that immediate effort?

My opinion: I can understand the possible difficulty in getting an experienced dog and handler team to Lewisburg immediately, and I'm quite honestly happy we had an LE handler with an LE-trained Bloodhound on the scene rather than the first civilian and civilian-trained dog of some other breed. There's no finer dog to put on the case than a Bloodhound, and experienced LE/experienced Bloodhound teams have a 96% success rate in field studies in heavily traveled urban settings at 48 hours. So all that is a good thing.

However, that said, IMHO if there was a mistake made, it was opening the Mini doors at the scene before the dogs were brought in. This has all been said before you came on board but may bear repeating because you weren't here (and because it has not sunk in elsewhere, nod to OOB). The dog handler's explanation was a "might possibly" and is a plausible theory.

Another plausible alternative, given what has been described in the press (Dixon's "the dogs picked up no trail"; the assertion that the dogs "traced Gricar's scent around the car" but failed to follow a scent away from the car, etc.) is that the dogs were merely picking up residual scent from the Mini Cooper. That this alternative is "very possible" was testified to by an experienced dog handler in the Laci Peterson case. Ron Seitz explained that if someone regularly rode in a vehicle, their scent could be transferred to an area when the doors to the vehicle were opened, even if the person never set foot in the area. CIA experiments have proven a variation of this, with trailing dogs able to follow a scent on land of a person in a rowboat who never set foot on land. Even Gricar's shed hair whisked out of the Mini by a breeze or transferred onto clothing of LE and then to the parking lot could have led to the dogs picking up Gricar's scent in the parking lot, since dogs are able to identify individuals from hair samples, regardless of how long before the hair sample was cut or fell from the person's head.

It's extremely curious to me, always has been, that we have witness sightings by the park a block away and witness sightings inside the SOS, yet no scent picked up anywhere except in the vicinity of the car. To me, that has always been an indicator that Gricar either drove to Lewisburg, immediately got out of the Mini and into another vehicle--or that perhaps he was not there at all. Dogs are traditionally used to validate witness sightings, not the other way around (as has been suggested on this board). We have no scent to validate the majority of the witness sightings, and the alleged witness sightings in the parking lot have never been offered in a fact-checked source, only in Blogland. Very curious to me, indeed.

Despite the fact that I know I'm innocent, I can't account for all my activities on April 15, 2005. Can you?

You directed this question to JJ, and I thought you might find it interesting JJ has long ago addressed this issue. He has told us he was on the internet and can therefore prove where he was on April 15, 2005. :wink:

[J. J. in Phila]

Let's take a look at these:

1. Who had motive/means?

Motive could included anyone, ranging from an aggrieved victim's loved one to a lover or lover's SO. Means, at least part of it, might have checked by LE, but they are not telling us.

There is no evidence of a crime, period. LE did look. Foul play is still a huge possibility, but you don't have a body, evidence in the parking lot, et c.


2. Evidence: It may have been difficult to get dogs out there on Saturday night.

3. Suspects: See #1

4. Getting a "true" profile of Gricar: I'm not sure if it wasn't.

5. Lost opportunity for "fresh" memories: In the case of both Grine and JKA, I believe they were interviewed initially.

Something that might have jarred JKA's memories may have been discussion on the Internet (and that's fine).

[J. J. in Phila]

Exactly what kind of specious argument are you making, JJ?

You appear to be saying that if a missing person has no legal obligations, it should not be considered out of character if that person suddenly vanishes from the face of the planet. That viewpoint verges on reprehensible since it would create a wide open playing field for criminals. In essence, you're arguing that police should just ignore the disappearance of a 65-year-old widow with grown children whose mortgage is paid off and who does not work because she has funds from her late husband's estate. After all, she has no legal commitments to anyone. Who cares if her disappearance would be out of character? Let's just write her off!

It's also a completely illogical argument with regard to RG. You keep wanting to look forward with regard to commitment. I keep telling you (nod to OOB) that the issue of out of character behavior is not forward looking but backward looking: what is the history of this person? How has this person acted in the past?

This is one of the primary questions to appear on the initial report form in the UK: is the disappearance out of character behavior?

There's a reason that question is asked.

The risk to the missing person needs to be assessed early on, and that risk continuously re-evaluated throughout the investigation.

As the UK policy puts it, the initial stages of any missing person enquiry should commence on the basis that the case may escalate into a serious crime enquiry. It is always easier to rein back from the early stages of a major enquiry than it is to recover missed opportunities resulting from miscalculating in the early stages.


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

I'm not sure what's true in the U.S. since we seem not to have a national policy on missing persons, but in the UK, police can actually be vulnerable to legal challenge for failure to investigate missing persons' cases thoroughly. Perhaps this accounts for the insistence in the UK on continuous risk assessment and perhaps this accounts for the insistence on thinking murder if in doubt. It may also account for the UK policy spelling out specific advice, for instance, the advice that investigators should not assume a stable relationship between the reporting person and the missing person or the advice that investigators should always consider an abduction a possibility when a person goes missing. It may well account for some specific policy matters, too. IIRC, the premises of the reporting person and the missing person may be thoroughly searched in the UK, whether the reporting person agrees to it or not.

Unfortunately, the early stages of the RG investigation were based on the premise that RG had taken off voluntarily for the weekend. What opportunities were missed that will never be recovered due to possible miscalculation on that score?

2-B, first, if you are asking if it is out of character for RFG to leave and not explain to others what he was doing, yes it is. We have examples, including 4/14/05.

If you are claiming that someone without any spouse, minor child, debt, clients, decided to leave his life behind shows a failure of character, I disagree.

In either situation, RFG was an adult, and he is free to what he wants.

[nittany90]

Okay, JJ -- since murder is still at least #2 on your radar, how do you think the investigation might have been different, if LE had approached the investigation with the assumption that foul play had occurred? Unless, of course, you think LE did everything right. :confused:

[nittany90]

2-B, first, if you are asking if it is out of character for RFG to leave and not explain to others what he was doing, yes it is. We have examples, including 4/14/05.

If you are claiming that someone without any spouse, minor child, debt, clients, decided to leave his life behind shows a failure of character, I disagree.

In either situation, RFG was an adult, and he is free to what he wants.

But, JJ - he DID have clients (victims of violent crimes who were counting on him to seek justice at least until December 31, 2005). If that person decided to leave his life behind, when victimized people were counting on him, then, yes I would say that shows a failure of character.

I agree that as an adult, he was free to do what he wanted. But, if it turns out he left under those circumstances, basically abandoning those who loved or counted on him (family, friends, co-workers, clients) without the decency of an explanation, then I would be free to pass judgment and say he was a cad.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think he was a cad.

[2-B]

2-B, first, if you are asking if it is out of character for RFG to leave and not explain to others what he was doing, yes it is. We have examples, including 4/14/05.

If you are claiming that someone without any spouse, minor child, debt, clients, decided to leave his life behind shows a failure of character, I disagree.

In either situation, RFG was an adult, and he is free to what he wants.

I think you are still missing the point, JJ.

If LE is doing a risk assessment, as suggested in the UK national policy, the questions come down to these:

1) What is typical behavior for this person? (In other words, what is "in character" behavior?) and

2) Is "going missing" atypical? (In other words, is going missing "out of character" behavior?)

There's no evidence it was typical behavior for RG to just disappear. None. Again and again you keep raising the Cleveland Indians trip (a one time event) and rumored but not proven activity the day before the actual disappearance (so close in time to the actual disappearance it would hardly count as evidence of his typical behavior anyway). You want these things to stand for some pattern of typical behavior on Gricar's part, when they clearly are not.

If the Cleveland trip had been typical, why was anyone worried when he went and told no one? If the Thursday activities were "disappearing," then why did no one seem to think of him as "disappeared"?

No, these examples are stretching things to fit, and they are decidedly not what LE would be looking for in a pattern of behavior to determine what's in character or not in character.

The question is designed to assess risk and weed out likely voluntary absence from absence that may place the disappeared at risk.

Teenager A, who has a documented history of already having run away from home on four prior occasions, is reported missing on yet a fifth occasion. Teenager A's absence will be seen as in character.

Teenager B, who has always complied with curfew and has never run away from home turns up missing. Teenager B's absence will be seen (or should be seen) as out of character.

Gricar is much closer to Teenager B than Teenager A, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise. Should his absence have been taken from the outset as an errant boyfriend "having a wild weekend" or should it have been a red flag that he may have been at risk? I would say the latter.

[Politigal]

In addition to Gricar's history of a stable/strong/solid character...

No issues whatsoever have *surfaced* that might suggest a reason for him to have walked away from his life.

...no legal problems, no relationship problems, no health problems, no money problems, no work problems, no family problems, no mental problems, ...Nothing!

His disappearance is totally out of character, totally at odds with his history...and totally *suspicious.*

suspicious

adjective

1. Of dubious character: doubtful, equivocal, questionable, shady, suspect, uncertain. Informal: fishy.

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay, JJ -- since murder is still at least #2 on your radar, how do you think the investigation might have been different, if LE had approached the investigation with the assumption that foul play had occurred? Unless, of course, you think LE did everything right. :confused:

The first week, nearly everything they did was right. I said months ago.

By the end of the second week, they had three pieces of information that indicated RFG had access to another car. I would look to confirm or refute that information.

1. I'd be looking at car purchases/rentals in Lewisburg and try to match them with real people.

2. I would ask for an account of where the staff was on 4/15/05 and if they purchased or rented a car. I'd start with PEF (they did) and move to the rest of the staff/friends/ex-wives. One cleared, I would be ask the staff/friends, "Who had Ray dated in the past 15 years; who had been rumored to have dated. Who was close enough to him that Ray might have speent the weekend with." I would check them out. At least one was not checked.

3. If possible, I would have tried to get a composite on the "mystery woman." It may not have been possible.

[Politigal]

JJ - the key words in Nittany's post are:

if LE had approached the investigation with the assumption that foul play had occurred?

Obviously, police did not do everything correctly from the start -- no forensic investigation at the home, allowing people into the home, etc.

[Politigal]

It wouldn't have to be an outsider. I think GS's original VCF/R scenario is a very real possibility when one considers the evidence.

For the record, after spending all this time looking at the evidence, I can only conclude that if Gricar was the victim of foul play, he likely met his end at the hands of someone who knew a great deal about him.

I was thinking more about this last night...on the possibility of a very close friend (VCF/R) being involved in the disappearance....but surely law enforcement confirmed the alibis/whereabouts of all those closest to Gricar for that Friday. IIRC Tony's whereabouts were confirmed, as were Lara's, Patty's brother Tom, etc.

What has *not* been confirmed IMO - is the whereabouts for all those same individuals on Thursday night (and of course, this most specifically would involve PF.)

[2-B]

I was thinking more about this last night...on the possibility of a very close friend (VCF/R) being involved in the disappearance....but surely law enforcement confirmed the alibis/whereabouts of all those closest to Gricar for that Friday. IIRC Tony's whereabouts were confirmed, as were Lara's, Patty's brother Tom, etc.

What has *not* been confirmed IMO - is the whereabouts for all those same individuals on Thursday night (and of course, this most specifically would involve PF.)

The folks you mention were checked out and all of those people obviously cleared.

But there are other people who weren't even interviewed, something we've all played Monday morning quarterback regarding in terms of the early days of this investigation. Is there anyone from RG's friend/colleague circle who might have owed him money? Been in some sort of trouble with him? Been blackmailing him? That sort of thing.

I'm thinking of something that might have accounted for

a) RG's distraught demeanor in the weeks prior to the disappearance and

b) possibly having the laptop he usually never took anywhere.

Might his decision to "play hooky" that Friday have been a cover to meet with someone and "have it out" about some issue? Might whatever he needed to confront someone regarding that issue have been on the laptop?

[nittany90]

It wouldn't have to be an outsider. I think GS's original VCF/R scenario is a very real possibility when one considers the evidence.

For the record, after spending all this time looking at the evidence, I can only conclude that if Gricar was the victim of foul play, he likely met his end at the hands of someone who knew a great deal about him.

ITA. Every time I evaluate the evidence for a plausible foul play scenario, I keep coming back to "but who would have known that?" "who could have access to that?" "who would RG have trusted?" That particular set of questions keep pointing in one direction, toward VCF/R, and leading toward the VCF.

My opinion only.

[2-B]

ITA. Every time I evaluate the evidence for a plausible foul play scenario, I keep coming back to "but who would have known that?" "who could have access to that?" "who would RG have trusted?" That particular set of questions keep pointing in one direction, toward VCF/R, and leading toward the VCF.

My opinion only.

I think we're on the same wavelength, N90. Although my approach to this case has always been to analyze evidence, especially the scientific angle, rather than to espouse a theory, this is currently where analysis of that evidence has led me after four years.

OOB might suggest that you read the "Stuck In Lewisburg" thread if you haven't done so. Somewhere buried in that thread, I believe, is a mini-scenario outlined for such a theory.

[nittany90]

I think we're on the same wavelength, N90. Although my approach to this case has always been to analyze evidence, especially the scientific angle, rather than to espouse a theory, this is currently where analysis of that evidence has led me after four years.

OOB might suggest that you read the "Stuck In Lewisburg" thread if you haven't done so. Somewhere buried in that thread, I believe, is a mini-scenario outlined for such a theory.

And, if foul play did occur, then, in my mind, the "computer search" nugget of info that Rickard released, has only strengthened that thought for me. I firmly believe Gricar DID not do the searches on the home computer. If he had planned this grand "walkaway", then surely he would have realized his "planning" would be detected on the home computer. He knew about investigations/forensics. His seemingly public, harmless and understandable efforts to erase personal data on a laptop which was going to be returned to the county, was somehow used to the perp's advantage. Amazingly, if you look at the evidence and under the PR "fluff", it appears as though the searches conveniently, (feel free to insert "deliberately" here), show "intent to disappear" on Gricar's part. Add to that, the circumstances surrounding the "lucky" finds of the laptop and hard drive months after several multi-agency investigative searches, and well, a crazy theory becomes a little more plausible.

Million-dollar question is: Has LE caught on, too? Perhaps they're being very discrete with the release of info in order to lure the perp into a false sense of complacency while the true scope of their investigation remains veiled? One can only hope.

Now, I'm off to read the "Stuck in Lewisburg" thread. Thanks for the suggestion.

[2-B]

And, if foul play did occur, then, in my mind, the "computer search" nugget of info that Rickard released, has only strengthened that thought for me. I firmly believe Gricar DID not do the searches on the home computer. If he had planned this grand "walkaway", then surely he would have realized his "planning" would be detected on the home computer. He knew about investigations/forensics. His seemingly public, harmless and understandable efforts to erase personal data on a laptop which was going to be returned to the county, was somehow used to the perp's advantage. Amazingly, if you look at the evidence and under the PR "fluff", it appears as though the searches conveniently, (feel free to insert "deliberately" here), show "intent to disappear" on Gricar's part. Add to that, the circumstances surrounding the "lucky" finds of the laptop and hard drive months after several multi-agency investigative searches, and well, a crazy theory becomes a little more plausible.


EXACTLY, N90!!!

As GS said in some other situation, I had to double-check to be sure I had not written that post!

As to the question of whether LE has caught on as well: from your lips to God's ears.

[2-B]

Now, I'm off to read the "Stuck in Lewisburg" thread. Thanks for the suggestion.

Just to clarify: GS deserves all credit for originally bringing the VCF/R theory to the board. From what I understand, UTR is greatly indebted to GS for the origins of that theory. :wink:

[nittany90]

Just to clarify: GS deserves all credit for originally bringing the VCF/R theory to the board. From what I understand, UTR is greatly indebted to GS for the origins of that theory. :wink:

Why do I get the distinct impression that I'm missing something here?:huh:

The pitfalls of being the last to the party. I miss all the juicy insider information.

[Politigal]

Just to clarify: GS deserves all credit for originally bringing the VCF/R theory to the board. From what I understand, UTR is greatly indebted to GS for the origins of that theory. :wink:

could you point me to Gstickley's theory on the VCF/r? thx

[2-B]

could you point me to Gstickley's theory on the VCF/r? thx

I'm not sure it's still on the board, Pgal. IIRC, it was the very first post GS ever made here whenever she joined many moons ago. Don't think that survives any longer. S1 might have it in his archives.

What I remember is GS posting that a very close friend or relative might have owed money to RG and how that could have been the basis for foul play against RG. I believe UTR was taking that idea and envisioning how such a scenario might possibly have played out on 4/15.

[Politigal]

I'm not sure it's still on the board, Pgal. IIRC, it was the very first post GS ever made here whenever she joined many moons ago. Don't think that survives any longer. S1 might have it in his archives.

What I remember is GS posting that a very close friend or relative might have owed money to RG and how that could have been the basis for foul play against RG. I believe UTR was taking that idea and envisioning how such a scenario might possibly have played out on 4/15.

thx :) I'll do some digging after work.

[gstickley]

Why do I get the distinct impression that I'm missing something here?:huh:

The pitfalls of being the last to the party. I miss all the juicy insider information.

No "juicy insider information" here.

Years ago, when GS was younger & not so gray, she stumbled onto the disappearance of Ray Gricar, District Attorney. Being greatly interested, she entered into the world of the Court TV Message Board & lurked there for months, reading the Gricar forum & checking out the links to the news reports of Mr. Gricar's disappearance.

Finally, GS formed an opinion of what might have happened to RG & got brave enough to post on the Gricar forum. GS's theory was that RG possibly had been "disappeared" by a very close friend or relative (VCF/R) because the culprit would have had to be very familiar with RG & his habits; further, because it sounded difficult for an ordinary joe to pull this off.

In GS's theory, RG may have loaned money to a VCF/R & kept a record of same on his laptop. Perhaps the VCF/R was delinquent in repaying the loan; this problem could have accounted for RG's "distraught" look prior to his disappearance & his tiredness & sleeping more. RG would not have discussed this "problem" with anyone else, thinking it could be solved. Perhaps RG contacted the VCF/R & a meeting with him/her/they was set at a neutral location (Lewisburg) to discuss the problem. Once in Lewisburg, RG left the Mini & got into the vehicle of the VCF/R, leaving the Mini on the SoS parking lot. At some point, the "discussion" got out of hand & RG was disabled or killed. The VCF/R left the area with RG in his/her/their vehicle, or he/she/they disposed of him in a location known to the VCF/R. RG's laptop was then taken apart, & the 2 parts of the laptop were thrown into the river at 2 different times. After all, who would suspect the VCF/R; plus, he/she/they, knowing the history of RG's brother, could dispose of the parts with no one questioning why he/she/they were in the area of the river, thus killing several birds with one stone: the Mini had been left at the SoS lot near the river, so disposing of the laptop parts in the river at different times would keep the suicide theory going.

GS had another theory at the time. In this scenerio, RG discovered a problem, whether criminal or otherwise, about a VCF/R & kept this info. on the laptop. This also may have caused the "distraught" look, the tiredness, the naps, & RG would not discuss this with anyone while trying to gain evidence on his own before taking further action. Perhaps the VCF/R discovered what RG was attempting to do. A meeting was set between RG & the VCF/R in a neutral place, Lewisburg; once there, RG parked the Mini on the SoS lot & got into the vehicle with the VCF/R. At some point, the VCF/R "disappeared" RG to save himself/herself/themselves. The VCF/R then had the laptop, & to destroy the info. & to further the suicide theory, disassembled it & threw it into the river at different times.

We seem to have come full circle from the "olden" days. The words "close friend" are popping up from all directions these days. Since the "earth-shattering" news released by LE ref. the "computer searches", it now seems very possible the "computer checks" could have been made by the VCF/R who may have access to the home computer.

In either scenerio, the VCF/R is home free unless there is an unbiased, independent investigation into the disappearance of Ray Gricar.

The end.

[Politigal]

definitely possibles GS...thx

[Serendipitous1]

definitely possibles GS...thxgstickley's "Weird Theory"...I remember it well. And then you suggested a parallel scenario where a trusted individual may have been holding money for Gricar in a secret account...Gricar discovered some embezzlement going on and confronted the person, ending badly for Gricar. Then OOB chimed in with an alternative to embezzlement...that maybe the individual thought hey, if I get rid of Gricar I can keep this money...because there would be no way for anyone to connect it (a secret account) to him.

All of these scenarios require a VCF/R gone bad. It happens. But if there was a confrontational atmosphere, would Gricar agree to meet with this person in other than a very public setting? If he was followed that day, would he stop along the road for this person? If he "happened" to bump into this person in Lewisburg, would he voluntarily leave with him/her? And what about the laptop?

OOB's scenario may not be confrontational by its nature. But then, what would the ruse be to get Gricar to agree to a meeting away from Bellefonte? Why not just invite the person over to the house? Might there have been some "side action" going on? But what part did the laptop play?

When I think of a possible meeting in Lewisburg, where Gricar would voluntarily leave his car to go with someone, somewhere, I envision a person Gricar would not have suspected of possibly doing him harm. And I think of the possibility that it was not Gricar who was followed that day.

But in a foul-play scenario, it all comes back to the laptop. What was that all about? And I am reminded that DZ once said something to the affect that the found hard drive looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but will not quack for us...the right hard drive for Gricar's computer does not mean THE hard drive from Gricar's computer.

Apologies for any cross-thread rambling.

[Politigal]

actually, I was just being "easy."

I know it's an old record...but I just don't believe RG was ever in Lewisburg at all.

I don't believe any of the witnesses actually saw RG.

I don't believe the laptop and hard drive were actually connected to RG's disappearance at all...but "thrown in" (pardon the pun) ....just to make it more interesting.

I'm basically still stuck on hypotheticals #1 & 2.

[Serendipitous1]

actually, I was just being "easy." I know it's an old record...but I just don't believe RG was ever in Lewisburg at all. I don't believe any of the witnesses actually saw RG. I don't believe the laptop and hard drive were actually connected to RG's disappearance at all...but "thrown in" (pardon the pun) ....just to make it more interesting. I'm basically still stuck on hypotheticals #1 & 2.I heard you were "easy", LOL! A friend is coming your (Texas) way next week. Can I give him your name?...JK!

Easy in LE's case should have included bumping this investigation "upstairs"...like the LM incident(s) (sure hope the AG's office confiscated LM's computers). But easy is not the row you have chosen to hoe. I suppose someone has to do it. JMOO...as always.

[Politigal]

I heard you were "easy", LOL! A friend is coming your (Texas) way next week. Can I give him your name?...JK!

Easy in LE's case should have included bumping this investigation "upstairs"...like the LM incident(s) (sure hope the AG's office confiscated LM's computers). But easy is not the row you have chosen to hoe. I suppose someone has to do it. JMOO...as always.

speaking of "easy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCXXoI1Plx4&feature=PlayList&p=7537564D1D945D18&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=7

[2-B]

All of these scenarios require a VCF/R gone bad. It happens. But if there was a confrontational atmosphere, would Gricar agree to meet with this person in other than a very public setting?

I've thought a lot about this angle. If the VCF/R were someone truly trusted by Gricar until this issue (whatever it theoretically might have been) arose, I could see a situation where RG might never envision confrontation over the issue turning into the kind of confrontation where he would need to protect himself.

I can also see that he might want to meet with the person anywhere other than a public setting, where listening ears might be able to catch parts of conversations and watching eyes might be able to observe demeanor.

Just my opinion.

[Serendipitous1]

speaking of "easy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCXXoI1Plx4&feature=PlayList&p=7537564D1D945D18&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=7"Super" misunderstood! But I understand where you are coming from. I have no answers, only questions. Yours?...mine?...J.J.'s?...others'? Is there a practical difference, beyond a common goal? I think, only in how it is presented. And that is something all of us need to work on.

[Politigal]

"Super" misunderstood! But I understand where you are coming from. I have no answers, only questions. Yours?...mine?...J.J.'s?...others'? Is there a practical difference, beyond a common goal? I think, only in how it is presented. And that is something all of us need to work on.

:) no, no misunderstanding

just thought music might soothe the beast in you...lol

[Serendipitous1]

:) no, no misunderstanding

just thought music might soothe the beast in you...lolIt did. May the stars shine bright over Texas tonight. Tomorrow is another day though. All of the candidates will be up early for "breakfast". Cannot wait for the CDT's blow-by-blow report.

[Politigal]

It did. May the stars shine bright over Texas tonight. Tomorrow is another day though. All of the candidates will be up early for "breakfast". Cannot wait for the CDT's blow-by-blow report.

I think it will be interesting to read the questions that are posed to them by those that attend.

[Serendipitous1]

I think it will be interesting to read the questions that are posed to them by those that attend.Several news media outlets are members of that organization. But the questions will be "canned" questions...unless there is some interactive questioning allowed...which the time alotted will, sadly, not seem to permit.

There is not much time left before the primary. And I doubt anyone (except us, of course) could slide a piece of paper between any of the Democrat candidates. It sucks. But there is still time to get the gloves off.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - the key words in Nittany's post are:

if LE had approached the investigation with the assumption that foul play had occurred?

Obviously, police did not do everything correctly from the start -- no forensic investigation at the home, allowing people into the home, etc.

P'gal, first, LE should never assume anything unless the evidence points to it.

Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

Third, using your "logic," LE should have sealed his office, the homes of staff, and the SoS.

Third, LE did look for something in the house that would trigger a forensic investigation, like some recently cleaned or painted area, some carpet removed, something like that. There was none.

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, there is at least one flaw in your theory, but it was the one that all of us missed, including me, initially. In the weeks before he disappeared, RFG was working harder. That has been said, both publicly and privately.

That could explain at least part of his change in demeanor, because he tended to be more abrupt when busy (per JKA).

[2-B]

P'gal, first, LE should never assume anything unless the evidence points to it.

Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

Third, using your "logic," LE should have sealed his office, the homes of staff, and the SoS.

Third, LE did look for something in the house that would trigger a forensic investigation, like some recently cleaned or painted area, some carpet removed, something like that. There was none.

If LE should never assume anything unless the evidence points to it, why are LE in the UK told in no uncertain terms (and capital letters) WHEN IN DOUBT THINK MURDER? That's straight out of the UK policy on missing persons. Are missing persons' cases in the UK radically different from those in the United States? Are more missing people in the UK ultimately the victims of foul play? Reviewing stats, I would say things are about equal, and that in Britain, like here, most missing persons eventually are found or return home on their own. Still, LE in in the UK are told to assume murder if they are not sure. Makes sense to me.

What people were in the home for hours before Gricar was reported missing? I don't recall PF inviting anyone over before her 11:30 p.m. call to police. Link please.

It might have made sense to seal Gricar's office, since the last objective evidence of his existence was the video of him leaving the office. But suggesting that the homes of staff members be sealed isn't logical, and since there was no proof whatsoever that Gricar was in the SOS (or in Lewisburg) it's equally illogical to think the SOS should have been sealed.

Last, Pgal specified a forensic investigation. In general, if LE didn't do forensic investigations unless they saw something with the naked eye on a walk through, they'd miss a heck of a lot of forensic evidence. Forensic evidence doesn't always sit there with a neon sign over it pointing and saying, "Look more closely at this."

[2-B]

GS, there is at least one flaw in your theory, but it was the one that all of us missed, including me, initially. In the weeks before he disappeared, RFG was working harder. That has been said, both publicly and privately.

That could explain at least part of his change in demeanor, because he tended to be more abrupt when busy (per JKA).

Are you saying you think abrupt and distraught translate as the same emotion?

[Politigal]

P'gal, first, LE should never assume anything unless the evidence points to it.

Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

Third, using your "logic," LE should have sealed his office, the homes of staff, and the SoS.

Third, LE did look for something in the house that would trigger a forensic investigation, like some recently cleaned or painted area, some carpet removed, something like that. There was none.

What people in the home are you referring to...or will this be revealed in the blob? :ohmy:

[J. J. in Phila]

Centre County, despite the spelling, is not in the United Kingdom.

You follow the evidence, not jump to conclusions not based on that evidence.

[gstickley]

GS, there is at least one flaw in your theory, but it was the one that all of us missed, including me, initially. In the weeks before he disappeared, RFG was working harder. That has been said, both publicly and privately.

That could explain at least part of his change in demeanor, because he tended to be more abrupt when busy (per JKA).

There are probably a lot of flaws in my theory. After all, it was just a theory, & it was my theory.

As far as RG "working harder", I would think he would be working harder. He had an upcoming death penalty case in addition to other cases. However, he was taking time off; at least we know he did so on Thu., 04/14, & depending on whatever statement you chose to believe, he was taking off the entire day on Fri., 04/15, or the morning off & working in the afternoon. Apparently, there were several people with whom he came in contact that noticed no difference in him.

It's also possible the "distraught"/napping more demeanor came from whatever cases he was working on, the VCF/R theory, trouble on the homefront, spring fever. . .

And what other people were in the home on 04/15?

[Politigal]

Centre County, despite the spelling, is not in the United Kingdom.

You follow the evidence, not jump to conclusions not based on that evidence.

but *first* you actually have to look for *and collect* the evidence....

Bellefonte did not.

[J. J. in Phila]

Are you saying you think abrupt and distraught translate as the same emotion?

I have no doubt that Ray was deeply distraught about something the week of his disappearance. It went well beyond simple busyness or preoccupation.

and

He was sometimes abrupt in his answers, particularly when he was especially busy. But his mood during the week preceding his disappearance was of a different order of things.

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

A "different order," more intense, but JKA had seen something similar, when RFG was busy.

PEF in passing, noted the increase:

No. Like all of us, he's entitled to take a day off and I know that he had been working a lot of hours on some cases that week and I thought, you know, good for you. You need to take some time off.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156683,00.html

His activity, in regard to his workload, increased. RFG was working harder. It's the same thing I've heard off the record.

P'gal, I thought you read JKA's stuff?

[J. J. in Phila]

but *first* you actually have to look for *and collect* the evidence....

Bellefonte did not.

They looked, in regard to the house; there was none. What they have not told us is what else they looked at.

[gstickley]

(snip)

Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

(snip)


Who were the the people in the home for hours before RG was reported missing?

[2-B]

Centre County, despite the spelling, is not in the United Kingdom.

You follow the evidence, not jump to conclusions not based on that evidence.

I realize we're not in the United Kingdom. But missing persons cases are missing persons cases. Tell us why it would make sense in the UK to think murder when in doubt but not in the United States.

[J. J. in Phila]

There are probably a lot of flaws in my theory. After all, it was just a theory, & it was my theory.


But this piece of evidence fits three theories.


As far as RG "working harder", I would think he would be working harder. He had an upcoming death penalty case in addition to other cases. However, he was taking time off; at least we know he did so on Thu., 04/14, & depending on whatever statement you chose to believe, he was taking off the entire day on Fri., 04/15, or the morning off & working in the afternoon. Apparently, there were several people with whom he came in contact that noticed no difference in him.


The DP case was not even scheduled. According to what JKA says LE told her, a lot of people noticed.

[
It's also possible the "distraught"/napping more demeanor came from whatever cases he was working on, the VCF/R theory, trouble on the homefront, spring fever. . .

And what other people were in the home on 04/15?

That doesn't explain the increase in work activity. PEG was, possibly LE; I don't know if they went to the house to take the report.

[2-B]

I have no doubt that Ray was deeply distraught about something the week of his disappearance. It went well beyond simple busyness or preoccupation.

and

He was sometimes abrupt in his answers, particularly when he was especially busy. But his mood during the week preceding his disappearance was of a different order of things.

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

A "different order," more intense, but JKA had seen something similar, when RFG was busy.



"A different order" doesn't mean "the same thing only more intense."

It means "a different order," where "order" means a different classification of things.

KA is clear--this wasn't his usual busyness.

You're trying to say it was.

She was there. You weren't.

[J. J. in Phila]

I realize we're not in the United Kingdom. But missing persons cases are missing persons cases. Tell us why it would make sense in the UK to think murder when in doubt but not in the United States.

There are other factors in the UK, not the least of which, you can't get out of the country by car.

[gstickley]

(snip)

Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

(snip)



Now that we have 'learned' there were other people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours, a new can of worms has suddenly been opened.

I know I'd always thought (if the "early morning routine" was to be believed) the house was empty from the time RG left until PF went home from work or from the gym, whichever. I'd always thought PF was home alone while making the numerous calls to RG's cell phone.

Since there 'were other people in the home for hours', can we now speculate on whether these "other people" made the "computer searches" on the home computer?????

[Politigal]

Now that we have 'learned' there were other people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours, a new can of worms has suddenly been opened.

I know I'd always thought (if the "early morning routine" was to be believed) the house was empty from the time RG left until PF went home from work or from the gym, whichever. I'd always thought PF was home alone while making the numerous calls to RG's cell phone.

Since there 'were other people in the home for hours', can we now speculate on whether these "other people" made the "computer searches" on the home computer?????


I think that's a very astute deduction Watson. :w00t:

[J. J. in Phila]

Now that we have 'learned' there were other people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours, a new can of worms has suddenly been opened.

I know I'd always thought (if the "early morning routine" was to be believed) the house was empty from the time RG left until PF went home from work or from the gym, whichever. I'd always thought PF was home alone while making the numerous calls to RG's cell phone.

Since there 'were other people in the home for hours', can we now speculate on whether these "other people" made the "computer searches" on the home computer?????

PEF called LE, remember. Now, did they come to the house to take a report? Quite possibly.

The expectation on the part of at least one poster here seems to be that they should have ordered PEF out and sealed the house.

[Politigal]

PEF called LE, remember. Now, did they come to the house to take a report? Quite possibly.

The expectation on the part of at least one poster here seems to be that they should have ordered PEF out and sealed the house.

I think that's exactly what they should have done.

[gstickley]

Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.



This is your quote above. Why would LE be at the house before RG was reported missing, for hours???

[J. J. in Phila]

This is your quote above. Why would LE be at the house before RG was reported missing, for hours???

They still had to take the report. :rolleyes:

[gstickley]

They still had to take the report. :rolleyes:

How & why would LE be at the house, for hours, to take a report before PF reported RG missing????

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that's exactly what they should have done.

I know of no case where LE would get a report of a missing person, order the reporting person out of the house and seal the house.

[2-B]

There are other factors in the UK, not the least of which, you can't get out of the country by car.

That has nothing to do with why LE are bound by the think murder first admonition in the UK, JJ.

It's because of this:

The majority of persons reported missing return soon after their disappearance without suffering any harm. A small percentage, however, will have come to harm or have been the
victim of crime and it must not be overlooked that the missing person report could be the start of a major crime enquiry. The manner in which the investigation is conducted must cater for the
preservation of evidence and the rules of disclosure.

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

[J. J. in Phila]

How & why would LE be at the house, for hours, to take a report before PF reported RG missing????

First, PEF was in the house, and called; she was there for hours before. LE might have showed up to take the report; you will people, PEF and LE going in and out of the house.

[gstickley]

[QUOTE=

(snip)
Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

(snip)
QUOTE]

This is your quote (post #60). Who & why were there people in the home before RG was reported missing, for hours? If it was LE, why were they in the home before RG was reported missing, for hours?

[J. J. in Phila]

There is another factor, this one:

"The majority of persons reported missing return soon after their disappearance without suffering any harm. "

The have to get the case details within 72 hours:

3.3.1.2 Case details are required for missing persons who have not returned within
72 hours of the initial report being made to the police. These must be submitted to
the Bureau no later than 84 hours after the time of the initial report to the police.

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:M8gYqJHCnSoJ:www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/Code_of_Practice.pdf+Missing+person+report+United+ Kingdom+%2248+hours%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Now, that is obviously circumstantial, but there likely would not have been any getting of details on 4/16, under these guidelines. Yes, LE will think something is up after 72 hours, but not from the start.

And of course, none of this is relevant to American LE.

[2-B]

[QUOTE=

(snip)
Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

(snip)
QUOTE]

This is your quote (post #60). Who & why were there people in the home before RG was reported missing, for hours? If it was LE, why were they in the home before RG was reported missing, for hours?

I wish we could get some clarification on this point.

First it was that "by all accounts, there were people in the home before RG was reported missing."

Then we seem to get a different version, that LE "might" have been in the house after PF made the call. That's very different.

Which of these versions is accurate, if either?

I took that to mean that PF had people over between her return from the gym and 11:30 when she called LE to report Gricar missing. Now, I had never heard that, so that's why I asked for a link.

[2-B]

There is another factor, this one:

"The majority of persons reported missing return soon after their disappearance without suffering any harm. "

The have to get the case details within 72 hours:

3.3.1.2 Case details are required for missing persons who have not returned within
72 hours of the initial report being made to the police. These must be submitted to
the Bureau no later than 84 hours after the time of the initial report to the police.

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:M8gYqJHCnSoJ:www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/Code_of_Practice.pdf+Missing+person+report+United+ Kingdom+%2248+hours%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Now, that is obviously circumstantial, but there likely would not have been any getting of details on 4/16, under these guidelines. Yes, LE will think something is up after 72 hours, but not from the start.

And of course, none of this is relevant to American LE.

Case details are required within 72 hours of the report--but if you read and digest the entire section on risk assessment, you'll see that it's not as if LE would wait around for 72 hours with a medium or high risk case. You can't just pull a line out of the policy without having studied the entire thing.

[J. J. in Phila]

Case details are required within 72 hours of the report--but if you read and digest the entire section on risk assessment, you'll see that it's not as if LE would wait around for 72 hours with a medium or high risk case. You can't just pull a line out of the policy without having studied the entire thing.

In terms of criminal activity, this wasn't a high risk case. You've never understood that it looked like maybe an accident in a remote area on 4/15-16.

[2-B]

In terms of criminal activity, this wasn't a high risk case. You've never understood that it looked like maybe an accident in a remote area on 4/15-16.

The out of character failure to come home, the lack of preparation for a voluntary absence, the changes in demeanor in the prior weeks, and the suicide of a sibling would have bumped Gricar into the medium risk category at a minimum using the UK risk assessment.

I have long argued that had I been in PF's shoes, I would have grabbed a male friend or relative and headed out to look for such an accident on the night of 4/15, so clearly I do understand that would have been an early consideration.

[nittany90]

The out of character failure to come home, the lack of preparation for a voluntary absence, the changes in demeanor in the prior weeks, and the suicide of a sibling would have bumped Gricar into the medium risk category at a minimum using the UK risk assessment.

I have long argued that had I been in PF's shoes, I would have grabbed a male friend or relative and headed out to look for such an accident on the night of 4/15, so clearly I do understand that would have been an early consideration.

I haven't researched the UK risk assessment like you have, 2B, but couldn't we also add his profession into the risk assessment? I don't think anyone would argue that being a DA (spending your entire professional life working to punish the worst of the worst) might be a little more dangerous, and present a higher risk if you "disappeared" than say, a fast-food attendant?

[nittany90]

Now that we have 'learned' there were other people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours, a new can of worms has suddenly been opened.

I know I'd always thought (if the "early morning routine" was to be believed) the house was empty from the time RG left until PF went home from work or from the gym, whichever. I'd always thought PF was home alone while making the numerous calls to RG's cell phone.

Since there 'were other people in the home for hours', can we now speculate on whether these "other people" made the "computer searches" on the home computer?????

If other people were "in the home for hours" before Gricar was reported missing, then yes, I'd say anyone there had the "opportunity" to do the computer searches. But, if Weaver's timing of the computer searches is to be believed, the "timing" would be wrong. He said the searches were done a month before Gricar disappeared -- not the day of his disappearance.

And, I haven't read any published reports that anyone, other than Fornicola and perhaps her brother, were in the home that day. LE may have visited the house after Patty called in her concerns, but I don't know that for certain.

[Politigal]

In terms of criminal activity, this wasn't a high risk case. You've never understood that it looked like maybe an accident in a remote area on 4/15-16.

"this wasn't a high risk case" ???

posted by Billywahoo

billywahoo
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A
i think some of you might be misinterpreting the phone call into the office. he was clearly calling to speak to patty, or catch her voicemail, it just so happens that she was also the person who answered the phone. patty's concern began to grow when she called him in the early evening. she received no response, so she periodically continued to call. when it became very late, she asked her brother if she was being paranoid, he said "no" since he is a public official involved in the prosecution of criminals. the decision was made to contact police, who concurred.

there's your risk

[Politigal]

Any link yet to a source for the people in the home for hours claim?

Thanks to the ignore feature, I can't see some posts until one of my fellow posters quote them. And by the way, thanks for the occasional quote, as one is the source for my first ever signature.

No link....and I think we're simply seeing Chubby Checker again.


twistin' the night away

[2-B]

I haven't researched the UK risk assessment like you have, 2B, but couldn't we also add his profession into the risk assessment? I don't think anyone would argue that being a DA (spending your entire professional life working to punish the worst of the worst) might be a little more dangerous, and present a higher risk if you "disappeared" than say, a fast-food attendant?

I would absolutely concur, N90. Though curiously, I recall that part of the meager findings released to the public after the PSP-CIA review was the declaration that RG was not at any "inherent risk" due to his profession. Go figure.

There was once a long discussion of that issue on the boards, now Gone With the Wind, I'm sure.

[J. J. in Phila]

The out of character failure to come home, the lack of preparation for a voluntary absence, the changes in demeanor in the prior weeks, and the suicide of a sibling would have bumped Gricar into the medium risk category at a minimum using the UK risk assessment.


First, I question how out of character this was, especially when looking at the past ten years.

Second, suicide would not be foul play.


I have long argued that had I been in PF's shoes, I would have grabbed a male friend or relative and headed out to look for such an accident on the night of 4/15, so clearly I do understand that would have been an early consideration.

Looking at the distances involved, difficulties of searching a rural area alone at night, passage of time from last contact, and, in PEF's case, not really being able to verify where the last contact was from, I can understand.

You just gave three reasons why the police should not, on 4/15/05 treated this as foul play.

[Politigal]

Is there actually 1 single report out there where police speculated Gricar might have been involved in a vehicular accident?

[2-B]

First, I question how out of character this was, especially when looking at the past ten years.

PF was his live-in girlfriend. She thought it was odd that he wasn't there when she came home from work at 5 p.m. By the time she called her brother, she had already made "periodic calls" to RG's cell phone. By the time she called her brother, she was already feeling "paranoid," or she would not have asked her brother if she was being paranoid. PF clearly thought his unexplained absence was atypical and out of character.

Second, suicide would not be foul play.

Obviously. But I was creating an aggregate list of things about RG's disappearance which would have placed said disappearance into the medium risk category at a minimum, rather than relegated it only to your "oh it was probably just an accident" category.

Looking at the distances involved, difficulties of searching a rural area alone at night, passage of time from last contact, and, in PEF's case, not really being able to verify where the last contact was from, I can understand.

I made no observations on this thread about PF's actions. I commented only on what I would have done in PF's situation. If my DH did not come home and did not call to let me know he was okay, I would know something was wrong, no question, because it would be atypical and out of character.

You just gave three reasons why the police should not, on 4/15/05 treated this as foul play.

Who is relegating this discussion to the night of 4/15? We're talking about the early investigation, not the night of 4/15 alone.

[nittany90]

Okay -- I've finished reading UTR's and GS's possible murder scenario GS -- I want to thank you for having the courage to post a possible theory, knowing it would be subjected to criticism and questions, and doing it anyway. If UTR was here, I'd want to thank him/her too, but since he/she is not, I'll have to trust that maybe, my message will pass thru time and space.

I apologize, in advance, for any cross-threading that might occur. And I apologize for the length of my post.

If I've got it right, UTR believed in the need to explore the possibility that Gricar never made it to Lewisburg, and furthermore, that Lewisburg was staged to look like a possible suicide/walkaway/foul play scene in an effort to confuse the authorities. In borrowing part of that from UTR, I would like to explore the possibility that Gricar may have indeed made it to Lewisburg and that it was staged to look like a possible suicide/walkaway/foul play scene as to confuse the authorities.

Let me preface this post, by saying that I do not know if Gricar made it to Lewisburg or not. But I think the evidence strongly points to if he did, and if he was murdered, and if the perp was a VCF/R, then it was very plausible that the scene was manipulated to confuse authorities. I know...a lot of "if's".

Kudos to UTR for connecting the Sund eyewitness reports, which seemed very plausible and very credible at the time, to the Gricar case. I don't know where I stand on the Lewisburg eyewitnesses, how much weight I give them in the big picture. Both sides have offered great arguments for how much weight the eyewitness reports should be given.

Staying on task with the VCF/R possibility, I think GS and UTR's scenarios are both plausible. However, neither scenarios approach the issue of the computer searches that were done on the home computer (of course they don't -- that juicy tidbit had not been released to the public at the time they were contemplating possible scenarios, despite the fact that LE were aware of them 2 1/2 years prior to releasing the info. :mad:)

So, my question is, having that info now, how would it fit into your scenarios? Do you even think the computer searches are relevant to your scenarios? If you agree that the computer searches are relevent, then I would jump to the assumption that the searches are a HUGE piece in proving pre-meditation, which would discount ALL accidental death scenarios. If the searches were "planted" to somehow point LE to walkaway, and if LE is correct on the timeframe of the searches, then this VCF/R (let's call him/her "X") would have to have planted the computer searches a month before April 15, 2005. Hence, the pre-meditation. I don't see any way around it, if you believe the computer searches were "planted".

So, going on that premise, X has been narrowed down to:
1. someone who knew Gricar's home computer passwords,
2. someone who had access to Gricar's home computer at least a month prior to his disappearance,
3. someone who would have had a motive for murder at least a month before April 15, 2005, in order to need to pre-plant that staged evidence,
4. someone who would have known Gricar's whereabouts on April 15, 2005 to allow him/her access to carry out the pre-planned murder.

The laptop doesn't bother me. I'm convinced that the laptop/hard-drive were thrown into the River some time after Gricar's disappearance, and most likely, after at least one of the 3 river searches. Whether that points to walkaway or murder, I don't know. Thanks to JJ's blog (even though I don't think that was his intention, :wink:), I've actually come up with a scenario that didn't necessitate Gricar taking the rarely-used laptop with him that day, which always stood out as a puzzling piece of the mystery to me.

JJ pointed out that there may have been time for the murderer to remove the laptop from the home, after Gricar's disappearance but before LE's discovery that it was missing. Granted, it's a small window of time, but it's there. At some point, JJ mentioned this person needing a key to the house (I don't remember if having key access came up as a way to plant the computer search evidence or to grab the laptop). If it was to grab the laptop, the perp didn't need a key to the house -- X could have simply used Gricar's own keys to access entry into the house. How hard would it have been to slip the keys out of Gricar's pocket before dumping the body? The keys are still missing. Using Gricar's own housekey would have eliminated evidence of a break-in. If the laptop was taken from the home after the murder, the murderer would have had to enter the house where he knew no-one would be home. Before LE knew the laptop was missing.

So, my question is....was it publicly known in the office that Gricar was taking off the morning of April 15, 2005? I think it's pretty plausible that ALL of the staff would have known. From personal experience, I know that most attorney's offices (even a higher percentage of DA's offices) use a computer program to organize schedules, files, timeslips, etc. All employees with a computer have access to that information. Everyone in our office knows where all attorneys are, or planning to be, on any given day. Knowing an attorney's availability is extremely important. So, I'm going to take the leap in assuming that everyone in the office who wanted to know, knew that Gricar was planning to take off on the morning of April 15, 2005. (Not the afternoon, because depending upon which public account you believe, it appears as though that was a last-minute decision by Gricar).

Now, if Gricar's office didn't use one of the attorney computer programs, then X would have needed to know Gricar's plan for April 15, 2005, by other means. And if X is not a co-worker, then he/she would have needed to know about Gricar's planned absence by other means as well. Would a friend/relative/collegue know about another friend/relative/collegue's plans for a particular day. Possibly.

Has LE investigated all the VCF/Rs for their whereabouts for that day? Are their alibis iron-clad? If I remember correctly, Sloane was not in the office (on medical leave) and I'm not sure when Smith left for his camping trip. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not necessarily pointing to either of them as a suspect). I also remember that LE's initial investigation of VCF/Rs was at best, a little lax. Could they have missed someone as a POI?

If it was a VCF/R, I think I've laid out MEANS and possible OPPORTUNITY. The only thing that's missing is MOTIVE. Whatever the motive was, it had to be something so incriminating that would have led X to murder Gricar in order to keep it quiet. Take your pick: was it something that would have led to criminal charges/prison time, loss of employment, loss of personal/professional reputation, loss of personal relationships, loss of financial status?

This may be one of those cases where Motive is only discovered after suspect is fingered.

Okay, I'm wearing my armour-plated suit :biggrin:. Thoughts?

[Politigal]

Nittany - great post...lots to think about.

On your list:

So, going on that premise, X has been narrowed down to:
1. someone who knew Gricar's home computer passwords,
2. someone who had access to Gricar's home computer at least a month prior to his disappearance,
3. someone who would have had a motive for murder at least a month before April 15, 2005, in order to need to pre-plant that staged evidence,
4. someone who would have known Gricar's whereabouts on April 15, 2005 to allow him/her access to carry out the pre-planned murder.

#1 & #2 narrow down the field quite a bit IMO

[nittany90]

Nittany - great post...lots to think about.

On your list:



#1 & #2 narrow down the field quite a bit IMO

Thanks, PG. That is my goal. Just to get others to "think" about it. I think by narrowing who "X" could be in the VCF/R scenario, I probably also gave JJ some ammunition to increase his walkaway odds and decrease his murder odds. But, based upon my deductions in evaluating a VCF/R being the murderer and that the computer searches are relevant to his disappearance, that was an inadvertent outcome.

Again, I'll freely admit that I haven't reached a conclusion to the "mode" of his disappearance. I'm trying to let the evidence, as it trickles down, lead me to the right one. And asking a ton of questions along the way.

[Chump#7]

<Respectfully snipped

The only thing that's missing is MOTIVE.

Okay, I'm wearing my armour-plated suit :biggrin:. Thoughts?

nittany90, I had always hoped that MOTIVE, wherever that may lead, is exactly what would be discovered on the laptop hard drive. Shame.

Hypothetically speaking, it would be in the interest of hypothetical perpetrator to "fry" any evidence of MOTIVE prior to committing the hypothetical crime. No?

- And your presence here is refreshing by the way. And don't worry, something tells me UtR hears you loud & clear.:wink:

[2-B]

N90, re #1 on your list above, would someone necessarily have to know Gricar's passwords for his computer to perform searches?

Our general computer accounts are not password protected--only email and otherwise. Anyone could walk into our house, open up an internet browser, and do searches.

Re #4: We've been told that PF sent out an email Friday morning alerting staff RG would not be in to work. Not sure (since accounts do vary) whether the alert was for the morning or for the entire day.

For the record, the need to know RG's whereabouts that Friday is one reason I have always put theories about drug dealers and the like low on the list of foul play possibilities, since it would be very difficult for those outside RG's circle to know that man who so rarely took a day off would not be in the office that Friday.

[nittany90]

nittany90, I had always hoped that MOTIVE, wherever that may lead, is exactly what would be discovered on the laptop hard drive. Shame.

Hypothetically speaking, it would be in the interest of hypothetical perpetrator to "fry" any evidence of MOTIVE prior to committing the hypothetical crime. No?

- And your presence here is refreshing by the way. And don't worry, something tells me UtR hears you loud & clear.:wink:


Absolutely, if hypothetical perp had the opportunity to "fry" any evidence of motive prior to committing the murder, it would be in his/her best interest to do so. If there's no evidence of motive, and the "keeper of the secret" is dead, and LE is misled, it may be the "perfect murder". Question is, did hypothetical perp have that opportunity?


For the compliment, :blushing:

[sherrijean981]

I have just read this entire thread and see the many references to VCF/R, the mention of Sloane and Smith, and PF, but no where has anyone mentioned his other close friend, EW. One that SS had mentioned at the very beginning of the case as being his best friend.

Was this VBF questioned as to what his activity was on the 15th, or as Pgal wants done, on the 14th? Another man who could purchase a car, not working for the Centre County Courthouse or any part of the Bellefonte government, who could come and go as he pleases.

I personally think all the VBF need to take the polygraph. Although it should be done, it isn't just about the foul play, but also whether at least one of them purchased or lent a car to RG, or picked him up and took him somewhere.

All co-workers and associates in Bellefonte would be looked at, or should have been, very closely, but an out of town friend, maybe not so closely.

[Politigal]

Sherrijean -- I do think all the close friends & family should all have been interviewed, and polygraphed.

[nittany90]

N90, re #1 on your list above, would someone necessarily have to know Gricar's passwords for his computer to perform searches?

Our general computer accounts are not password protected--only email and otherwise. Anyone could walk into our house, open up an internet browser, and do searches.

Re #4: We've been told that PF sent out an email Friday morning alerting staff RG would not be in to work. Not sure (since accounts do vary) whether the alert was for the morning or for the entire day.

For the record, the need to know RG's whereabouts that Friday is one reason I have always put theories about drug dealers and the like low on the list of foul play possibilities, since it would be very difficult for those outside RG's circle to know that man who so rarely took a day off would not be in the office that Friday.

Re #1 - Good point. It depends, partly on whether or not Gricar's home computer had separate, password protected user IDs, and partly on whether or not X was aware of the set-up. If it did, then, X would need to know Gricar's password. If it didn't have separate password-protected user IDs, then Gricar's password would not be necessary. But, there'd also be no proof where the search originated from (which may thwart X's deliberate attempt to mislead LE). For that reason, I don't think X would even bother to risk detection, if X didn't already know how the home computer was set up.

Re # 4 - So, we at least have reason to believe that shortly after PEF arrived at the office on Friday, April 15, everyone in the office (who had checked their email) knew Gricar was off until at least noon. Interesting.

Exactly. IMO, any murder scenario involving a perp outside of friends/family/co-workers/collegues is hard to swallow, exactly for that reason. Not impossible, but improbable.

[nittany90]

Sherrijean -- I do think all the close friends & family should all have been interviewed, and polygraphed.

ITA on the interviews -- and possibly, more than once.
1. Immediately after Gricar's disappearance (to establish alibi, eliminate as POI, learn more about Gricar's state of mind/activities weeks before his appearance.
2. Later in the investigation (to establish whether or not they'd been contacted, after the fact.)

[gstickley]

ITA on the interviews -- and possibly, more than once.
1. Immediately after Gricar's disappearance (to establish alibi, eliminate as POI, learn more about Gricar's state of mind/activities weeks before his appearance.
2. Later in the investigation (to establish whether or not they'd been contacted, after the fact.)

Bravo! Bravo!

[2-B]

Re #1 - Good point. It depends, partly on whether or not Gricar's home computer had separate, password protected user IDs, and partly on whether or not X was aware of the set-up. If it did, then, X would need to know Gricar's password. If it didn't have separate password-protected user IDs, then Gricar's password would not be necessary. But, there'd also be no proof where the search originated from (which may thwart X's deliberate attempt to mislead LE). For that reason, I don't think X would even bother to risk detection, if X didn't already know how the home computer was set up.



Just to make sure I'm understanding you on this point: are you saying that if the accounts weren't password protected, you then think there'd be no proof where the search originated from?

If so, I'm not sure that's true. Just using our home computer as a guide (and others I've seen in the family), we have separate accounts but they aren't password protected (except when the dog sitter is staying in our absence). Click on 2-B's account or on Mr. 2-B's account, and you're on the "side" of the computer you've requested.

Anything you do while on that "side" is recorded as having been done by that user.

IOW, I could enter Mr. 2-B's side and do searches, and it would look as if he had done them.

Likewise, any friend or relative could wander into the computer room, sit down at the computer, click on either account, and perform searches.

The computer would then record the searches as having been done by 2-B or Mr. 2-B, depending upon which account was used.

Correct? Or have I misunderstood something you said?

[nittany90]

Just to make sure I'm understanding you on this point: are you saying that if the accounts weren't password protected, you then think there'd be no proof where the search originated from?

If so, I'm not sure that's true. Just using our home computer as a guide (and others I've seen in the family), we have separate accounts but they aren't password protected (except when the dog sitter is staying in our absence). Click on 2-B's account or on Mr. 2-B's account, and you're on the "side" of the computer you've requested.

Anything you do while on that "side" is recorded as having been done by that user.

IOW, I could enter Mr. 2-B's side and do searches, and it would look as if he had done them.

Likewise, any friend or relative could wander into the computer room, sit down at the computer, click on either account, and perform searches.

The computer would then record the searches as having been done by 2-B or Mr. 2-B, depending upon which account was used.

Correct? Or have I misunderstood something you said?

I didn't know that kind of computer set-up was an option, 2-B. Clearly, it is. Any joint computer I've ever used has been password-protected to connect to the internet. Meaning, you'd need the password to get beyond the user id page.

So, backing up on my previous statement, and feeling very full of crow, I will issue a retraction.

If Gricar's home computer had password protection, then, it goes without saying that X had to know his password to gain access to the internet. If, instead, Gricar's computer was set up like yours, then I still think he would have done the search, as long as it could at least "appear" to be done by Gricar. X's entire point in planting the searches would have been to make it look like Gricar did them and in the process, throw LE's investigation in the wrong direction -- toward walkaway or suicide.

This theory only works if LE is correct about the timing of the searches, if Gricar was murdered and if the computer searches are relevant to the case. If any one part is proven false, then the entire premise falls apart.

[2-B]

I didn't know that kind of computer set-up was an option, 2-B. Clearly, it is. Any joint computer I've ever used has been password-protected to connect to the internet. Meaning, you'd need the password to get beyond the user id page.

So, backing up on my previous statement, and feeling very full of crow, I will issue a retraction.

If Gricar's home computer had password protection, then, it goes without saying that X had to know his password to gain access to the internet. If, instead, Gricar's computer was set up like yours, then I still think he would have done the search, as long as it could at least "appear" to be done by Gricar. X's entire point in planting the searches would have been to make it look like Gricar did them and in the process, throw LE's investigation in the wrong direction -- toward walkaway or suicide.

This theory only works if LE is correct about the timing of the searches, if Gricar was murdered and if the computer searches are relevant to the case. If any one part is proven false, then the entire premise falls apart.

Crow-eating is entirely optional and unnecessary, N90. Password protection usually goes into effect with shared office computers. Shared home computers, not so much, unless spouses do not trust each other, or unless parents want to keep children away from accounts.

Agree with the rest of your theorizing above.

Now a question for anyone who might know the answer: bonus points to anyone who can identify where in the shared Fornicola/Gricar residence the home computer was located.

Was it in the kitchen? Living room? Downstairs study? Upstairs guest bedroom?

[Politigal]

Crow-eating is entirely optional and unnecessary, N90. Password protection usually goes into effect with shared office computers. Shared home computers, not so much, unless spouses do not trust each other, or unless parents want to keep children away from accounts.

Agree with the rest of your theorizing above.

Now a question for anyone who might know the answer: bonus points to anyone who can identify where in the shared Fornicola/Gricar residence the home computer was located.

Was it in the kitchen? Living room? Downstairs study? Upstairs guest bedroom?

I can give you the details of the home from Centre County property records...but I don't think I've read which room the home computer was in.

The home is 1 1/2 stories with 1,509 sq ft of living area.

There are --
2 finished basement rooms
4 bedrooms
1 1/2 bathrooms
and a 576 sq ft 2 car garage

There are 5 rooms on the 1st level, 2 on the 2nd level and 2 in the basement.

[J. J. in Phila]

First, you might look to look at the term "porn buddy." It has been discussed here, and it doesn't have anything to do with pornography, necessarily. My blog reference wasn't unintentional.

Now, that said, there is at least one problem with it. The case was left behind and was apparently not laying out. If someone wanted to get the laptop, quickly, why go to the trouble of taking it out of the case, and then putting it back? Second, I have four scenarios, all of which say, "RFG tossed the laptop." That could easily be changed to "RFG arranged for a 'buddy' to toss the laptop if something happened to him."

All that said, I believe he was the one that took the laptop.

Second, one of the things that I've been talking about was the "Inner Circle." It consists of:

1. Those very close to RFG, PEF, SS, and EW.

2. The staff and possibly long term former staff.

3. His former SO's and girlfriends.

I've suggested accounting for their whereabouts from 4/14 through 4/16. Off that list, so far as I know, only PEF was checked.

I believe the home computer was in the living room, B-2.

[J. J. in Phila]

Re #1 - Good point. It depends, partly on whether or not Gricar's home computer had separate, password protected user IDs, and partly on whether or not X was aware of the set-up. If it did, then, X would need to know Gricar's password. If it didn't have separate password-protected user IDs, then Gricar's password would not be necessary. But, there'd also be no proof where the search originated from (which may thwart X's deliberate attempt to mislead LE). For that reason, I don't think X would even bother to risk detection, if X didn't already know how the home computer was set up.

Re # 4 - So, we at least have reason to believe that shortly after PEF arrived at the office on Friday, April 15, everyone in the office (who had checked their email) knew Gricar was off until at least noon. Interesting.

Exactly. IMO, any murder scenario involving a perp outside of friends/family/co-workers/collegues is hard to swallow, exactly for that reason. Not impossible, but improbable.

Or, the destruction of the laptop was unrelated.

[nittany90]

Or, the destruction of the laptop was unrelated.

JJ - I must be missing something. I didn't even mention the laptop in the post you quoted. I was only talking about the computer searches on the home computer.

What exactly do you mean, that destruction of the laptop was unrelated?

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - I must be missing something. I didn't even mention the laptop in the post you quoted. I was only talking about the computer searches on the home computer.

What exactly do you mean, that destruction of the laptop was unrelated?

Even the inquiries about getting rid of the data were unrelated. RFG clearly never wanted the data to see the light of day. He could searched for how to do it, asked others, and did it that day, because he would be in Lewisburg for some other reason.

And, for the record, my computer is password protected. The reason is, in case someone breaks in and steals it. Unless they are major hackers, it's useless.

[2-B]

I can give you the details of the home from Centre County property records...but I don't think I've read which room the home computer was in.

The home is 1 1/2 stories with 1,509 sq ft of living area.

There are --
2 finished basement rooms
4 bedrooms
1 1/2 bathrooms
and a 576 sq ft 2 car garage

There are 5 rooms on the 1st level, 2 on the 2nd level and 2 in the basement.

Thanks, Pgal. So it's likely the two on the second level would be bedrooms.

Five on the first level would likely be kitchen, living room, dining room, and two others (study or bedrooms or whatever).

Just trying to figure out whether the computer would have been located in a place where guests in the house could have easily accessed the computer without, say, going upstairs to a bedroom area. But without further information, that's still hard to say.

[2-B]

And, for the record, my computer is password protected. The reason is, in case someone breaks in and steals it. Unless they are major hackers, it's useless.

J.J. in Phila vs. RG in Bellefonte.

Mmmm. Not so much breaking in and stealing computers in l'il ol' Bellefonte as in Philly, perhaps?

Yeah, yeah, I know, Gricar was a DA. But that was his personal computer, not his work computer.

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J. in Phila vs. RG in Bellefonte.

Mmmm. Not so much breaking in and stealing computers in l'il ol' Bellefonte as in Philly, perhaps?

Yeah, yeah, I know, Gricar was a DA. But that was his personal computer, not his work computer.


Also, there were a rash of car break ins in Bellefonte just before RFG disappeared. Sorry, I lived in the area; I kept my doors locked and worried about burglaries. RFG was obviously familiar with the problems of the area.

[nittany90]

Also, there were a rash of car break ins in Bellefonte just before RFG disappeared. Sorry, I lived in the area; I kept my doors locked and worried about burglaries. RFG was obviously familiar with the problems of the area.

Didn't he also have his vehicle windows smashed in at some time prior?

[2-B]

Also, there were a rash of car break ins in Bellefonte just before RFG disappeared. Sorry, I lived in the area; I kept my doors locked and worried about burglaries. RFG was obviously familiar with the problems of the area.

Bellefonte isn't Philadelphia is my point, and I frankly don't think putting password protection on home computers in case of break-ins is something most people think about around these parts.

I'm much more technologically savvy and aware than Gricar, and we don't do it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Didn't he also have his vehicle windows smashed in at some time prior?

Tires slashed, IIRC.

BTW, since the house wasn't ransacked the murderer would have had to have known where the laptop was. If he was interested in data on the laptop, he'd have to have known that RFG didn't copy it to:

1. A hard copy,

2. A disk.

3. The home computer.

4. His office computer.

[2-B]

JJ, nobody is talking about the laptop in the present discussion, just about planting of the searches on the home computer.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, nobody is talking about the laptop in the present discussion, just about planting of the searches on the home computer.

They are related and N90 raised the point about the murderer returning to the house. If the laptop wasn't destroyed, the searches and RFG's requests about it wouldn't be relevant.

[nittany90]

Tires slashed, IIRC.

BTW, since the house wasn't ransacked the murderer would have had to have known where the laptop was. If he was interested in data on the laptop, he'd have to have known that RFG didn't copy it to:

1. A hard copy,

2. A disk.

3. The home computer.

4. His office computer.


Tires and windows (okay, so the window was smashed in 1995, I knew I remember reading about it) :wink:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1995/04/04-06-95tdc/04-06-95dnews-cops.asp

My post was really about exploring "how do the computer searches" fit in if a VCF/R was involved. There was tons of evidence/implications that I failed to mention. That was by design. It's way too early in my research to start forming a theory on what happened. If I do that, I might blind myself to the one true path to the answer.

Remember, I didn't include any info about the laptop in my post, other than 1) to mention that I thought it was put in the River after April 15, 2005, 2) to offer an alterative to Gricar being the one who took the laptop to Lewisburg and 3)that X could have accessed Gricar's home with Gricar's own key to grab the laptop.

[2-B]

Remember, I didn't include any info about the laptop in my post, other than 1) to mention that I thought it was put in the River after April 15, 2005, 2) to offer an alterative to Gricar being the one who took the laptop to Lewisburg and 3)that X could have accessed Gricar's home with Gricar's own key to grab the laptop.

And that was 26 posts ago. I had to go back that far to find where you'd mentioned it, saying, "The laptop doesn't bother me. . . . " and then essentially dismissing it from the present discussion.

[nittany90]

JJ, nobody is talking about the laptop in the present discussion, just about planting of the searches on the home computer.

Thank you, thank you, thank you ((((((she says, gratefully to 2B, for it is proof that she's not just banging her head against the wall)))))).

[gstickley]

Thank you, thank you, thank you ((((((she says, gratefully to 2B, for it is proof that she's not just banging her head against the wall)))))).

Welcome to our world, N90!

[J. J. in Phila]

Tires and windows (okay, so the window was smashed in 1995, I knew I remember reading about it) :wink:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1995/04/04-06-95tdc/04-06-95dnews-cops.asp

My post was really about exploring "how do the computer searches" fit in if a VCF/R was involved. There was tons of evidence/implications that I failed to mention. That was by design. It's way too early in my research to start forming a theory on what happened. If I do that, I might blind myself to the one true path to the answer.

Remember, I didn't include any info about the laptop in my post, other than 1) to mention that I thought it was put in the River after April 15, 2005, 2) to offer an alterative to Gricar being the one who took the laptop to Lewisburg and 3)that X could have accessed Gricar's home with Gricar's own key to grab the laptop.

#3 assumes two things. A. X knew where the laptop was. B. X wasn't concerned about the data on the laptop. Under you theory, I can B. as not being a factor.

The problem, as I see it, is why. The data on laptop was destroyed; RFG talked to others about destroying the data. It adds very slightly to the idea that this voluntary (suicide or walkaway), but it isn't strong and there is other evidence doing the same thing.

[nittany90]

Welcome to our world, N90!

LOL, gs. And what a FUN world it is, too.

Really, it's all good. We may all have different viewpoints, different ideas, different approaches. But, bottom line is, we're all here for the same reason. To find the answer, whatever that may be.

[2-B]

Welcome to our world, N90!

Oh, yes, N90 is getting the initiation tonight. It's your real welcome to our little corner of the universe, N.

[nittany90]

#3 assumes two things. A. X knew where the laptop was. B. X wasn't concerned about the data on the laptop. Under you theory, I can B. as not being a factor.

The problem, as I see it, is why. The data on laptop was destroyed; RFG talked to others about destroying the data. It adds very slightly to the idea that this voluntary (suicide or walkaway), but it isn't strong and there is other evidence doing the same thing.

JJ-
Can we just agree that if and when I formulate a theory surrounding the laptop, I will submit it directly to you for approval/editing?? I don't have a problem being wrong -- I have no problem with eating crow -- just let me AT LEAST formulate an entire, cohesive theory before you shoot it down.

[nittany90]

Oh, yes, N90 is getting the initiation tonight. It's your real welcome to our little corner of the universe, N.

I liked the sweet, endearing PMs of welcome better :wink:
It's just JJ's way of flirting with me. I get that.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ-
Can we just agree that if and when I formulate a theory surrounding the laptop, I will submit it directly to you for approval/editing?? I don't have a problem being wrong -- I have no problem with eating crow -- just let me AT LEAST formulate an entire, cohesive theory before you shoot it down.

In this case, it might be an all you can eat buffet of crow.

The is a underlying problem with all the effort to deal with the searches. Every theory can start with, "RFG tossed the drive before _____ happened."

In the end, I think he did the searches, and he tossed the drive, (or possibly arranged for someone else to do it), but that might not be related to filling that blank. Trying to prove someone else did the searches isn't really going to change that line, or fill in that blank.

Conversely, if we had absolute proof RFG did the searches and did toss the drive, the line remains.

[nittany90]

In this case, it might be an all you can eat buffet of crow.

The is a underlying problem with all the effort to deal with the searches. Every theory can start with, "RFG tossed the drive before _____ happened."

In the end, I think he did the searches, and he tossed the drive, (or possibly arranged for someone else to do it), but that might not be related to filling that blank. Trying to prove someone else did the searches isn't really going to change that line, or fill in that blank.

Conversely, if we had absolute proof RFG did the searches and did toss the drive, the line remains.

And if that time comes, based upon proof, I will have no problem admitting the error of my ways.

Until then, all that's out there are theories....thoughts....deductive reasoning with a little conjecture thrown in. It's all we have. There's a reason that LE hasn't announced the case "closed" yet.

All of your premises are based upon the laptop not being directly related to his disappearance, -- perhaps even a "two birds with one stone" motivation on Gricar's part. I'm not sure that's the case yet.

The bottom line is, my research isn't flawed. Absolute proof that the laptop was "coincidental" to his disappearance has not be released.

It means I don't know. And I admit that fact freely.

[gstickley]

By the way, has there been an all you can eat buffet of crow from this little gem yet:

"Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours."

(Thanks again to all of the posters who quote posts, allowing me to read some of what I'd rather not.)

Nary a thing, OOB. It's just like all the other smoke & mirrors, the "spaghetti thrown against the wall" to see if it sticks. A bit of the ole "Chubby Checkers" thingy thrown in, as usual.

[2-B]

By the way, has there been an all you can eat buffet of crow from this little gem yet:

"Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours."

(Thanks again to all of the posters who quote posts, allowing me to read some of what I'd rather not.)

Additionally, I'm still waiting for the clarification on how we went from people in the home before RG was reported missing to LE in the home after RG was reported missing.

I'm still not clear on whether the house was purportedly teeming with folks both before and after the MP report was called in, or what.

[J. J. in Phila]

And if that time comes, based upon proof, I will have no problem admitting the error of my ways.

Until then, all that's out there are theories....thoughts....deductive reasoning with a little conjecture thrown in. It's all we have. There's a reason that LE hasn't announced the case "closed" yet.

All of your premises are based upon the laptop not being directly related to his disappearance, -- perhaps even a "two birds with one stone" motivation on Gricar's part. I'm not sure that's the case yet.

The bottom line is, my research isn't flawed. Absolute proof that the laptop was "coincidental" to his disappearance has not be released.

It means I don't know. And I admit that fact freely.

There is still a problem. If you can't "prove" RFG did the searches, you can't "prove" anyone else did them. It becomes "maybe." The second problem is that you do have witnesses that indicate RFG asked about how to destroy the data, so even if you can't "prove" it, it is consistent with other evidence.

I really suspect MR can prove it. I just question how relevant it is.

[Politigal]

There is still a problem. If you can't "prove" RFG did the searches, you can't "prove" anyone else did them. It becomes "maybe." The second problem is that you do have witnesses that indicate RFG asked about how to destroy the data, so even if you can't "prove" it, it is consistent with other evidence.

I really suspect MR can prove it. I just question how relevant it is.

I disagree....you do *not* have witnesses that indicate that Gricar asked about how to "destroy" data. The term was "erase"...in prep for his retirement.

To my knowledge, Gricar didn't want to destroy anything.

Whoever did the computer searches may have.

[2-B]

All of your premises are based upon the laptop not being directly related to his disappearance, -- perhaps even a "two birds with one stone" motivation on Gricar's part. I'm not sure that's the case yet.


I'm noticing a distinct change in position regarding the laptop in JJ's most recent posts. He came to the board in September 2006 announcing among other things that the laptop was the key to Gricar's disappearance. He's held on to that position pretty consistently, even if the "means out of Lewisburg" theme has has become a parallel mantra.

Since the advent of the computer searches, we're now seeing that the laptop has been demoted in importance.

Everyone is entitled to rethink positions, refine thinking, modify understanding of what elements might be paramount in understanding this case. Most of us have done that on a regular basis. But I'm definitely curious why JJ now downplays the importance of the laptop.

For a long time, many of us have considered the possibility that it was a staged artifact, tossed in the river after the fact to keep the focus of the investigation in Lewisburg. I wonder if JJ is now starting to consider that as a possibility.

[nittany90]

There is still a problem. If you can't "prove" RFG did the searches, you can't "prove" anyone else did them. It becomes "maybe." The second problem is that you do have witnesses that indicate RFG asked about how to destroy the data, so even if you can't "prove" it, it is consistent with other evidence.

I really suspect MR can prove it. I just question how relevant it is.

The irony of your post is, this time I WAS talking about the laptop, but you seem to want to talk about the computer searches.

Go figure.

[2-B]

I really suspect MR can prove it. I just question how relevant it is.

Why do you suspect this when it has never been done?

Proof and suggestion are two entirely different things.

Relevance can be determined only in the context of the rest of the evidence. We don't know most of what LE knows. And LE doesn't know what happened to Gricar or they wouldn't have released the computer search information, saying it was being released to stir up potential new tips and leads.

[nittany90]

Why do you suspect this when it has never been done?

Proof and suggestion are two entirely different things.

Relevance can be determined only in the context of the rest of the evidence. We don't know most of what LE knows. And LE doesn't know what happened to Gricar or they wouldn't have released the computer search information, saying it was being released to stir up potential new tips and leads.

Bravo, 2-B. Bravo. And methinks the "rest of the evidence" is lacking.

And, why the faith in MR? Please enlighten us on why you seem to place so much in him. What has he done/uncovered, other than issue yet another "official" version of the fingerprint evidence and increase his "20/20" vision by reading a fictional book?

[2-B]

And methinks the "rest of the evidence" is lacking.


Agreed, unfortunately.

[gstickley]

Thank you, thank you, thank you ((((((she says, gratefully to 2B, for it is proof that she's not just banging her head against the wall)))))).

Ya might try wearin' a football helmet! :wink:

BTW, in all your research, have you ever found a link for this: I]"Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours."[/I]

[nittany90]

Ya might try wearin' a football helmet! :wink:

BTW, in all your research, have you ever found a link for this: I]"Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours."[/I]

Nope. Still looking. :rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Why do you suspect this when it has never been done?

Proof and suggestion are two entirely different things.

Relevance can be determined only in the context of the rest of the evidence. We don't know most of what LE knows. And LE doesn't know what happened to Gricar or they wouldn't have released the computer search information, saying it was being released to stir up potential new tips and leads.

I've told you why I suspect this. MR has a reputation of being very precise and the wording that he used was that RFG did the searches, not that the searches were on the computer. The wording was very careful.

Relevance would be an issue, possibly, if we knew what was on the laptop.

Let's assume that MR wasn't precise enough and that all that LE can really tell is that searches were done on the home computer. Unless you can rule out RFG from being the one who did them (they were done when he was someplace else), he could have done them. That supports the individuals who reported RFG asked them, but that's it. That wouldn't prove that RFG tossed the drive and it wouldn't prove that, if he did, it is related to his disappearance.

Let's assume that MR was absolutely precise and has proof that RFG did the searches. That supports the individuals who reported RFG asked them, but that's it. That wouldn't prove that RFG tossed the drive and it wouldn't prove that, if he did, it is related to his disappearance.

No matter what point you are arguing, the result is the same. Either one is a bit more evidence that he did toss the laptop, or caused it to be tossed. Neither points to it being related to his disappearance.

[2-B]

I've told you why I suspect this. MR has a reputation of being very precise and the wording that he used was that RFG did the searches, not that the searches were on the computer. The wording was very careful.

Well, that's a pretty fascinating rationale. Dixon was always very precise in his wording as well, and yet you chose to ignore his wording on several key points.

When Dixon said regarding a number of the so-called witnesses that he could not be 100% sure the identifications were accurate, that wording apparently did not figure into your thinking. When Dixon said regarding whether RG was in Lewisburg or not that he could not be 100% certain Gricar was there, that wording apparently did not figure into your thinking. And when Dixon said several times the dogs picked up "no trail" in Lewisburg, that wording did not figure into your thinking.

But based on MR's wording, you think the BPD can do what has not yet been done in court to this date? Okay.

Relevance would be an issue, possibly, if we knew what was on the laptop.

Let's assume that MR wasn't precise enough and that all that LE can really tell is that searches were done on the home computer. Unless you can rule out RFG from being the one who did them (they were done when he was someplace else), he could have done them. That supports the individuals who reported RFG asked them, but that's it. That wouldn't prove that RFG tossed the drive and it wouldn't prove that, if he did, it is related to his disappearance.

Let's assume that MR was absolutely precise and has proof that RFG did the searches. That supports the individuals who reported RFG asked them, but that's it. That wouldn't prove that RFG tossed the drive and it wouldn't prove that, if he did, it is related to his disappearance.

No matter what point you are arguing, the result is the same. Either one is a bit more evidence that he did toss the laptop, or caused it to be tossed. Neither points to it being related to his disappearance.

Isn't that what I said when I wrote

"[r]elevance can be determined only in the context of the rest of the evidence. We don't know most of what LE knows. And LE doesn't know what happened to Gricar or they wouldn't have released the computer search information, saying it was being released to stir up potential new tips and leads"?

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, that's a pretty fascinating rationale. Dixon was always very precise in his wording as well, and yet you chose to ignore his wording on several key points.

When Dixon said regarding a number of the so-called witnesses that he could not be 100% sure the identifications were accurate, that wording apparently did not figure into your thinking. When Dixon said regarding whether RG was in Lewisburg or not that he could not be 100% certain Gricar was there, that wording apparently did not figure into your thinking. And when Dixon said several times the dogs picked up "no trail" in Lewisburg, that wording did not figure into your thinking.

But based on MR's wording, you think the BPD can do what has not yet been done in court to this date? Okay.



Isn't that what I said when I wrote

"[r]elevance can be determined only in the context of the rest of the evidence. We don't know most of what LE knows. And LE doesn't know what happened to Gricar or they wouldn't have released the computer search information, saying it was being released to stir up potential new tips and leads"?

You must talking about another Dixon than the former police chief. Talking to the press was not his forte. Still the evidence was out there, even under Weaver (or is this the part where all the cops are in on the "conspiracy theory," too). We've even had TG speaking favorably of MR.

I've indicated why I tend to believe MR.

Now, since you didn't adress the issue, I shall repeat it. No matter what point you are arguing, the result is the same. Either one is a bit more evidence that he did toss the laptop, or caused it to be tossed. Neither points to it being related to his disappearance.

[Politigal]

Police cannot prove who did the searches.

And there's no evidence as to who dumped the laptop or the hard drive.

[J. J. in Phila]

Police cannot prove who did the searches.

And there's no evidence as to who dumped the laptop or the hard drive.


P'gal, they might be able to prove, even beyond a reasonable doubt, who did the searches.

Keep something else in mind; even if there is evidence he tossed the drive, that doesn't mean he was not murdered.

[Politigal]

P'gal, they might be able to prove, even beyond a reasonable doubt, who did the searches.

Keep something else in mind; even if there is evidence he tossed the drive, that doesn't mean he was not murdered.

"they might be able to prove"



NOPE

[Politigal]

Let me be among the first, if not the first, to congratulate Detective Rickard, the Bellefonte Police Department, the Pennsylvania State Police(?), and whoever else had a hand in this unprecedented (literally) feat of technical prowess.

And I'd also like to congratulate those involved on their new, incredibly high paying, international expert and consulting positions to police departments and prosecuting agencies the world over. We'll miss you.

It's really hard to believe that the Associated Press hasn't jumped on this.

:tongueside:

[2-B]

You must talking about another Dixon than the former police chief. Talking to the press was not his forte. Still the evidence was out there, even under Weaver (or is this the part where all the cops are in on the "conspiracy theory," too). We've even had TG speaking favorably of MR.

I've indicated why I tend to believe MR.

That's your estimation of Dixon. I've analyzed his statements in the press. Other than the half day/whole day controversy, everything is very careful, including the fingerprint statements, where he carefully says in or ON the Mini-Cooper. (As for the half day/whole day thing, you might note that a poster on WS whose family had been close to RG because he prosecuted a case for them called the courthouse Monday 4/18 and was told by staff there that RG had taken Friday morning off from work. I refuse to call that confusion Dixon's until we know where that information came from. I know you like to say it's his "mistakement," but I don't think so. JMO.)

And whether MR is precise with words or not, that still does not explain how the BPD would be the first ever to prove that a specific person was at a keyboard. As I said before, if the BPD has done this, more power to them, but I need more than "MR is precise with words" as a rationale.

Now, since you didn't adress the issue, I shall repeat it. No matter what point you are arguing, the result is the same. Either one is a bit more evidence that he did toss the laptop, or caused it to be tossed. Neither points to it being related to his disappearance.

I did address the issue, JJ. Perhaps you didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote.

[2-B]

Let me be among the first, if not the first, to congratulate Detective Rickard, the Bellefonte Police Department, the Pennsylvania State Police(?), and whoever else had a hand in this unprecedented (literally) feat of technical prowess.

And I'd also like to congratulate those involved on their new, incredibly high paying, international expert and consulting positions to police departments and prosecuting agencies the world over. We'll miss you.

Exactly. MR, the PSP, and the computer techs deserve (or would deserve) incredible kudos. The prosecutors in the Caylee Anthony case will be looking for expert witnesses who can prove that Casey did the computer searches, not merely that computer searches were done on Casey's computer.

[J. J. in Phila]

"they might be able to prove"



NOPE


YEP, easily.

[J. J. in Phila]

You make an assumption that LE doesn't know, 2-B. I'm making a, so far correct, assumption that they are not telling us. :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

YEP, easily.

JJ, unless PSP/Bellefonte Police/FBI/CIA etc are all omnipresent, have x-ray vision, can travel thru time & space, etc. there is *no* way to prove who used the computer.

You're giving these super heroes wayyyyy too much credit.

IMO

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, unless PSP/Bellefonte Police/FBI/CIA etc are all omnipresent, have x-ray vision, can travel thru time & space, etc. there is *no* way to prove who used the computer.

You're giving these super heroes wayyyyy too much credit.

IMO

No, I'm just guessing that they know how to tell time. ;)

[Politigal]

No, I'm just guessing that they know how to tell time. ;)

Please outline for us exactly how you think they can prove who did the searches....no maybe this or maybe that but exactly how they would go about proving it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Please outline for us exactly how you think they can prove who did the searches....no maybe this or maybe that but exactly how they would go about proving it.

1. Was he in the household when a particular the search took place? If yes, go to #2

2. Was anyone else known to be in the house at that time? If no, go to #3.

3. Did RFG communicate with anyone outside the house at the time. If yes, go to #4.

4. Was that communication involving something unique to RFG?
If the answers are yes, no, yes and yes, you are beyond reasonable doubt. The lawyer turning to jelly and oozing through the mail slot is well beyond the reasonable doubt.

[Politigal]

1. Was he in the household when a particular the search took place? If yes, go to #2prove he was in the home at that particular time

2. Was anyone else known to be in the house at that time? If no, go to #3.prove no one else was in the home

3. Did RFG communicate with anyone outside the house at the time. If yes, go to #4.even if he talked on the phone with someone it doesn't mean he was at the computer

4. Was that communication involving something unique to RFG?
If the answers are yes, no, yes and yes, you are beyond reasonable doubt. The lawyer turning to jelly and oozing through the mail slot is well beyond the reasonable doubt.prove it was something unique to Gricar - when his girlfriend/soulmate has his passwords, checks his email, works with him & knows his business, lives in the same home, etc

my highlights in red

[J. J. in Phila]

Since the house isn't a public place, there are two people with access to the house. If one isn't there, that kinda limits things.

If there is contact with him in the house, that proves he was there.

Do you really think, P'gal, that RFG told someone else to come in and do searches on his computer? :rolleyes: Musical chairs in from of the terminal?

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
"Since the house isn't a public place, there are two people with access to the house. If one isn't there, that kinda limits things." snipped

Maybe you need to revisit the laptop issue then JJ with this statement...lol

Patty *owned* the house. Patty lived in the house. It was Patty's upstairs closet in the house....

Just trying to be consistent here with your reasoning. lol

[2-B]

If the answers are yes, no, yes and yes, you are beyond reasonable doubt.

1. We need to get semantics straight here. Some of us are talking about actual proof. One of us is talking about building a circumstantial case. The two are not the same.

2. Sigh. Let's repeat this boys and girls. Reasonable doubt is a legal concept used to describe the level of certainty a juror must have before making a legally valid determination of guilt in a criminal case.

Gricar isn't going to court accused of anything in which alleged computer searches play a role in determining his guilt.

What "jurors" are acting as trier of fact here?

MR acting as a jury of one?

The public, after exposure to carefully selected bits and pieces evidence with most of the facts not available to them?

[2-B]

Since the house isn't a public place, there are two people with access to the house. If one isn't there, that kinda limits things.

If there is contact with him in the house, that proves he was there.

Do you really think, P'gal, that RFG told someone else to come in and do searches on his computer? :rolleyes: Musical chairs in from of the terminal?

Have you never used a computer at someone else's house?

Has no one ever used the computer at yours? :rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Maybe you need to revisit the laptop issue then JJ with this statement...lol

Patty *owned* the house. Patty lived in the house. It was Patty's upstairs closet in the house....

Just trying to be consistent here with your reasoning. lol

So did Ray. ;)

[J. J. in Phila]

Have you never used a computer at someone else's house?


No.


Has no one ever used the computer at yours? :rolleyes:

Not Internet searches, and not on the Internet without me being present. Certainly not searches for how to destroy a drive.

[2-B]

No.

Not Internet searches, and not on the Internet without me being present. Certainly not searches for how to destroy a drive.

Except for the destroying a hard drive part, you may be pretty unusual then.

Just within say, the last six months, I know I've been on FIL's desktop and his laptop; on SIL's desktop; on two different nieces' laptops, all in their homes. At other times I've used friends' computers in their homes.

Friends and dog sitters have used our desktop computer.

It's not all that unusual.

[gstickley]

Have you never used a computer at someone else's house?

Has no one ever used the computer at yours? :rolleyes:

Okay, the "supposed" searches took place on the home computer.
The home computer was used by both RG & PF.
The home computer could have been used by others too.
The "supposed" searches took place on 04/14, according to SW.

(How am I doin' so far???)

On 04/14/05, RG attended the Prison Board Meeting in the early morning.
According to DZ, RG was seen at Raystown Dam on 04/14/05, no time given, but I imagine it would take some time to get to there & back.
According to KA, someone was forcibly closing the door to RG's office several times in the afternoon; unknown whether it was RG or not.
RG was seen in the park with PF at approx. 5:30 PM by Ms. Wedler.
RG was on video tape going entering the courthouse at approx. 6:10 PM.
RG was on video tape leaving the courthouse at approx. 9:00 PM.

(Still doin' okay???)

Now, who took care of the dog at noon? PF go home & do it?
Did PF work that day?
Was anyone else in the house that day?
Where did PF go after work if she did go to work?
Where was RG at this time?
Who was in the house between 6:00 & 9:00 PM?
Was PF home when & if RG ever made home after 9:00 PM?
Who was in the house after 9:00 PM?

(FWIW, today between 3:30 & 5:00 PM, 3 adults & 3 kids used my computer.)

[Politigal]

Except for the destroying a hard drive part, you may be pretty unusual then.

Just within say, the last six months, I know I've been on FIL's desktop and his laptop; on SIL's desktop; on two different nieces' laptops, all in their homes. At other times I've used friends' computers in their homes.

Friends and dog sitters have used our desktop computer.

It's not all that unusual.

My computer has been like grand central station --

all 4 of my kids have used it (only 1 lives here,) my 2 oldest granddaughters have used it, 3 of their friends have used it, my daughter's boyfriend has used it, my sister has used it, my son-in-law has used it, and my daughter's best friend has used it... all within the past 6 months.

The point is, I seriously doubt that Bellefonte police went to the trouble of determining every single individual that's been in Patty's home during the period of the searches. Heck they didn't even question RG's best friends or coworkers when he vanished...and we're supposed to believe they were so in depth with the computer search investigation??

[J. J. in Phila]

Except for the destroying a hard drive part, you may be pretty unusual then.

Just within say, the last six months, I know I've been on FIL's desktop and his laptop; on SIL's desktop; on two different nieces' laptops, all in their homes. At other times I've used friends' computers in their homes.

Friends and dog sitters have used our desktop computer.

It's not all that unusual.

It may be more usual if there are children in the household. The one time it happened with me, and I was present, it was a friends daughter.

Suddenly we have friends and dog sitters in the house using the computer, looking up how to destroy a hard drive. I don't buy it.

I have two murder scenarios out there. Each says, RFG tossed the drive before he was murdered (You might to review the blog on destroying the data). Really, it doesn't change too much if he did the searches or not.

[gstickley]

Okay, the "supposed" searches took place on the home computer.
The home computer was used by both RG & PF.
The home computer could have been used by others too.
The "supposed" searches took place on 04/14, according to SW.

(snip)


Hey, I made a mistake; went back & listened to SW again; it was "month" instead of "day" before RG disappeared. Sorrry. But then, I'm not the "perfect" poster.

[2-B]

Hey, I made a mistake; went back & listened to SW again; it was "month" instead of "day" before RG disappeared. Sorrry. But then, I'm not the "perfect" poster.

No biggie, GS. We all make mistakes, and there have been far bigger gaffes on this board than that one.

[J. J. in Phila]

Hey, I made a mistake; went back & listened to SW again; it was "month" instead of "day" before RG disappeared. Sorrry. But then, I'm not the "perfect" poster.

I would say the odds that MR's statement was dead on accurate is high; they can probably put RFG in the house and PEF out of the house for at least some searches.

Keep in mind that there is a possibility that the search, or the destruction of the laptop, may not be related to RFG's disappearance.

[gstickley]

You guys and gals have computers with some pretty loose morals. No wonder computer viruses run rampant through cyberspace.

Except J. J. It looks like his computer is as pure as the driven snow.

Ooh my, OOB, I have a computer with pretty loose morals!!!!!!!!!
I'm so mortified. :blushing:

[nittany90]

1. We need to get semantics straight here. Some of us are talking about actual proof. One of us is talking about building a circumstantial case. The two are not the same.

2. Sigh. Let's repeat this boys and girls. Reasonable doubt is a legal concept used to describe the level of certainty a juror must have before making a legally valid determination of guilt in a criminal case.

Gricar isn't going to court accused of anything in which alleged computer searches play a role in determining his guilt.

What "jurors" are acting as trier of fact here?

MR acting as a jury of one?

The public, after exposure to carefully selected bits and pieces evidence with most of the facts not available to them?

I hereby vote this as the most enlightening post of the day. :thumbup: Errr...of yesterday.

[nittany90]

Okay, the "supposed" searches took place on the home computer.
The home computer was used by both RG & PF.
The home computer could have been used by others too.
The "supposed" searches took place on 04/14, according to SW.

(How am I doin' so far???)

On 04/14/05, RG attended the Prison Board Meeting in the early morning.
According to DZ, RG was seen at Raystown Dam on 04/14/05, no time given, but I imagine it would take some time to get to there & back.
According to KA, someone was forcibly closing the door to RG's office several times in the afternoon; unknown whether it was RG or not.
RG was seen in the park with PF at approx. 5:30 PM by Ms. Wedler.
RG was on video tape going entering the courthouse at approx. 6:10 PM.
RG was on video tape leaving the courthouse at approx. 9:00 PM.

(Still doin' okay???)

Now, who took care of the dog at noon? PF go home & do it?
Did PF work that day?
Was anyone else in the house that day?
Where did PF go after work if she did go to work?
Where was RG at this time?
Who was in the house between 6:00 & 9:00 PM?
Was PF home when & if RG ever made home after 9:00 PM?
Who was in the house after 9:00 PM?

(FWIW, today between 3:30 & 5:00 PM, 3 adults & 3 kids used my computer.)

GS -
First of all, forget about the gaff in timeline for the searches. WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES. Lord knows, I've made my share, and that's just today, lol.
Second -- I think your questions are very thought-provoking. The last irrefutable piece of hard evidence proving Gricar was alive, is that of the CH videotape showing him leaving the CH around 9 pm on Thursday, 4/14/05. The phone call? We only have proof that a phone call was made from his phone and one person's word that it was Gricar.

So -- what do we KNOW about Gricar's activities in the days prior to his disappearance? And what do we KNOW about his family/friends/co-workers' AFTER 9 pm on 4/14/05?

[2-B]

I hereby vote this as the most enlightening post of the day. :thumbup: Errr...of yesterday.

Thanks, N90. :blushing:

Now let's hope we can keep discussion of the computer searches semantically sorted out.

[J. J. in Phila]

1. We need to get semantics straight here. Some of us are talking about actual proof. One of us is talking about building a circumstantial case. The two are not the same.

2. Sigh. Let's repeat this boys and girls. Reasonable doubt is a legal concept used to describe the level of certainty a juror must have before making a legally valid determination of guilt in a criminal case.




Actually, if you are dealing with a claim that that anyone else did the searches, the reasonable would be only to to show that RFG could have done those searches. Once you establish that, there is reasonable doubt that anyone else did the searches.

I'm using a higher standard, not that was probable or likely that RFG did the searches, but that it is probable beyond a reasonable.


Gricar isn't going to court accused of anything in which alleged computer searches play a role in determining his guilt.


That is the key. If you want to use the standard that you couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a much lower standard.

1. The data was destroyed.
2. RFG wanted to destroy the data.
3. RFG had access to the drive with the data.

If you are using a lower standard, RFG destroyed the data.

I have not been using that lower standard.

We can add (probably) these too:

4. Searches were done on the computer, to which RFG had access on how to destroy the data.
(These two are the probables)
5. They were done only at a time when RFG had access to the computer.
6. They were done at a time when RFG was known to be in the house and no other household member was in the house.

Knowing what I've heard about MR, I'd believe he has 5 and 6.


What "jurors" are acting as trier of fact here?

MR acting as a jury of one?

The public, after exposure to carefully selected bits and pieces evidence with most of the facts not available to them?

Both, but neither should be relying on your "standard." I would hope (and this will probably be the next blog) that if a result is announced, all evidence will be laid out. It will have to be if the result is foul play.

You see, if the explanation of what happened to RFG isn't foul play, I, for one, want that explanation to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope you would too, in that case.

[2-B]

Actually, if you are dealing with a claim that that anyone else did the searches, the reasonable would be only to to show that RFG could have done those searches. Once you establish that, there is reasonable doubt that anyone else did the searches.

I'm using a higher standard, not that was probable or likely that RFG did the searches, but that it is probable beyond a reasonable.



That is the key. If you want to use the standard that you couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a much lower standard.

1. The data was destroyed.
2. RFG wanted to destroy the data.
3. RFG had access to the drive with the data.

If you are using a lower standard, RFG destroyed the data.

I have not been using that lower standard.

We can add (probably) these too:

4. Searches were done on the computer, to which RFG had access on how to destroy the data.
(These two are the probables)
5. They were done only at a time when RFG had access to the computer.
6. They were done at a time when RFG was known to be in the house and no other household member was in the house.

Knowing what I've heard about MR, I'd believe he has 5 and 6.



Both, but neither should be relying on your "standard." I would hope (and this will probably be the next blog) that if a result is announced, all evidence will be laid out. It will have to be if the result is foul play.

You see, if the explanation of what happened to RFG isn't foul play, I, for one, want that explanation to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope you would too, in that case.

Sorry, JJ, but none of what you've said here has any connection with regard to what I've said.

Actual proof that Gricar did the searches (as opposed to the circumstantial case "beyond a reasonable doubt" you want to discuss) is hardly a lower standard of proof. It is a higher standard of proof.

Actual proof would be hard evidence, irrefutable evidence that Gricar did the searches.

I can't list any examples of such, because it is impossible to do when talking about searches found on a computer. Hasn't been done in prior cases; won't be done in this situation.

And you still seem not to understand that the concept of reasonable doubt does not apply without jurors; a judge determining admissible evidence; witnesses; lawyers examining and cross-examining those witnesses under specified rules of law.

That entire system has to be in place before reasonable doubt can be decided.

Neither you nor MR nor anyone else in the public can take it upon himself or herself to decide what evidence will be "admissible," to analyze that cherry-picked evidence without examination and cross-examination, and to reach a conclusion of whether something is beyond a reasonable doubt without consensus of jurors who have gone through the voir dire process and who have followed the rules imposed by the judicial process.

And since Gricar will not be going to court with the claim "Gricar did the searches on the computer" as a component of a criminal case against him, we will never have those elements in that judicial framework process to decide whether there's "reasonable doubt" about that statement.

What we've already had, however, is press that has influenced the court of public opinion so that it's likely many in the public now believe that Gricar performed the searches and press that has influenced the court of public opinion to believe that increases the odds Gricar walked away from his life.

That's not reasonable doubt. That's just "trial by press."

[J. J. in Phila]

Right now, there is the level of proof needed to say it is more than 50% probable that RFG tossed the drive, even without the searches. You basically to refute that that would have to prove someone else did it.

"Hard evidence, irrefutable evidence" is not necessary in our system; you are back to inventing your own standards.

You mentioned "trial by press." That is the key, as there is no evidence of a crime. It is more "trial by public opinion." Right now, tonight, MM could say, "Ray walked away." Is there some evidence that is at least points to it? Yes. Is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? No, absolutely not. If you don't use that standard, this very rapidly becomes a voluntary departure case. And it will be easy to dismiss those who disagree as "loony conspiracy theorists." It has already happened, with Buehner.

You better hope that everybody asks, "It there evidence that Ray Gricar walked away/committed suicide beyond a reasonable doubt?" The alternative is, "Oh, Ray Gricar walked away." You've never understood that.

[2-B]

Right now, there is the level of proof needed to say it is more than 50% probable that RFG tossed the drive, even without the searches. You basically to refute that that would have to prove someone else did it.

On what basis are you deciding there's more than 50% probability that Gricar tossed the hard drive? (And this is your percentage and yours alone; LE has never given any percentages pulled from thin air to indicate the probability of whether Gricar tossed the hard drive.)

Secondly on this point, why are you mixing in tossing the hard drive with doing the computer searches? I feel like N90, meeting that brick wall.

"Hard evidence, irrefutable evidence" is not necessary in our system; you are back to inventing your own standards.

Ahem. Key words in our system. The claim regarding Gricar doing the computer searches is not and will not be part of the judicial system, since Gricar is never going to be tried in front of a jury for doing computer searches.

You mentioned "trial by press." That is the key, as there is no evidence of a crime.

So you are knowledgeable regarding all the evidence LE has? Please share. The rest of the board members would be glad to know the full extent of that evidence.

It is more "trial by public opinion." Right now, tonight, MM could say, "Ray walked away." Is there some evidence that is at least points to it? Yes. Is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? No, absolutely not. If you don't use that standard, this very rapidly becomes a voluntary departure case. And it will be easy to dismiss those who disagree as "loony conspiracy theorists." It has already happened, with Buehner.

You better hope that everybody asks, "It there evidence that Ray Gricar walked away/committed suicide beyond a reasonable doubt?" The alternative is, "Oh, Ray Gricar walked away." You've never understood that.

Yes, I made it quite clear this was trial in the press leading to trial by public opinion.

However, it does not necessarily follow that it "rapidly becomes a voluntary departure case." That is true only if the parties handling the investigation want it to become so.

Perhaps it is time for you to review the thread on Walkaway: How Much Evidence is Enough.

In the Nicholas Francisco case, there is a mountain of evidence pointing to a secret life and a potential voluntary walkaway.

And yet the authorities in that case have not declared the case one of voluntary walkaway. Nicholas remains on the King County list of missing persons.

Perhaps this was why the thread starter for that thread was wise enough to wonder what standards the BPD would use if and when they would declare Gricar's case one of voluntary walkaway.

[J. J. in Phila]

On what basis are you deciding there's more than 50% probability that Gricar tossed the hard drive? (And this is your percentage and yours alone; LE has never given any percentages pulled from thin air to indicate the probability of whether Gricar tossed the hard drive.)

Secondly on this point, why are you mixing in tossing the hard drive with doing the computer searches? I feel like N90, meeting that brick wall.



As posted, he was interested in destroying the date, he had assess to the drive, containing the data, the data was destroyed.

It is doubtful for someone else would be searching, on a subject that RFG expresses a prior interest in, on his home computer, for reasons already cited



Ahem. Key words in our system. The claim regarding Gricar doing the computer searches is not and will not be part of the judicial system, since Gricar is never going to be tried in front of a jury for doing computer searches.


Yes it can be, in either the lower standard civil system or the higher standard criminal system.



So you are knowledgeable regarding all the evidence LE has? Please share. The rest of the board members would be glad to know the full extent of that evidence.


I never claimed all the evidence, but there is no evidence revealed so far.



Yes, I made it quite clear this was trial in the press leading to trial by public opinion.

However, it does not necessarily follow that it "rapidly becomes a voluntary departure case." That is true only if the parties handling the investigation want it to become so.

Perhaps it is time for you to review the thread on Walkaway: How Much Evidence is Enough.



2-B, who is the titular "chief law enforcement officer" of Centre County? ;)


In the Nicholas Francisco case, there is a mountain of evidence pointing to a secret life and a potential voluntary walkaway.

And yet the authorities in that case have not declared the case one of voluntary walkaway. Nicholas remains on the King County list of missing persons.

Perhaps this was why the thread starter for that thread was wise enough to wonder what standards the BPD would use if and when they would declare Gricar's case one of voluntary walkaway.

I repeat, 2-B, who is the titular "chief law enforcement officer" of Centre County? What political activity is he currently involved with?

If RFG walked away/committed suicide, and they have solid evidence, fine, great, outstanding. If they want to pronounce if walked away/committed suicide, based on that evidence, fine, great, outstanding. I want to do my best to see that it is solid evidence of walkaway/suicide (if that is what is announced), at the same level that they'd need to prove RFG was murdered.

That's the main reason I am not too worried about the searches. Unless there is evidence that RFG could not have done the searches, it doesn't make the premise that he was murdered any less likely. As long as he could have done them, it isn't lessening the chances of suicide/walkaway.

The thing that I hind really troubling is that poll and the reader comments in the article about the searches. The public seems increasingly willing to accept walkaway, even though there isn't evidence of it as of yet.

[2-B]

The question is not who is the titular head of law enforcement. The question is what are the standards in Pennsylvania or in Centre County for declaring a case of an adult missing person a walkaway.

If you find it so troubling that the public might be willing to accept walkaway based on too little evidence, then why are you not analyzing what's been put forth to the public to make them reach that conclusion rather than accepting it at face value?

[J. J. in Phila]

The question is not who is the titular head of law enforcement. The question is what are the standards in Pennsylvania or in Centre County for declaring a case of an adult missing person a walkaway.


I doubt if the criteria exists, possibly not anyplace in PA. I would doubt if it could.



If you find it so troubling that the public might be willing to accept walkaway based on too little evidence, then why are you not analyzing what's been put forth to the public to make them reach that conclusion rather than accepting it at face value?

I have been. In this case, it basically is, even though LE probably can state RFG did the searches, it doesn't make any difference as long he could have done them. The only thing that LE could do is place the search at point when RFG was known not to have been in the house.

In all four of the scenarios I've posted, including two where RFG is murdered, RFG tosses the drive.

[2-B]

In all four of the scenarios I've posted, including two where RFG is murdered, RFG tosses the drive.

But surely you must realize the scenarios you've posted represent only a handful of possible scenarios.

[2-B]

I doubt if the criteria exists, possibly not anyplace in PA. I would doubt if it could.


I have been. In this case, it basically is, even though LE probably can state RFG did the searches, it doesn't make any difference as long he could have done them. The only thing that LE could do is place the search at point when RFG was known not to have been in the house.



From Detective Holland in the NF case:

"There is no known evidence to suggest that NF disappeared under suspicious circumstances. There is also no known evidence to suggest that he’s alive. Issues in his personal life have been uncovered….which doesn’t minimize the fact that he’s still missing."

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/sh...d.php?t=334688

My opinion: even if we were to accept that RG performed the computer searches AND that he tossed the drive in the river, there would still be less evidence of a walkaway in the Gricar case than in the NF case.

Yet NF remains "a missing person."

There must be some kind of police standards or protocols for decision making. I wouldn't assume LE simply flips a coin.

Nor would I assume that LE forgets the choice is not between declaring a case one of "foul play" and one of "voluntary walkaway."

Despite the passage of four years, MR says RG's case is still an active investigation. What's being lost here is that the case can be declared a cold case rather than being declared a voluntary walkaway.

What the public might think is a separate matter entirely. Many in the public have thought walkaway since April 2005. That hasn't stopped an active investigation from happening. Nor should public apathy ever stop LE from investigating a case. I shudder to think of a society where public polling could determine that someone's disappearance isn't worthy of continued investigation.

[J. J. in Phila]

But surely you must realize the scenarios you've posted represent only a handful of possible scenarios.

Most of the others fit even less well with the evidence, and most include "He tossed the drive." Luring has it's own problems. Dead before noon gets into the "conspiracy theory" level very quickly (and trying to tie the searches into it makes it worse).

Frankly, I suspect LE is holding back in that area, not just doing the searches, but also destroying the drive. If they do, that does NOT take murder off the table.

[2-B]

Most of the others fit even less well with the evidence, and most include "He tossed the drive." Luring has it's own problems. Dead before noon gets into the "conspiracy theory" level very quickly (and trying to tie the searches into it makes it worse).



In. Your. Opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

In. Your. Opinion.

No. In. Fact.

Which is more likely:

Possibility A.

1. Several people, not really related to the principles, lie about Ray asking to how to destroy the data.

2. Ray invites someone else into the house, while he's there, and that person searches for how to destroy the hard drive. Conversely, someone manages to enter the knowing RFG isn't there (and possibly that PEF isn't there), and that there isn't going to leave a record of being anywhere else, and does multiple searches.

3. Someone else just happens to know about one and two, and where the laptop is, removes it before 4/17/05.

Possibility B.

RFG did the searches before tossing the drive (though it might not be related to his disappearance).

Most scenarios, including those that say RFG was murdered, work better with Possibility B.

[2-B]

No. In. Fact.



Yes. In. Your. Opinion.

Most of the others fit even less well with the evidence= your opinion.

Dead before noon gets into the "conspiracy theory" level very quickly=your opinion.

trying to tie the searches into it makes it worse=your opinion.

Opinions are allowed here. They're encouraged.

But this is not Blogland. Everybody's opinion is encouraged on a message board, which is the beauty of it. And nobody on a message board is required to view Blogland as the definitive text on the Gricar case, which is also the beauty of the message board.

As for what fits or doesn't fit with "the evidence":

LE presently doesn't have enough evidence to solve the mystery of Gricar's disappearance.

And we in the public have access to only a tiny fraction of what LE knows.

IMO, it seems presumptuous to label any theory at this point as "fitting less well" with the evidence given that we in the public know so little.

As for the ubiquitous "conspiracy theory" charge: you seem to dismiss any theory that involves more than two people (you'll accept Gricar walking away with a "helper"). My opinion (to which I am entitled, but which I will not force down anyone's throat as the definitive answer): many cases, when ultimately solved, do eventually prove to have involved more than two people and haven't required the wearing of tin foil hats to accept the solution.

[gstickley]

(snip)

Opinions are allowed here. They're encouraged.

But this is not Blogland. Everybody's opinion is encouraged on a message board, which is the beauty of it. And nobody on a message board is required to view Blogland as the definitive text on the Gricar case, which is also the beauty of the message board.

(snip)



I agree with you, 2-B, & I'm sure other posters do too. I would also like to add that I don't believe every single opinion requires 'the red ink pen' be brought out & the opinion ridiculed, picked to pieces, & twisted into something else to suit the 'red ink pen' wielder; and I am sure other posters agree with this too.

[2-B]

I would also like to add that I don't believe every single opinion requires 'the red ink pen' be brought out & the opinion ridiculed, picked to pieces, & twisted into something else to suit the 'red ink pen' wielder; and I am sure other posters agree with this too.

I think it's healthy for us to ask questions about each others' ideas and to challenge each others' theories. That helps each of us refine our thinking and may help lead to a clearer picture of what really happened to Ray Gricar.

But there's a difference between cooperative group discussion and what you're talking about. Everyone's opinions deserve respect here. That's a major difference between a message board and a blog. On a blog, the blogger can be king. A message board is no monarchy.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes. In. Your. Opinion.

Most of the others fit even less well with the evidence= your opinion.

Dead before noon gets into the "conspiracy theory" level very quickly=your opinion.

trying to tie the searches into it makes it worse=your opinion.

Opinions are allowed here. They're encouraged.

But this is not Blogland. Everybody's opinion is encouraged on a message board, which is the beauty of it. And nobody on a message board is required to view Blogland as the definitive text on the Gricar case, which is also the beauty of the message board.

As for what fits or doesn't fit with "the evidence":

LE presently doesn't have enough evidence to solve the mystery of Gricar's disappearance.

And we in the public have access to only a tiny fraction of what LE knows.

IMO, it seems presumptuous to label any theory at this point as "fitting less well" with the evidence given that we in the public know so little.

As for the ubiquitous "conspiracy theory" charge: you seem to dismiss any theory that involves more than two people (you'll accept Gricar walking away with a "helper"). My opinion (to which I am entitled, but which I will not force down anyone's throat as the definitive answer): many cases, when ultimately solved, do eventually prove to have involved more than two people and haven't required the wearing of tin foil hats to accept the solution.

I have no problem with you expressing opinions here, but I'm not to the one you have to worry about. I looked at the comments in regard to a few familiar names under the last article the CDT posted, not comments I've made. That said, I am very worried that if a "solution" is announced, any negative comment on it will be dismissed as "more from the conspiracy theorists," even if the negative comments totally justified. It is less about opinion and more about how that opinion is regarded, by the public.

In this case, yes, obviously a theory that requires the searcher to know where two other people are while searching, and has to be sure that there is evidence that one of them is someplace else, is more than a bit contrived. It is especially contrived because, even if correct, it doesn't add any weight to any particular theory. It becomes an argument about evidence that doesn't make a difference.

Your are entitled to your own opinion, but please bear in mind how that opinion will shape public perception, not of you, but of the case.

I'm saying, basically to everyone, you might be right at some point, but if it is thought that it's part of a vast conspiracy theory, it won't make a difference, to the public. :( We saw it with BB as well. :(

(BTW, SJ, I wasn't referring to your post about BB.)

[2-B]

Your are entitled to your own opinion, but please bear in mind how that opinion will shape public perception, not of you, but of the case.

I'm saying, basically to everyone, you might be right at some point, but if it is thought that it's part of a vast conspiracy theory, it won't make a difference, to the public. :(

Since you are the one religiously calling anyone who disagrees with you a conspiracy theorist, by definition you are creating the very scenario you claim to find so saddening.

[2-B]

I doubt if the criteria exists, possibly not anyplace in PA. I would doubt if it could.

This was your response on criteria for declaring a walkaway.

One other thing on this point I meant to mention last night, but it was quite late and my computer was acting up, so I didn't get to it.

I have no idea why you would say you doubt if such criteria could exist.

Of course it could. It does, and quite simply and quite obviously. It has been mentioned on this board before.

In the UK policy on missing persons, the criterion for declaring an adult missing person a case of voluntary walkaway is this: a face-to-face meeting with LE during which the missing person asserts that he/she is absent from his/her prior life voluntarily.

Simple and obvious.

[Cloudbuster]

Most of the others fit even less well with the evidence, and most include "He tossed the drive." Luring has it's own problems. Dead before noon gets into the "conspiracy theory" level very quickly (and trying to tie the searches into it makes it worse).

Frankly, I suspect LE is holding back in that area, not just doing the searches, but also destroying the drive. If they do, that does NOT take murder off the table.


JJ I have to say RFG tossed the laptop, Im in total agreement with my own understanding of that. I wonder if MR is into information in a total different weird way? Then I have to say a murderer pulled out but that does not mean anything happened at that point. To what I can muster here something was going on and seems like RG knew exactly what was going on. The contractor holds the key IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

Since you are the one religiously calling anyone who disagrees with you a conspiracy theorist, by definition you are creating the very scenario you claim to find so saddening.

Actually, I have not. The comments under the last article did.

I do when folks begin suggesting a plot involving a large number of people, but no one did in those comments, at first at least. "Dead before noon" has that problem.

CB, one thing I'm not entirely sure about is if the destruction of the laptop is related to the disappearance (which also means the searches were unrelated).

[2-B]

Actually, I have not. The comments under the last article did.

I do when folks begin suggesting a plot involving a large number of people, but no one did in those comments, at first at least.

Actually, JJ, you use the charge "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" anytime a theory doesn't meet with your approval.

And the manner in which you use it is always inflammatory, meant to cast the poster you're responding to in an unfavorable light and meant to discredit whatever ideas that poster is putting forward.

Denotatively, the word "conspiracy" with regard to a crime means only that two or more people have agreed to engage in some criminal activity. The phrase "conspiracy to commit murder" exists in the law because agreements to commit murder do occur, and with some regularity. Only a quick Google search is necessary to find any number of recent examples.

But you aren't particularly interested in denotation, preferring connotation and conjuring up shades of grassy knolls, Dodi's father, etc. I could put up a long list of posts in which you've charged "conspiracy theory," but I think this one says it all:

11-21-2008, 07:55 PM

Day, I don't really care about your opinion. But, of course, once again you are wrong. Even TG has said previously he thought his uncle was in Lewisburg. The real observers of the case, [XX], the police, have said so. Only the mass conspiracy theorists don't agree.
Some people out think 9/11 wasn't really a terrorist attack either.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12449797&highlight=conspiracy#post12449797

Posters on message boards deserve to have their opinions heard without being labeled whacko nut jobs. The value in a discussion group is having all voices heard. JMO.

[gstickley]

Actually, JJ, you use the charge "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" anytime a theory doesn't meet with your approval.

And the manner in which you use it is always inflammatory, meant to cast the poster you're responding to in an unfavorable light and meant to discredit whatever ideas that poster is putting forward.

Denotatively, the word "conspiracy" with regard to a crime means only that two or more people have agreed to engage in some criminal activity. The phrase "conspiracy to commit murder" exists in the law because agreements to commit murder do occur, and with some regularity. Only a quick Google search is necessary to find any number of recent examples.

But you aren't particularly interested in denotation, preferring connotation and conjuring up shades of grassy knolls, Dodi's father, etc. I could put up a long list of posts in which you've charged "conspiracy theory," but I think this one says it all:

11-21-2008, 07:55 PM

Day, I don't really care about your opinion. But, of course, once again you are wrong. Even TG has said previously he thought his uncle was in Lewisburg. The real observers of the case, [XX], the police, have said so. Only the mass conspiracy theorists don't agree.
Some people out think 9/11 wasn't really a terrorist attack either.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12449797&highlight=conspiracy#post12449797

Posters on message boards deserve to have their opinions heard without being labeled whacko nut jobs. The value in a discussion group is having all voices heard. JMO.

Thank you, 2-B.

[Politigal]

changing the subject...

I was thinking more about the missing keys/wallet.

Is it more likely that Gricar met with foul play, and the keys & wallet are simply in the jeans that he was last wearing Thurs night?

And, was a search warrant ever executed for the home to look for those items?

And if not...why not?

[Politigal]

Thank you, 2-B.

I agree...thx 2-B.

I don't understand why, but there have been several of us who have had labels attached to us for yrs now...

We've been called lynchmobbers, mental defectives, and conspiracy theorists...and basically we've been called liars in subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways. And of course, we don't run to Coldwater and complain about all these things, because 1) we consider the source and 2) we choose to rise above those tags and continue the discussion into what happened to Ray Gricar.

And I guess I should have put this post on Nittany's thread...because, this is *my* rant for the day.

:seeya:

[2-B]

Considering the sightings of the Mini being followed were said to involve more than just RG, guess that must be why LE is secreting those sightings from the public. That could mean two people and could create a conspiracy theory----- then again, it could open another possibility; that possible evidence which would discredit the walkaway theory is intentionally NOT being offered to the public. But then that would be another conspiracy theory unless it's one person secreting tips away.


Logic, I think you're on to something I've wondered about/asked about before. We've had a few things carefully selected and released to the public.

Yet we know that surely LE has much, much more they know about the case than has been released.

Why were these particular items chosen to be released? Suppose four or five other things had been chosen instead? Would the public be able to leap to the same conclusions about what happened to RG?

A few weeks ago I watched a CBS 48 Hours Mystery episode on Amanda Knox, the American college student accused of killing her roommate in Italy. I hadn't followed the case closely, just read and listened to press and a few threads here and there. Up till that point, I had gotten the picture of an evil girl quite capable of killing her roommate and of evidence that pointed in her direction. The 48 Hours episode really made me rethink what the press had painted about AK and about the crime! I still don't know if she's guilty or not, but I do know that the press has carefully selected what to release and what to emphasize about this girl and about the crime. I've got to thank 48 Hours for a more balanced picture.

Has the public been given a balanced picture of the evidence in the RG case? Or has the released evidence been carefully selected and carefully emphasized in the press to point in one direction? And in that case, what do the results of public polling on what happened to Gricar really mean except that people's minds may have been manipulated?

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, JJ, you use the charge "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" anytime a theory doesn't meet with your approval.

And the manner in which you use it is always inflammatory, meant to cast the poster you're responding to in an unfavorable light and meant to discredit whatever ideas that poster is putting forward.

Denotatively, the word "conspiracy" with regard to a crime means only that two or more people have agreed to engage in some criminal activity. The phrase "conspiracy to commit murder" exists in the law because agreements to commit murder do occur, and with some regularity. Only a quick Google search is necessary to find any number of recent examples.

But you aren't particularly interested in denotation, preferring connotation and conjuring up shades of grassy knolls, Dodi's father, etc. I could put up a long list of posts in which you've charged "conspiracy theory," but I think this one says it all:

11-21-2008, 07:55 PM

Day, I don't really care about your opinion. But, of course, once again you are wrong. Even TG has said previously he thought his uncle was in Lewisburg. The real observers of the case, [XX], the police, have said so. Only the mass conspiracy theorists don't agree.
Some people out think 9/11 wasn't really a terrorist attack either.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12449797&highlight=conspiracy#post12449797

Posters on message boards deserve to have their opinions heard without being labeled whacko nut jobs. The value in a discussion group is having all voices heard. JMO.

2-B, I wasn't one of the people using it. This was in the comments under the last article, before I posted anything on it. And, interestingly, they didn't refer to me as one.

Now, will that create problems if the same people commenting on something legitimately, they can easily dismissed as "conspiracy theorists." It's like Chicken Little calling out "The sky in falling." Foxy Loxy ends up eating Chicken Little.

[Politigal]

Logic, I think you're on to something I've wondered about/asked about before. We've had a few things carefully selected and released to the public.

Yet we know that surely LE has much, much more they know about the case than has been released.

Why were these particular items chosen to be released? Suppose four or five other things had been chosen instead? Would the public be able to leap to the same conclusions about what happened to RG?

A few weeks ago I watched a CBS 48 Hours Mystery episode on Amanda Knox, the American college student accused of killing her roommate in Italy. I hadn't followed the case closely, just read and listened to press and a few threads here and there. Up till that point, I had gotten the picture of an evil girl quite capable of killing her roommate and of evidence that pointed in her direction. The 48 Hours episode really made me rethink what the press had painted about AK and about the crime! I still don't know if she's guilty or not, but I do know that the press has carefully selected what to release and what to emphasize about this girl and about the crime. I've got to thank 48 Hours for a more balanced picture.

Has the public been given a balanced picture of the evidence in the RG case? Or has the released evidence been carefully selected and carefully emphasized in the press to point in one direction? And in that case, what do the results of public polling on what happened to Gricar really mean except that people's minds may have been manipulated?

the key question is...who is the master manipulator?

[2-B]

2-B, I wasn't one of the people using it.

JJ, you've been calling anyone and everyone who has a theory you don't like a "conspiracy theorist" for ages. The earliest mention still on the board is September 2008, but your use of the term pre-dates even that post.

As I pointed out, your post to Day says it all:

1) Other posters' opinions don't matter to you.

2) Other posters' opinions are wrong.

3) If other posters see things differently than you do, they are "conspiracy theorists."

4) A "conspiracy theorist" in your mind is someone "far out there," someone who would believe that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack.

There's no way to read this other than "failure to fall in line with JJ's theories means the poster is a nut job not worthy of being listened to."


Now you want to claim someone else made a similar comment elsewhere before you got to that site. Of course, that person couldn't possibly have been parroting you and your frequent charges of conspiracy theories here on this board and elsewhere. Nope, that couldn't happen. :rolleyes:

Just have respect for other people's ideas. Please stop calling other posters conspiracy theorists, mental defectives, lynchmobbers, potted plants, and the like. Please stop bullying people who have perfectly reasonable ideas to share.

It's that simple.

[2-B]

the key question is...who is the master manipulator?

I agree.

But I don't have the answer, unfortunately.

[nittany90]

I agree.

But I don't have the answer, unfortunately.

And, if we did have the answer, it would be followed by two additional glaring questions...."Why" and "When". It could be purely innocuous (LE didn't initially want to release certain facts that may "impede" the investigation) But, at this stage in the game, I would have hoped that LE would take the chance that releasing more info may help generate tips rather than worry the release may impede the investigation.

It appears at least on the surface, that the release of evidence was manipulated early on. I think, if you follow the mass of news articles regarding the disappearance from the beginning, you can see a pattern of DZ offering little tidbits, only to be promptly shut down or disputed by "the powers that be". I clearly remember DZ offering his opinion of what had happened early on. His initial opinion that Gricar was on a weekend jaunt, were reported. In May, 2005, Zaccagni said he still thinks Gricar is "out there somewhere, alive and well" (Source: CDT, May 12, 2005). Less than 4 months later, he thought he had been murdered. "I think it's a homicide," said Bellefonte Police Officer Darrel Zaccagni, the frustrated lead investigator in the case… "To me," Zaccagni said, "it looks more and more like a homicide by someone who planned this out, lured Ray to a meeting, got him to bring the computer, and then took the time to do something with the body so it wouldn't be found." (Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, September 6, 2005)

DZ was the one who mentioned the "mystery woman". DZ mentions that several of the psychic's visions mesh with unreleased witness reports (the car that was "following" Gricar on 192 and the mystery man "construction-worker type" leaning into to talk to Gricar.) DZ offers the initial info, and we never hear about it again. Police reports that they were working on a "composite sketch" of the woman allegedly seen dining with Gricar in Michigan -- curiously, not another word released about the composite sketch. LE's contradictions regarding the cell phone records, the fingerprint evidence. The list goes on and on. Contradictions made public all the way until DZ "retired" to accept a part-time position outside of the BPD, that, at least on the surface, appeared to be created specifically for DZ.

Enter MR, who apparently has been on the case from the beginning, but whose name was never associated with the investigation, until taking over as lead investigator. We are led to believe that MM is intimately involved with the "ins and outs" of the investigation. We know they "meet once a month" to discuss the case (Source: Post-Gazette, April 15, 2008). MR, who appears to get a glowing report from MM, and who releases info that appears to get the green light from "above" (ie, the computer searches that Madeira asserts were simply released to "encourage interest" in the case (Source: Daily Collegian, April 16, 2009).

I dunno. I'm not making a judgement on "who" or "why" -- just noticing a trail of breadcrumbs that tend to point to manipulation, in a very specific direction.

[2-B]

It appears at least on the surface, that the release of evidence was manipulated early on. I think, if you follow the mass of news articles regarding the disappearance from the beginning, you can see a pattern of DZ offering little tidbits, only to be promptly shut down or disputed by "the powers that be".

Ironically, last night I was re-reading old posts and found an excellent dissertation by S1 in which he outlined the history of DZ's press commentary, showing how DZ moved progressively toward the foul play theory until he was more or less gagged and returned to the "3 theories" mantra. (I would dig it up from my history but my computer is running at "slowsky" speed this morning and just getting this post out has been a challenge.)

[nittany90]

Ironically, last night I was re-reading old posts and found an excellent dissertation by S1 in which he outlined the history of DZ's press commentary, showing how DZ moved progressively toward the foul play theory until he was more or less gagged and returned to the "3 theories" mantra. (I would dig it up from my history but my computer is running at "slowsky" speed this morning and just getting this post out has been a challenge.)

Absolutely -- when you follow the news stories, in the order they were published, the pattern is definitely there. It clearly points to DZ being "gagged" and re-directed.
When you get a chance (and when your computer is cooperative) I would love a link to S1's outline.

[2-B]

Absolutely -- when you follow the news stories, in the order they were published, the pattern is definitely there. It clearly points to DZ being "gagged" and re-directed.
When you get a chance (and when your computer is cooperative) I would love a link to S1's outline.

Finally getting a little cooperation from the old 'puter, lol.

Here's the meat of S1's outline, which I should point out was prelude to another theory entirely, the possibility that RG's disappearance could possibly have been a "walkaway to suicide." S1 is known for his archival capabilities, and this post does not disappoint:

I remember DZ expressing his opinion in 2005, an opinion which appeared to evolve as the investigation progressed. On May 12 (CDT) DZ said he still thought RG was "out there somewhere, alive and well"; he did not think suicide likely, but allowed for the possibility of foul play.

A month later (6/10, CDT), to show that the Michigan sighting (walkaway theory) was not the only avenue being investigated, DZ announced that police had "a short list of suspects who may have had motive to kill Gricar, most of whom are people Gricar prosecuted...". On 7/13 (CDT) DZ said, "The longer this goes on, the greater the likelihood that it's foul play", and on 7/19 (CDT) that the 2 best explanations police then had were homicide and suicide.

In the Inquirer on 9/6 DZ is quoted as saying, "To me it looks more and more like a homicide by someone who planned this out, lured Ray to a meeting, got him to bring the computer, and then took the time to do something with the body so it wouldn't be found." Nine days later (CDT), and for months thereafter, DZ retreated to the official drone of 3 possible theories.

Just after the first anniversary it was reported (4/17/06, Collegian) that DZ went so far as to say it was not his opinion that police were dealing with a homicide, but that homicide was but 1 of 3 distinct possibilities. I did not see the television interview [XX] refers to in his blog...where DZ again said he thought Gricar was dead. But it was likely just after he was quoted in the “Missed leads” article (5/13/06, CDT), because on 5/16/06 (CDT, Q&A) [XX] stated that DZ was no longer allowed to speak to the press.

Much has been made about DZ and the investigation over the years, just like much is being made about MR and the investigation since his departure. Was DZ just giving out his own “opinion of the day”, while the official investigation continued into the 3 theories? Or was he attempting to deflect public attention away from some “hot” or “hotter” aspect of the investigation? Or was he accurately reflecting the actual investigation, perplexed by the meaning of what few clues there were?

The same questions apply to the post-DZ era. Is the sum total of evidence actually pointing LE toward intentional disappearance, or is LE attempting to deflect public attention away from a suspected murder they cannot prove?

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=342522

[nittany90]

Finally getting a little cooperation from the old 'puter, lol.

Here's the meat of S1's outline, which I should point out was prelude to another theory entirely, the possibility that RG's disappearance could possibly have been a "walkaway to suicide." S1 is known for his archival capabilities, and this post does not disappoint:


http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=342522

Thanks for the link, 2B.
And kudos to S1's ability to analyze and report in a concise, informative, sourced manner! :thumbsup:
Wish DZ would write a "tell-all", LOL. Would at least make for interesting reading, would it not?

[nittany90]

Trying to polish up my list of "key players".
Tell me, where does Cpl. Dan Holliday fall into the mix? He was acting chief at some point, yes? If Dixon was chief at the time of Gricar's disappearance, and Weaver took over in January, 2006, where does Holliday fall into place? Did Dixon retire sometime before Weaver left Ferguson Township to come back as Chief?
TIA.

[Politigal]

Finally getting a little cooperation from the old 'puter, lol.

Here's the meat of S1's outline, which I should point out was prelude to another theory entirely, the possibility that RG's disappearance could possibly have been a "walkaway to suicide." S1 is known for his archival capabilities, and this post does not disappoint:


http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=342522

I go with this possibility posted by S1 as the most likely

is LE attempting to deflect public attention away from a suspected murder they cannot prove?

[Serendipitous1]

Trying to polish up my list of "key players".
Tell me, where does Cpl. Dan Holliday fall into the mix? He was acting chief at some point, yes? If Dixon was chief at the time of Gricar's disappearance, and Weaver took over in January, 2006, where does Holliday fall into place? Did Dixon retire sometime before Weaver left Ferguson Township to come back as Chief?
TIA.DD apparently retired in August 2005. DH was the officer in charge until SW was sworn in at year's end. BTW, according to the CDT article published on 5/7/05, DH was at the station when PF's call came in, and he called DD about an hour later. Thinking Gricar may have been in a car accident along Route 192, DD told DH to send a message to local LE agencies and said he would call for an update the next morning.

[Serendipitous1]

I go with this possibility posted by S1 as the most likely

is LE attempting to deflect public attention away from a suspected murder they cannot prove?
I realized early on that the public would (will) not likely see much of the foul-play side of the investigation, unless and until there is an indictment. So the early stuff which suggested an intentional walkaway never bothered me. And then there were DZ's seemingly willy-nilly comments. I just sensed there was more. I still do...but it has become increasingly more difficult.

The public may never know the answer. But LE saying '3 possible theories'...4 years out...is simply not acceptable to me. If it was murder, we all join in wanting justice. If it was not, the public deserves some kind of answer. And any kind of half-baked, 'declared closure', especially in an election year, will not sit well...with this member of the public.

[nittany90]

I realized early on that the public would (will) not likely see much of the foul-play side of the investigation, unless and until there is an indictment. So the early stuff which suggested an intentional walkaway never bothered me. And then there were DZ's seemingly willy-nilly comments. I just sensed there was more. I still do...but it has become increasingly more difficult.

The public may never know the answer. But LE saying '3 possible theories'...4 years out...is simply not acceptable to me. If it was murder, we all join in wanting justice. If it was not, the public deserves some kind of answer. And any kind of half-baked, 'declared closure', especially in an election year, will not sit well...with this member of the public.

Not with this member of the public, either, S1.

[Politigal]

When I phoned Bellefonte police a long time ago about the case...I suggested a possible suspect, due to this & that...but they told me they were stumped for a motive (and apparently lacking evidence IMO.)

[2-B]

And any kind of half-baked, 'declared closure', especially in an election year, will not sit well...with this member of the public.

On this point I have to again praise the UK for spelling things out in a written policy: “A missing person is anyone whose whereabouts are unknown whatever the circumstances of the disappearance. The person will be considered missing until located and his/her well-being or otherwise established.”

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

IMO, any "closure" in this case (or other missing person's case) is half-baked until and unless there is a body, dead or alive.

In the case of an alive body, either RG needs to return home voluntarily, or LE needs a face-to-face meeting with LE to assure them he has gone missing voluntarily.

In the case of discovered remains, LE can then work to discover whether the manner of death was homicide or suicide.

With neither a dead or alive body, the only choice other than "active investigation" IMO is "cold case."

To be fair to LE, we haven't heard LE themselves say they are moving toward half-baked closure, only rumors and innuendo on message boards. We shall see, I suppose.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, you've been calling anyone and everyone who has a theory you don't like a "conspiracy theorist" for ages. The earliest mention still on the board is September 2008, but your use of the term pre-dates even that post.


2-B, I'm this case, I have been referring to the comments from the public on the posts of several of the regulars here. They were on the story on the searches. I neither contributed to them nor referred to them as that, in that regard.

Still, I think you should be aware how the public is regarding them. Now, you obviously don't have to listen, but I think you should be aware of the possibility of your comments, and those of others, affecting public opinion.

The fact of the searches doesn't really support one theory over another and may not be directly related to RFG's disappearance. Claiming, possibly wrongly, as one poster has, that the police could not prove it, does make it look like people claiming this are anything but into conspiracy theories.

There may come a point where there is some piece of evidence that is both questionable, and might tend to rule out a theory, if true. You, or others, might be claiming legitimately, that there is something wrong. Even if I agree, you've made that harder to accepted by the public.


As I pointed out, your post to Day says it all:

1) Other posters' opinions don't matter to you.

2) Other posters' opinions are wrong.

3) If other posters see things differently than you do, they are "conspiracy theorists."

4) A "conspiracy theorist" in your mind is someone "far out there," someone who would believe that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack.


First, I've been open on this particular issue. I've said that by reputation I believe MR when he says it was RFG, or, to use a poker analogy, I don't think he's bluffing, but I'd stilllike to see his cards.

Second, except for the claim that it is "impossible" for LE to prove it was RFG, I have not made any other claims about the search issue proving or disproving anything. Now, that isn't seeing anything differently. It is being open to all options.

Three, in attempting to "explain away" the evidence, you, and others have suggested that the persons doing it would:

1. Have access to the house.

2. Possibly have RFG's knowledge of his cases.

3. Possibly have to follow him around to know that he would be not be someplace where he'd leave a record.

4. Possibly have to lie about contacting him concurrently with the searches.

All of this to give evidence that he conducted searches about a subject he had previously discussed with others, and that does not point to a particular theory. So now, we have two or three people involved in trying to establish something that makes virtually no difference.

That is approaching the range where you have to question it.


There's no way to read this other than "failure to fall in line with JJ's theories means the poster is a nut job not worthy of being listened to."


Since this is one where I don't have a "line," it is impossible to claim that.


Now you want to claim someone else made a similar comment elsewhere before you got to that site. Of course, that person couldn't possibly have been parroting you and your frequent charges of conspiracy theories here on this board and elsewhere. Nope, that couldn't happen. :rolleyes:

Just have respect for other people's ideas. Please stop calling other posters conspiracy theorists, mental defectives, lynchmobbers, potted plants, and the like. Please stop bullying people who have perfectly reasonable ideas to share.

It's that simple.

Comments, plural. And without anything from me. You, and others, are judged by what you post, and not by me. I hope you understand that and that this could have an effect on public opinion, one that neither of us may like.

[ladyheartfixer]

You, and others, are judged by what you post, and not by me. I hope you understand that and that this could have an effect on public opinion, one that neither of us may like.


I don't think that the ppl of CC are that stupid to base their public opinion on the writings on a message board. For goodness sake, it is a MESSAGE BOARD...get over it. Everyone in CC does not read it, nor do they read your blob..other than for the entertainment value. We once spoke of real ideas and theories concerning the disappearance of RG...seems we are now in it for the public interest or opinion value. I don't think that is what most of us are here for, nor do we want to be here for that reason. Just my two pennies worth...have a great day everyone!!

[2-B]

I don't think that the ppl of CC are that stupid to base their public opinion on the writings on a message board. For goodness sake, it is a MESSAGE BOARD...get over it. Everyone in CC does not read it, nor do they read your blob..other than for the entertainment value. We once spoke of real ideas and theories concerning the disappearance of RG...seems we are now in it for the public interest or opinion value. I don't think that is what most of us are here for, nor do we want to be here for that reason. Just my two pennies worth...have a great day everyone!!

And a great two pennies worth it is, LHF!

[2-B]

IMO, any "closure" in this case (or other missing person's case) is half-baked until and unless there is a body, dead or alive.

In the case of an alive body, either RG needs to return home voluntarily, or LE needs a face-to-face meeting with LE to assure them he has gone missing voluntarily.

In the case of discovered remains, LE can then work to discover whether the manner of death was homicide or suicide.

With neither a dead or alive body, the only choice other than "active investigation" IMO is "cold case."


Quoting myself to return to this idea. Found an interesting passage in the old SP-I investigative series about missing persons:

With little precedent to guide them, local investigators who tracked Ted Bundy and the Green River Killer in the '70s and '80s honed their skills by trial and error. Day by day and body by body, they learned what police were doing right and what they were doing wrong.

"We just started working missing-persons cases like they were dead," said Detective Tom Jensen, a longtime Green River Task Force member. "The only thing we didn't have was the body. If you wait until a body turns up, you're six, eight months behind in your investigation."

By working missing cases aggressively from the start, detectives gained critical information about victims and their last days while the trail and memories were still fresh.

They learned that police agencies were declining to take reports, failing to investigate them and neglecting to remove closed files from computer databases, costing investigators valuable time looking for people no longer "lost."

They also saw that detectives often were overly eager to close cases on rumor or hearsay without confirming whether a missing person was really alive and well.

Four women believed to be victims of the Green River Killer -- Gail Mathews, Andrea Childers, Mary Bello and Tammy Liles -- had been reported missing to various police departments. Yet their cases had been closed on the basis of unconfirmed sightings or rumors that they were alive. Investigators later learned the reports could not have been true -- the women had long been dead.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/108579_missingday17.shtml

Therein lies the danger of closing a case based on unconfirmed sightings and/or circumstantial evidence, IMO.

A face-to-face meeting with LE confirming that a missing person is alive and voluntarily missing would be the only logical precursor to closing a case as a voluntary walkaway. Imagine the "egg on face" should remains turn up at a later date after a missing person has been declared voluntarily absent.

[nittany90]

I don't think that the ppl of CC are that stupid to base their public opinion on the writings on a message board. For goodness sake, it is a MESSAGE BOARD...get over it. Everyone in CC does not read it, nor do they read your blob..other than for the entertainment value. We once spoke of real ideas and theories concerning the disappearance of RG...seems we are now in it for the public interest or opinion value. I don't think that is what most of us are here for, nor do we want to be here for that reason. Just my two pennies worth...have a great day everyone!!

I have to agree with you, LHF. To jump to the conclusion that anything posted on these message boards gets to the "people of CC" is a false premise, and a bit self-inflated. The postings of a very few dedicated people on a message board, should in no way, be viewed as a "cause and effect" scenario. I have quite a few friends in CC and they've never even heard of this board. I doubt that "the average" CC citizen researches, evaluates, discusses and re-evaluates any of the facts/evidence in this case. Sadly, I believe most people (in and out of CC) have alligned themselves to one particular scenario a long time ago, and to think anything we write on here (or any other message board) is going to change their minds, or alter their opinion, is incredulous.

Unless they already possess the interest/curiosity regarding the case, they aren't even going to pop in here. Hell, as long as I've been interested (from afar) in the case, it took me over 3 years to start reading the boards. And that's the behavior of someone with a natural thirst for mystery, a professional background in investigation and a connection to Gricar, Union County and the State College areas. If it took someone like me 3 years to wind up on a message board, how long would it take the "average" citizen of Centre County?

If by "public" you mean LE or politicians with a hidden motive, I agree that it's plausible they might be reading the opinions/scenarios/questions posted on this board, searching for any vulnerability they can find to manipulate it to their benefit. And if they are the "audience" you speak of, all of the current posters, at one time or another, have agreed upon and stressed the need for LE to present real proof to the public, before stamping this "missing person" case "closed".

But affecting public opinion? Most people have better things to do than to read the musings of a few highly intelligent Gricar followers. :huh:
IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't think that the ppl of CC are that stupid to base their public opinion on the writings on a message board. For goodness sake, it is a MESSAGE BOARD...get over it. Everyone in CC does not read it, nor do they read your blob..other than for the entertainment value. We once spoke of real ideas and theories concerning the disappearance of RG...seems we are now in it for the public interest or opinion value. I don't think that is what most of us are here for, nor do we want to be here for that reason. Just my two pennies worth...have a great day everyone!!


Yes, public opinion will play a role. We've seen people here (and not without justification) complaining about the "foul play weakened" line.
We have even seen TG mention this.

I have not been referring so much to the message board as to the comments on the article. You are seeing how it is being received by the public.

[2-B]

I have to agree with you, LHF. To jump to the conclusion that anything posted on these message boards gets to the "people of CC" is a false premise, and a bit self-inflated. The postings of a very few dedicated people on a message board, should in no way, be viewed as a "cause and effect" scenario. I have quite a few friends in CC and they've never even heard of this board. I doubt that "the average" CC citizen researches, evaluates, discusses and re-evaluates any of the facts/evidence in this case. Sadly, I believe most people (in and out of CC) have alligned themselves to one particular scenario a long time ago, and to think anything we write on here (or any other message board) is going to change their minds, or alter their opinion, is incredulous.

Unless they already possess the interest/curiosity regarding the case, they aren't even going to pop in here. Hell, as long as I've been interested (from afar) in the case, it took me over 3 years to start reading the boards. And that's the behavior of someone with a natural thirst for mystery, a professional background in investigation and a connection to Gricar, Union County and the State College areas. If it took someone like me 3 years to wind up on a message board, how long would it take the "average" citizen of Centre County?

If by "public" you mean LE or politicians with a hidden motive, I agree that it's plausible they might be reading the opinions/scenarios/questions posted on this board, searching for any vulnerability they can find to manipulate it to their benefit. And if they are the "audience" you speak of, all of the current posters, at one time or another, have agreed upon and stressed the need for LE to present real proof to the public, before stamping this "missing person" case "closed".

But affecting public opinion? Most people have better things to do than to read the musings of a few highly intelligent Gricar followers. :huh:
IMO.

I agree with everything you've said here, N90. I know quite a few intelligent folks in CC, many of them news junkies, who have more than a passing interest in what happened to RG. None of them read this message board.

Now, when you say, "LE or politicians with a hidden motive," that's a different story. We've been told that certain LE read here, and that is something I would both hope for and expect. Politicians? Not out of the question.

Perhaps the more interesting question is not what influence this message board has on public opinion but what outside influences, if any, may have attempted to direct opinion on this message board, as a way of hoping to direct public views of the case.

[Chump#7]

Perhaps the more interesting question is not what influence this message board has on public opinion but what outside influences, if any, may have attempted to direct opinion on this message board, as a way of hoping to direct public views of the case.

Conspiracy Theorist!!!! :tonguewag:

Seriously though, in all of your researching of cases, have you ever seen an internet poster interject themselves into case to this level? You'd have to pay me. Cult of Online Personality, indeed.

[2-B]

Seriously though, in all of your researching of cases, have you ever seen an internet poster interject themselves into case to this level? You'd have to pay me. Cult of Online Personality, indeed.

I've been doing true crime message boards for something like 12 or 13 years now. I've seen my share of, shall we say, "interesting characters" show up on boards.

But not the kind of interjection you're referring to. Nope. Never before this.

[gstickley]

(snip)

Second, by all accounts, there were people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours. The point is moot.

(snip)

(Bolding is mine. gs)

Who were the people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours?

It was explained in a later post that LE was there taking the report for hours.

Why would LE be at the home for hours BEFORE LE received the 11:30 pm call from PF? From the following press release, it doesn't sound as though LE was at the house BEFORE RG was reported missing; sounds to me like LE didn't respond to anything until the next day.

At first, police didn't think Gricar's failure to return home was too alarming, officers said.

Cpl. Dan Holliday called the chief about an hour after Gricar's girlfriend and housemate, Patty Fornicola, called to report the prosecutor missing. Dixon told Holliday to send a message to local law enforcement agencies and said he'd call for an update the next morning.

Officer Darrel Zaccagni, one of two investigators on the case, said he first heard about Gricar's disappearance when he got to work Saturday morning. He said he thought little of it, figuring that maybe "Ray was off doing something, that he just didn't come home for whatever reason."

[2-B]

(Bolding is mine. gs)

Who were the people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours?

It was explained in a later post that LE was there taking the report for hours.

Why would LE be at the home for hours BEFORE LE received the 11:30 pm call from PF? From the following press release, it doesn't sound as though LE was at the house BEFORE RG was reported missing; sounds to me like LE didn't respond to anything until the next day.

At first, police didn't think Gricar's failure to return home was too alarming, officers said.

Cpl. Dan Holliday called the chief about an hour after Gricar's girlfriend and housemate, Patty Fornicola, called to report the prosecutor missing. Dixon told Holliday to send a message to local law enforcement agencies and said he'd call for an update the next morning.

Officer Darrel Zaccagni, one of two investigators on the case, said he first heard about Gricar's disappearance when he got to work Saturday morning. He said he thought little of it, figuring that maybe "Ray was off doing something, that he just didn't come home for whatever reason."


It does not sound as if LE went to the house at all on Friday night, GS, much less for hours.

So I will echo your question. If supposedly "by all accounts" there were people in the home on Friday night, and they obviously weren't LE taking reports, who were the people in the house?

[Serendipitous1]

Conspiracy Theorist!!!! :tonguewag:

Seriously though, in all of your researching of cases, have you ever seen an internet poster interject themselves into case to this level? You'd have to pay me. Cult of Online Personality, indeed.Cult of Online Personality...sorry, I just thought that was humorous.

I do not see where message boards have influenced anything...be it an investigation, politics or public opinion. And the participation here, and the number of views, suggests this forum is pretty much like a closed "book of the month club"...if you will. And I am OK with that.

But while I seek new insight, I cringe at the seemingly endless struggle for "the hearts and minds". I know where this poster is coming from. I know where that poster is coming from. I do not need a referee.

Oh well...whatever...nevermind...carry on.

[Serendipitous1]

(Bolding is mine. gs)

Who were the people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours?

It was explained in a later post that LE was there taking the report for hours.

Why would LE be at the home for hours BEFORE LE received the 11:30 pm call from PF? From the following press release, it doesn't sound as though LE was at the house BEFORE RG was reported missing; sounds to me like LE didn't respond to anything until the next day.

At first, police didn't think Gricar's failure to return home was too alarming, officers said.

Cpl. Dan Holliday called the chief about an hour after Gricar's girlfriend and housemate, Patty Fornicola, called to report the prosecutor missing. Dixon told Holliday to send a message to local law enforcement agencies and said he'd call for an update the next morning.

Officer Darrel Zaccagni, one of two investigators on the case, said he first heard about Gricar's disappearance when he got to work Saturday morning. He said he thought little of it, figuring that maybe "Ray was off doing something, that he just didn't come home for whatever reason."Sorry...I hate it when I start a new page. I wonder, will anyone bother to flip back and read?

The article you are drawing from calls into question the assertion that DZ just 'happened' to catch the case...not?

[Serendipitous1]

Sorry...I hate it when I start a new page. I wonder, will anyone bother to flip back and read?

The article you are drawing from calls into question the assertion that DZ just 'happened' to catch the case...not?ETA...I know there is not much in the way of precedent to suggest that DAs are homicide targets. But was there no protocol in place on 4/15/05...to the affect that any reported anomally would get the full and immediate attention of LE? 'Take 2 pills and call me in the morning' is not what I would have expected...even in 'sleepy' Bellefonte!

[sherrijean981]

(Bolding is mine. gs)

Who were the people in the home before RFG was reported missing, for hours?

It was explained in a later post that LE was there taking the report for hours.

Why would LE be at the home for hours BEFORE LE received the 11:30 pm call from PF? From the following press release, it doesn't sound as though LE was at the house BEFORE RG was reported missing; sounds to me like LE didn't respond to anything until the next day.

At first, police didn't think Gricar's failure to return home was too alarming, officers said.

Cpl. Dan Holliday called the chief about an hour after Gricar's girlfriend and housemate, Patty Fornicola, called to report the prosecutor missing. Dixon told Holliday to send a message to local law enforcement agencies and said he'd call for an update the next morning.

Officer Darrel Zaccagni, one of two investigators on the case, said he first heard about Gricar's disappearance when he got to work Saturday morning. He said he thought little of it, figuring that maybe "Ray was off doing something, that he just didn't come home for whatever reason."


Then DZ did NOT get the case by being the one who took the call from PF. It was Cpl. Holliday and DZ found out in the morning. Hmm

[sherrijean981]

Sorry, S1, I added my post before I read your comment. I thought no one had caught that. :thumbsup:

[Politigal]

hypothetical here...

*If* Gricar was never seen at the office actually using a laptop...what makes people think he would have used it at home?

[nittany90]

hypothetical here...

*If* Gricar was never seen at the office actually using a laptop...what makes people think he would have used it at home?

Didn't PF actually offer that, at least until the desktop was purchased in late 2004, they both used the laptop at home?

[Politigal]

Didn't PF actually offer that, at least until the desktop was purchased in late 2004, they both used the laptop at home?

I won't touch that one right now.... :)

[Cloudbuster]

Does anyone know how many was out of work that friday? Seems even the other clerk who answers phones was gone. I know SS was out and possibily MS, I would love to see the list. My next question is did they know somethig was going down pertaining to the Courthouse and their boss? Seems strange almost weird. Was there a threat and we are not being told? If not is that because they have no proof? There is more and with holding it is not helping. Maybe the only way out of a threat is to toss the laptop with the evidence RG had. That only fits a few cases, and possibly who he was going to endorse. I also would like to know how Robert (there's that word again) at least the Robert who was running felt about RG not wanting to endorse him? Also did he run against RG before? Now Im at 5 possible Robert's.:closedeyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

hypothetical here...

*If* Gricar was never seen at the office actually using a laptop...what makes people think he would have used it at home?

He might have received/sent e-mail on it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Does anyone know how many was out of work that friday? Seems even the other clerk who answers phones was gone. I know SS was out and possibily MS, I would love to see the list. My next question is did they know somethig was going down pertaining to the Courthouse and their boss? Seems strange almost weird. Was there a threat and we are not being told? If not is that because they have no proof? There is more and with holding it is not helping. Maybe the only way out of a threat is to toss the laptop with the evidence RG had. That only fits a few cases, and possibly who he was going to endorse. I also would like to know how Robert (there's that word again) at least the Robert who was running felt about RG not wanting to endorse him? Also did he run against RG before? Now Im at 5 possible Robert's.:closedeyes:

That I don't know. MS was on vacation/vacation day; SS on sick leave.

I'm not sure if there was a clerk out.

I don't know of any work related issues involving that, except that Fridays tended to be slow days.

[Cloudbuster]

What do we know about the Robert that was running with Maderia and JKA? When RG said he was going to endorse MM that is until he found out JKA was running, (we don't know who at that point he was going to endorse, we only know who he intended to endorse but then he also said JKA would make a good DA) I wonder how Rob felt about that.

I also wonder what RG's feeling toward him was. Sometimes politics can be dirty depending on the persons. I hate bringing this all up but it is crossing my mind. Is there any links on the canadate still around? Like what job he at the time was holding ect? Sometimes dirt can be held on electronics, things like PC's and Laptops and the like. I just think this needs a further look being it politics and the timing.

Im not saying that any wrong doing went on but like for instance, let's say I had to endorse a person and I liked two of the three canidates and let's say one of them was angry enough to bring forward something that I never wanted out, can that preasure weigh on me? I think it would. Or was something damaging to a canadate on a laptop?

[J. J. in Phila]

There were four candidates running in the primaries, two in Republican and two in the Democratic primary. I think Young was challenging JKA. The was a challenge to Madeira, but RFG had endorsed Madiera.

[Politigal]

What do we know about the Robert that was running with Maderia and JKA? When RG said he was going to endorse MM that is until he found out JKA was running, (we don't know who at that point he was going to endorse, we only know who he intended to endorse but then he also said JKA would make a good DA) I wonder how Rob felt about that.

I also wonder what RG's feeling toward him was. Sometimes politics can be dirty depending on the persons. I hate bringing this all up but it is crossing my mind. Is there any links on the canadate still around? Like what job he at the time was holding ect? Sometimes dirt can be held on electronics, things like PC's and Laptops and the like. I just think this needs a further look being it politics and the timing.

Im not saying that any wrong doing went on but like for instance, let's say I had to endorse a person and I liked two of the three canidates and let's say one of them was angry enough to bring forward something that I never wanted out, can that preasure weigh on me? I think it would. Or was something damaging to a canadate on a laptop?


who is Rob?

[2-B]

JJ says above that Gricar had endorsed MM in the primaries for 2005. We also know Gricar hedged his bets when talking to MJ about an endorsement for the general election.

Question here, though. Did Gricar ever formally endorse MM for the primaries? If so, where and when?

Or did he tell people he intended to endorse MM in the primaries and never make a formal endorsement?

[Politigal]

JJ says above that Gricar had endorsed MM in the primaries for 2005. We also know Gricar hedged his bets when talking to MJ about an endorsement for the general election.

Question here, though. Did Gricar ever formally endorse MM for the primaries? If so, where and when?

Or did he tell people he intended to endorse MM in the primaries and never make a formal endorsement?

here's the cache of what CDT's Mike Joseph wrote

http://tinyurl.com/r3dl7p

[Cloudbuster]

who is Rob?

I tried to pm you but got a message that my ISP number is banned?

He was a person running for the DA position before RG disappeared.

[Politigal]

I tried to pm you but got a message that my ISP number is banned?

He was a person running for the DA position before RG disappeared.

thx, I found it in the link I posted above - it was Rob Bascom who was running against Madeira.

[2-B]

here's the cache of what CDT's Mike Joseph wrote

http://tinyurl.com/r3dl7p

Thanks, Pgal.

So giving this a careful reading, it appears that RG supported MM in the primaries but had never given a formal endorsement of MM in the primaries:

During a district attorney candidate debate on Thursday, Republican Michael Madeira said that incumbent but missing District Attorney Ray Gricar had told the Centre Daily Times that he (Gricar) supported Madeira.

That is correct, as a Centre Daily Times story reported, but the context for Gricar's remark was the primary election between Madeira and another Republican, State College lawyer Rob Bascom. Gricar told me in March that he intended at some point nearer to the primary to make a public endorsement of Madeira. But that moment never came because Gricar went missing on April 15, a month before the primary.

A minor point, but I was fairly certain RG hadn't made a formal endorsement.