Missing items - keys, sunglasses, wallet

[nittany90]

Was a description of Gricar's keys ever released to the public? In many cases, I think keychains are a reflection of the owner's personality. For example (and I can't believe I'm admitting this), my keychain holds a nittany lion emblem, a Jeff Gordon "24" car, photos of my kids, a dilapidated hand-crafted beaded lizard (a Mother's Day gift from year's past) and a ton of keys.

I'd hate to think of someone stumbling across Gricar's keys, only to have ignored them as irrelevant. Trail lost. For all I know, Gricar's keys may have been very nondescript, perhaps only holding a Mini-Cooper key and a house key. But, was a description ever released? If it was, I missed it.

And what about the sunglasses? Were they Ray-Bans? Versace? Oakley? Were they wire-rimmed, plastic rimmed? Black or brown-tinted?

Do we know anything more about the missing items?

[2-B]

We had a long discussion about this very issue many moons ago, N90. It's probably long since been swept from the board in one of the housecleaning episodes, but we asked the same questions for the same reason. We also looked at a few cases where distinguishing features of such accessories were given in detail, sometimes with photos of identical/similar items on flyers put out to the public. Kristen Modafferi's case, with her backpack and very specialized shoe type, comes to mind from that conversation.

I also remember a long discussion about the sunglasses and whether they might have been designer type sunglasses bought from a small inventory vs. common ones picked up from a chain store.

Bottom line: no one that I recall remembered ever hearing any detail about the key chain or sunglasses publicized. That means, of course, someone could have seen or picked up either or both of these items without realizing the evidentiary value.

[nittany90]

Have I mentioned I hate coming to the party late??:unsure:
Thanks for the answers, 2B.

[2-B]

Have I mentioned I hate coming to the party late??:unsure:
Thanks for the answers, 2B.

Hope you didn't take my reply as a "neener, neener, neener, you missed it!" answer! Just trying to fill you in on prior discussion, since so much of what we've done here has gone missing.

While we're on miscellaneous items, another thought occurred to me.

We've talked before about whether RG had prescription glasses in addition to his contact lenses and what LE might know about whether his glasses, assuming he had/has them, were still in the home. I still think prescription glasses would be a good clue as to intent: if they were taken on what was supposed to be just an afternoon drive, that might possibly indicate intent to be away overnight, at the very least.

But today I also started wondering, in conjunction with thinking more about the computer, about reading glasses. Unless RG had bifocal contact lenses, at 59 he likely used reading glasses for close work like reading a computer screen. Simply taking a drive for the afternoon wouldn't require reading glasses. Wonder what LE knows about the whereabouts of any pair of reading glasses RG might have had. If they went with him, that might be an indication he intended to be reading something like a computer screen. Might, because it might also indicate he intended to stop for something to eat and wanted to read a menu.

[J. J. in Phila]

Mine is basically a ring, though I have Swiss Army Knife and small flashlight on it (one too many natural disasters).

Many men just carry a ring.

[nittany90]

Hope you didn't take my reply as a "neener, neener, neener, you missed it!" answer! Just trying to fill you in on prior discussion, since so much of what we've done here has gone missing.

While we're on miscellaneous items, another thought occurred to me.

We've talked before about whether RG had prescription glasses in addition to his contact lenses and what LE might know about whether his glasses, assuming he had/has them, were still in the home. I still think prescription glasses would be a good clue as to intent: if they were taken on what was supposed to be just an afternoon drive, that might possibly indicate intent to be away overnight, at the very least.

But today I also started wondering, in conjunction with thinking more about the computer, about reading glasses. Unless RG had bifocal contact lenses, at 59 he likely used reading glasses for close work like reading a computer screen. Simply taking a drive for the afternoon wouldn't require reading glasses. Wonder what LE knows about the whereabouts of any pair of reading glasses RG might have had. If they went with him, that might be an indication he intended to be reading something like a computer screen. Might, because it might also indicate he intended to stop for something to eat and wanted to read a menu.

No, I didn't think that at all, 2B. I just seem to be rehashing thoughts that have already been hashed to death, that's all.

Good questions about reading glasses and possible intent. Was it mentioned if it's known if extra contact lenses were missing? (not that PEF would know that). I'm sure my DH couldn't tell you how many pair of disposals I have left at any given time.

[Politigal]

IIRC, I think Tony said the only contacs missing were the ones in his eyes...

[J. J. in Phila]

I think the eye wear issue is one of the better questions asked.

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't wear contacts, but I do wear glasses. When I take a longer trip, I take an extra pair, in case something happens to the pair I'm wearing. I can understand if RFG would take an extra pair of eye wear if he was just planning to go out driving.

The disposable contacts were the prime question.

[Serendipitous1]

Have I mentioned I hate coming to the party late??:unsure:
Thanks for the answers, 2B.Well...as long as you do not go home alone...

I take responsibility for mentioning contacts here. When going through missing items on a radio interview I heard BB include a contact lens case. I knew it had not been mentioned in the press before...but he gave it no more emphasis than the wallet and keys.

[Serendipitous1]

I do not wear contacts, but I know of those who do. They have a contact lens case. It includes a portal for storing the contacts and a cleansing solution.

I have no idea if Gricar travelled with such a case. But if he did, I would find it interesting if that case was among the 'missing'.

[2-B]

The thing about contact lens cases these days, though, is that people rarely have "a" case. I don't know about anyone else's practitioner, but I get a free case just about every time I order a box of lenses. Cases get worn out, you toss 'em. You keep extra cases here, there, and everywhere just "in case," no pun intended.

If it was reported that RG's contact lens case was missing, was it one from his bathroom vanity at home? Was it one routinely kept in the glove box in the car? I think that might make a difference.

Special note to N90: IMO, there's nothing wrong with you raising things we've been over before. When you raise them again, it's with those reputed "fresh eyes," remember? We're counting on you to give us fresh angles on the things we've hashed and re-hashed. Those are the burdens of coming late to the party.

[Cloudbuster]

I wear contacts the non-disposable kind. I don't take my case with me unless my contacts are bothering me or I intend to stay over at a motel. The thing is I also take my solution if Im intending to stay overnight. If I just have to take my contacts out because they are bothering me then no I don't take solution, just my case. It would be interesting to know if his solution was also missing. I should also mention that I also take my glasses if I intend to sleep overnight.

[J. J. in Phila]

The thing about contact lens cases these days, though, is that people rarely have "a" case. I don't know about anyone else's practitioner, but I get a free case just about every time I order a box of lenses. Cases get worn out, you toss 'em. You keep extra cases here, there, and everywhere just "in case," no pun intended.

If it was reported that RG's contact lens case was missing, was it one from his bathroom vanity at home? Was it one routinely kept in the glove box in the car? I think that might make a difference.

Special note to N90: IMO, there's nothing wrong with you raising things we've been over before. When you raise them again, it's with those reputed "fresh eyes," remember? We're counting on you to give us fresh angles on the things we've hashed and re-hashed. Those are the burdens of coming late to the party.

You are the contact wearer, so I'll ask you.

Do lenses ever drop out or do you have to remove them during the course of the day?

[2-B]

You are the contact wearer, so I'll ask you.

Do lenses ever drop out or do you have to remove them during the course of the day?

The answers depend on the kind of lenses.

The old hard lenses (which no one prescribes anymore) and the gas permeables (which people still do wear) can pop out. Not good for sports or active lifestyles, but some people have to wear gas perms depending on their prescription needs.

Soft lenses don't just pop out the way gas perms do.

Many CL wearers of both types will remove them at some point during the day, though gas perms generally need to come out sooner. Every CL wearer I know also has a pair of prescription glasses and most remove the contacts in the evening and wear glasses around the house. Sometimes people will take them out for a while during the day as well--if they have the luxury of taking a nap, for instance, since it's not good to sleep in them or if they're going to be a very dusty environment.

If RG had just been going for an afternoon drive and wearing his contact lenses, a case in the car might have been prudent in the event he got something in his eye and needed to remove the lens for a time. If he was really anal about things, I could see him taking prescription glasses along "just in case," but that would be really taking precautions for an afternoon drive. Most contact lens wearers wouldn't think twice about taking off for an afternoon drive without backup glasses (though probably they ought to if going alone). A long drive or an overnight would be another story, IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure he had backup glasses.

I'm thinking about maybe being out for 7-8 hours. Even if RFG was planning to return on 4/15/05, we'd be looking at that kind of time frame.

[2-B]

Seven to eight hours wouldn't generally be a problem, unless someone was in a very dusty environment, had serious allergy issues, or had dry eyes for some other reason.

I would assume LE knows whether or not RG had glasses in addition to his contacts. I don't know anyone who wears contacts and doesn't also have glasses, but I imagine there might be an exception here and there.

[nittany90]

I'm an exception to the rule, as a contact lens wearer. But, I'll offer my impressions, anyway.

I wear disposables. If I followed the doctor's recommendation, I would wear them only for two weeks, then take them out, throw them away, and put in a fresh pair. Most people remove theirs at night (I don't usually).

If I was going on a day trip, it wouldn't occur to me to take an extra pair, or my case. And I've been known to be a little "anal" in my lifetime. :laugh:But, if I was planning an overnight (or longer) trip away from home, I would take my case, extra lenses (individually-sealed), my prescription glasses and probably my lens solution.

But, then, there's the other side of the coin. It was the beginning of spring. Trees and flowers were budding. If Gricar suffered from seasonal allergies, he might have taken his case along (just for a day trip) in case his eyes became irritated on the trip. But, he'd need his prescription glasses, too, since he was the driver.

Bottom line, if a contact lens case is missing, I'd bet a pair of prescription glasses are, too. Like 2-B, I have several cases laying around the house. Unless PEF knew exactly how many cases he had, she might not know a case is missing.

[J. J. in Phila]

There was a layer of dust in the Mini, though I don't know if counts as "exceptionally dusty," or much dust there was.

[2-B]

I doubt the layer of dust in the Mini amounts to much. Every car has a layer of dust unless it gets detailed or wiped down every night, and as meticulous as RG has been described, I kind of doubt he was that meticulous. Everyone's different, but most CL wearers aren't bothered unless there's a lot of dust or grit floating in the air as there would be, say, in an industrial or agricultural setting where sawdust is kicking up or on a beach where sand is blowing around.

Another special note to N90: shame on you for sleeping in those lenses. Don't take chances with your vision by doing that!

[Politigal]

I doubt the layer of dust in the Mini amounts to much. Every car has a layer of dust unless it gets detailed or wiped down every night, and as meticulous as RG has been described, I kind of doubt he was that meticulous. Everyone's different, but most CL wearers aren't bothered unless there's a lot of dust or grit floating in the air as there would be, say, in an industrial or agricultural setting where sawdust is kicking up or on a beach where sand is blowing around.

Another special note to N90: shame on you for sleeping in those lenses. Don't take chances with your vision by doing that!

To my knowledge, there are no official reports that state there was a layer of dust in the interior of the Mini.

We've sort of argued that point before in this thread:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12526424&highlight=dust#post12526424

[nittany90]

Another special note to N90: shame on you for sleeping in those lenses. Don't take chances with your vision by doing that!

Shame duly noted, and yet, agreed with. :tonguewag::wink:

[Politigal]

bringing my recent post over from the Hypothetical thread

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=13069719#post13069719

[2-B]

bringing my recent post over from the Hypothetical thread

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=13069719#post13069719

Good question, Pgal.

[nittany90]

About P'gal's question: I don't remember any published reports, LE "leaks" or innuendo of any search warrants being issued in this case. Has anyone?

I keep going round and round, regarding the keys and the wallet. Does the fact that they were missing/are still missing point to one scenario being more likely than another?

If suicide: Gricar took the keys to his death with him to safeguard the car (PEF had her own set, as the registered owner, he knew car would be returned to her). Wallet kept with Gricar for preliminary identification purposes. Or, perhaps he didn't give much thought to it at all...simply had his keys and wallet in his pockets at the time he committed suicide.

If foulplay: Either keys/wallet were ignored by the perp and dumped with the body, or removed from the body and dumped elsewhere by perp later.

If walkaway: Gricar took keys with him, possibly ditched them later, in order to safeguard the car (as much as possible) until car was turned over to PEF (who had her own set of keys). Keychain may have had a safe deposit box key on it, that he'd need at a later date. Wallet -- Gricar took it with him. No need to dump it. May have had new identity info (SS card, driver's license, credit cards) in wallet, or cash, or a card with account numbers/bank info on it.

Of course, I've also struggled with the fact that if Gricar walked away and wanted to confuse LE, why didn't he strategically dump the wallet near the River or the car (where there was a greater chance it would be found quickly)? That would have been more effective as a "red herring" indicating foul play, than taking his wallet with him as he walked away to his new life.

So, to me, the keys/wallet fit into every scenario and no scenario. Not much help, huh??

OT -- did Gricar have a passport? Is it accounted for?

[nittany90]

I stand corrected on the search warrants. While reviewing a news clip from WJAC TV on another angle, they showed a close up of an "Application for Search Warrant and Authorization" form. No other details on the form were legible. I assume this was an actual document in the case, and not just a "tv prop".

So, looks like at least one search warrant was at least "applied" for.

[Politigal]

I stand corrected on the search warrants. While reviewing a news clip from WJAC TV on another angle, they showed a close up of an "Application for Search Warrant and Authorization" form. No other details on the form were legible. I assume this was an actual document in the case, and not just a "tv prop".

So, looks like at least one search warrant was at least "applied" for.

The only reported search warrant was the one for RG's medical records IIRC.

[J. J. in Phila]

On suicide, he could have simply taken the keys out of the car out of force of habit; he would not have been thinking clearly.

On walkaway, he could have kept the wallet, just in case he needed to prove his ID if stopped by the police. It would have ruined his plans, but he wouldn't have gone to jail over a traffic stop.

[J. J. in Phila]

The sunglasses were not prescription. I asked a few years ago (thoughts running in the same direction).

BB's argument for murder is more based on the pension left behind and the thought RFG would tell people, especially LG.

[Serendipitous1]

What I have seen in BB and TMcK is the very (apparently philosophical in the US) difference so often pointed out here. LE, up and down, should have treated Gricar's disappearance as possibly the result of foul play...letting the investigation chips fall where they may...but LE, up and down, did not. That failure falls squarely upon the 'Honorables' Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett and his 'bud' Centre County Distict Attorney Michael Madeira. They have to live with that...we do not.

[Politigal]

What I have seen in BB and TMcK is the very (apparently philosophical in the US) difference so often pointed out here. LE, up and down, should have treated Gricar's disappearance as possibly the result of foul play...letting the investigation chips fall where they may...but LE, up and down, did not. That failure falls squarely upon the 'Honorables' Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett and his 'bud' Centre County Distict Attorney Michael Madeira. They have to live with that...we do not.

Absolutely! Positively!

and JKA said it all

[J. J. in Phila]

What I have seen in BB and TMcK is the very (apparently philosophical in the US) difference so often pointed out here. LE, up and down, should have treated Gricar's disappearance as possibly the result of foul play...letting the investigation chips fall where they may...but LE, up and down, did not. That failure falls squarely upon the 'Honorables' Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett and his 'bud' Centre County Distict Attorney Michael Madeira. They have to live with that...we do not.

I'm curious of how you think the case should be treated differently, at least initially?

[2-B]

Absolutely! Positively!

and JKA said it all

Agree, agree, and agree.