BPD and the statute book

[nittany90]

I was just recently re-reading the CDT article regarding the statute book (Purdons, County Code or local rules) being found on MS's desk shortly after Gricar's disappearance.

Why would LE refuse to confirm or deny the rumor's existance? Did someone close to the investigation "leak" the info, in an effort to show proof of walkaway?

Apparently, it was TG who confirmed the story. LE went so far as to say that some of the info was wrong, but left it at that. Were any other reports (that could be clearly substantiated by talking to key players) ever regarded by LE in that manner? And TG's comments, seem to imply that the info was known by family and LE for awhile, and he was questioning the motives for it being released at the time. Seems to me, that TG was implying that LE leaked the info and he wondered why. Do we know who told XX about the book? Was it MS? Thoughts?

Here's the full article, reprinted courtesy of gstickley:

http://courttv-mb1.courttv.com/showthread.php?t=317782&page=11

[nittany90]

I was just recently re-reading the CDT article regarding the statute book (Purdons, County Code or local rules) being found on MS's desk shortly after Gricar's disappearance.

Why would LE refuse to confirm or deny the rumor's existance? Did someone close to the investigation "leak" the info, in an effort to show proof of walkaway?

Apparently, it was TG who confirmed the story. LE went so far as to say that some of the info was wrong, but left it at that. Were any other reports (that could be clearly substantiated by talking to key players) ever regarded by LE in that manner? And TG's comments, seem to imply that the info was known by family and LE for awhile, and he was questioning the motives for it being released at the time. Seems to me, that TG was implying that LE leaked the info and he wondered why. Do we know who told XX about the book? Was it MS? Thoughts?

Here's the full article, reprinted courtesy of gstickley:

http://courttv-mb1.courttv.com/showthread.php?t=317782&page=11

Edited to add link for WJAC -TV (where statute book was shown)

http://www.wjactv.com/news/15415783/detail.html

[J. J. in Phila]

I believe that it was widely known in the office; JKA alluded to it.

I don't recall TG complaining about it.

[nittany90]

I believe that it was widely known in the office; JKA alluded to it.

I don't recall TG complaining about it.

I never said TG "complained" about it -- I said that by reading his comments, it seemed like he was questioning the motives surrounding why the info was being released at that time. And, apparently, he was calling BPD to get an answer to his "timing" question.

(Snipped from the article linked above)

With rumors about the book swirling through the courthouse and beyond this week, Tony Gricar said he'd placed a call to borough police to find out why the information, which he's known for some time, is coming out now.

"We don't know who put it there," Tony Gricar said.

"It was on Mark Smith's desk. But it still doesn't get us anywhere. It's surprising this got out there."

[J. J. in Phila]

I never said TG "complained" about it -- I said that by reading his comments, it seemed like he was questioning the motives surrounding why the info was being released at that time. And, apparently, he was calling BPD to get an answer to his "timing" question.

(Snipped from the article linked above)

With rumors about the book swirling through the courthouse and beyond this week, Tony Gricar said he'd placed a call to borough police to find out why the information, which he's known for some time, is coming out now.

"We don't know who put it there," Tony Gricar said.

"It was on Mark Smith's desk. But it still doesn't get us anywhere. It's surprising this got out there."

Probably because, if related, it would make it look like RFG planned it. I do not see how he, RFG, could have.

[Politigal]

I don't recall if Tony posted it on the board or if it was in an email, but I recall him saying something about the book opening to a certain page was sort of an old wive's tale kind of thing...or something to that effect. I don't think he felt it was really significant in any way.

But only Tony could really clarify that.

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't recall if Tony posted it on the board or if it was in an email, but I recall him saying something about the book opening to a certain page was sort of an old wive's tale kind of thing...or something to that effect. I don't think he felt it was really significant in any way.

But only Tony could really clarify that.

It isn't, in a couple of cases, but if won't work over 72+ hours. There was a blog on that explaining that, while it could happen after a couple of hours, I couldn't duplicate it after 72 hours.

[J. J. in Phila]

It's in a different section from other vacancies, so it would be in the section more directed at DA's, probably.

It "got out" because MS asked everyone about it.

The Code Book is basically a non-issue and it is highly improbable that the page was selected by RFG.

[Serendipitous1]

I rejected J.J.'s 'experiment' out of hand...I know better. More importantly, there is a 'learning curve' when dealing with the curious dissemination of information in this case...apparently even for TG. 'But that was yesterday...and yesterday's gone'.

[J. J. in Phila]

I rejected J.J.'s 'experiment' out of hand...I know better. More importantly, there is a 'learning curve' when dealing with the curious dissemination of information in this case...apparently even for TG. 'But that was yesterday...and yesterday's gone'.

They try it yourself and if was possible to tell what page a book was opened to 72 hours after the fact. I could not duplicate the effect; feel free to try it yourself.

[Serendipitous1]

They try it yourself and if was possible to tell what page a book was opened to 72 hours after the fact. I could not duplicate the effect; feel free to try it yourself.Duly noted...:lol:

[Politigal]

IIRC, the book was not fingerprinted.

I wonder why they opted not to do that?

[J. J. in Phila]

IIRC, the book was not fingerprinted.

I wonder why they opted not to do that?

1. They didn't discover it until it was opened.

2. RFG's fingerprints on a book that, at some point, he handled are not exactly telling. Same with everyone else in the office.

3. Since it was highly unlikely that the book would have "gapped" after three days, it is highly unlikely he would have opened it.

[nittany90]

It's in a different section from other vacancies, so it would be in the section more directed at DA's, probably.

It "got out" because MS asked everyone about it.

The Code Book is basically a non-issue and it is highly improbable that the page was selected by RFG.

I'd like to know, JJ was you dismiss the book as a "non-issue". Have you seen a list titled "Important Evidence List in Gricar's Disappearance" and I missed it?

From reading the earlier posts on the book, I know there was some confusion over which book it was. JKA said "Purdon's" in her manuscript; WJAC tv showed a "County Code" book in their clip. It does make a difference which one is is, IMO, because of the type of book it is. I don't know anything about the County Code book, but it appears to be a paperback bound with hole punches. I happen to have the correct volume of Purdon's beside me right now. Title 16 - Counties. Rule 1404 - Filling of vacancies.
For anyone who's interested and doesn't have access to the statute book, here is its content, in its entirety:

If any vacancy shall occur in the office of district attorney, either by death, resignation, removal from office or from the county, or otherwise, the judges of the court of common pleas shall supply vacancy by the appointment of a competent person to fill the office during the balance of the unexpired term. - 1955, Aug.9, P.L. 323, 1404.

The pocket part for 2007-2008 (sorry, I don't have access to the pocket part for the 2004-2005 year. But because the rule was amended in 2001, it would have been in effect at the time of Gricar's disappearance.) The newest version states basically the same thing, with the exception of organizing counties by classes (third class) or (fourth-eighth class). I'm assuming, based upon MS fulfilling the remainder of Gricar's unexpired term, that CC falls into the (fourth-eighth class), which is ammended to say the following:

If any vacancy shall occur in the office of district attorney in a county of the fourth through eighth class, the first assistant district attorney shall become the district attorney and discharge the duties of the district attorney until the first Monday in January following the next municipal election occurring not less than ninety days after the occurrence of the vacancy. If the first district attorney is unwilling or unable to serve,the judges of the court of common pleas shall fill the vacancy by the appointment of a competent person to fill the office until the first Monday in January following the next municipal election occcurring not less than ninety days after the occurrence of the vacancy. NOTE: This was amended on December 17, 2001 by P.L. 919, No. 107 and was effective immediately.

I don't know whether or not it has any significance to Gricar's disappearance, but I don't know how it can be categorized as a "non-issue". I can think of plenty of logical explanations for why Smith might have found it on his desk when he returned to work.

I'm going on the belief that the book in question was the Purdon's book, which is hard-covered and sturdy. If you didn't do your "72-hour research" using both the actual County Code book or the actual Purdon's title book that the info originated from, then I reserve the right to throw out your results as "faulty". You can't just do the "test" on any book and expect valid results. Each publishing company has their own binding techniques, regulations. Paper quality varies from book to book. Add those two factors together, and you can expect to get different results from the same "tests" on different books.

Assuming the book was found on MS's desk, and assuming that his account of how the book opened to the particular page I've highlighted, it could be relevant/important for a lot of reasons. It could point to motive (Gricar's or someone else's), or it could point to nothing.

For anyone who's interested, I'll let you know my results in a couple days.

If you're not interested, feel free to pass by this post.

[J. J. in Phila]

N90, I dismiss it because it does not appear that if anyone opened the book on 4/14 or even 4/15, the "gap" would stay until 4/18.

Now, that leaves two possibilities:

1. It is total coincidence.

2. Somebody in the office checked, but much closer to 4/18. I frankly don't find anything to strange in that, nor would I find it strange about someone not wanting to admit to looking, or forgetting that they checked or started to check.

I've tried this with both a bound hardcover book and two different municipal code (they all are from the same publisher, the Commonwealth). Neither formed the gap after 72 hours. In the respect that RFG was not known to be back at the Courthouse on 4/17-18, you can eliminate him as the person who checked.

That someone thought, **Ray's missing; who's in charge. I'll check,** isn't a strange or suspicious question in the circumstances.

[J. J. in Phila]

BTW, if RFG could have put the book on the desk, that points to walkaway or suicide, and away from murder.

[nittany90]

N90, I dismiss it because it does not appear that if anyone opened the book on 4/14 or even 4/15, the "gap" would stay until 4/18.

Now, that leaves two possibilities:

1. It is total coincidence.

2. Somebody in the office checked, but much closer to 4/18. I frankly don't find anything to strange in that, nor would I find it strange about someone not wanting to admit to looking, or forgetting that they checked or started to check.

I've tried this with both a bound hardcover book and two different municipal code (they all are from the same publisher, the Commonwealth). Neither formed the gap after 72 hours. In the respect that RFG was not known to be back at the Courthouse on 4/17-18, you can eliminate him as the person who checked.

That someone thought, **Ray's missing; who's in charge. I'll check,** isn't a strange or suspicious question in the circumstances.

The Commonwealth does NOT publish Purdon's -- West Thomson does.

http://west.thomson.com/about/history/default.aspx

[nittany90]

BTW, if RFG could have put the book on the desk, that points to walkaway or suicide, and away from murder.

BTW, I'm searching for the truth -- whatever that might be. I don't ignore possible evidence just because it points to a particular theory.

[2-B]

I'm going on the belief that the book in question was the Purdon's book, which is hard-covered and sturdy. If you didn't do your "72-hour research" using both the actual County Code book or the actual Purdon's title book that the info originated from, then I reserve the right to throw out your results as "faulty". You can't just do the "test" on any book and expect valid results. Each publishing company has their own binding techniques, regulations. Paper quality varies from book to book. Add those two factors together, and you can expect to get different results from the same "tests" on different books.


These were my exact thoughts when I first read the results of the "72 hour test."

A couple other factors to consider:

a) humidity in the room where the book was stored and

b) force applied to the "opening."

Even if JJ used the exact same volume of Purdon's found on MS's desk in exactly the same atmospheric conditions, how could he hope to replicate the exact amount of force as whoever may have previously opened the volume? Further, is there any way for him to know whether the volume was turned upside down on a desk and if other things were temporarily piled on top of said volume?

Too many unknown variables to create any kind of scientific test with any valid conclusions, IMO.

For OOB, when we've got a peer-reviewed study from JJ, I'll be more inclined to accept the results of his test as meaningful.

[2-B]

OOB, you forgot cement properties, condensation, fingerprints, length of time necessary to be in a vehicle before depositing hairs and fibers, the inability to refrain from sneezing while in a vehicle, the proven fact that Mini Coopers cannot be seen while in motion. . . . Just trying to make sure N90 has a complete understanding of all the facts.

[nittany90]

"For OOB, when we've got a peer-reviewed study from JJ, I'll be more inclined to accept the results of his test as meaningful."

You read my mind. And, of course, you'll have to let me know it's been posted.

And for nittany90, I guess somebody has to explain a couple of things.

It's a "non-issue" because the self-(and JustGricar-)appointed expert said so. I know you're new, but you'll have to try to get and then keep this straight, OK? It's the same thing with scent and dogs, eyewitnesses and corroboration, the Centre County political scene, Tracfones, and the veritable mob of people in the home for hours before Gricar was reported missing found in other threads.

Thank you for your attention and future efforts to get with the program.

:blushing:N90 is very ashamed at having questioned the "authority". I promise to do better next time. (((((she sulks away, kicking herself for the audacity)))))))

Thanks for the laugh, guys. In all seriousness, I (and I trust others, will, too) will continue to question anything that seems strange/odd/unexplored in this case. Which, pretty much, leaves EVERYTHING in this case on the table, right?

[J. J. in Phila]

The Commonwealth does NOT publish Purdon's -- West Thomson does.

http://west.thomson.com/about/history/default.aspx

They do publish the County Code, which is what I was referring to.

http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/deskbook06/Resources_02_Publications_of_the_LGC.pdf

Does it really surprise you I, of all people, would know where to get one. :)

[J. J. in Phila]

These were my exact thoughts when I first read the results of the "72 hour test."

A couple other factors to consider:

a) humidity in the room where the book was stored and

b) force applied to the "opening."

Even if JJ used the exact same volume of Purdon's found on MS's desk in exactly the same atmospheric conditions, how could he hope to replicate the exact amount of force as whoever may have previously opened the volume? Further, is there any way for him to know whether the volume was turned upside down on a desk and if other things were temporarily piled on top of said volume?

Too many unknown variables to create any kind of scientific test with any valid conclusions, IMO.

For OOB, when we've got a peer-reviewed study from JJ, I'll be more inclined to accept the results of his test as meaningful.

Well, you are more than welcome to duplicate the experiment.

Humidity should not have not been much higher and it is unlikely to stayed the same in MS's office over the weekend. Mine house was at 60%-70%.

Keep in mind, I used less time between when I checked and the last time RFG was known to be in the Courthouse.

Now, could RFG attempted to "break the spine" of the book. Yes. That would take both time and effort and it would be far easier to put a book mark in it. Occam's Razor.

[Politigal]

Obviously, someone in the DA's office had access to Smith's office while he was out for his camping trip.

Clerical? Patty? who?

[J. J. in Phila]

Obviously, someone in the DA's office had access to Smith's office while he was out for his camping trip.

Clerical? Patty? who?

Just about anyone in the office, including Smith.

[2-B]

Well, you are more than welcome to duplicate the experiment.


It's a flawed experiment, JJ. Sorry, but there's no point in trying to duplicate a flawed experiment. I don't own a volume of Purdon's printed at the same time from the same batch of materials the one in the courthouse was. Even if I did, it wouldn't have been kept under the same conditions as the one in the courthouse. And most important, I would have absolutely no way of knowing how much force was exerted on the book when Person X opened it or whether it was ever stored upside down, opened, with other things on top of it.

Someone could, I suppose, purchase a volume of Purdon's from that same printing run, gather data on how the one in the courthouse had been stored, and run a series of tests measuring varying degrees of force.

That still wouldn't tell us who placed the book on MS's desk.

[2-B]

It's a "non-issue" because the self-(and XX-)appointed expert said so. I know you're new, but you'll have to try to get and then keep this straight, OK? It's the same thing with scent and dogs, eyewitnesses and corroboration, the Centre County political scene, Tracfones, and the veritable mob of people in the home for hours before Gricar was reported missing found in other threads.


There is a certain ironic benefit for those engaged in a search for the truth.

The more something is declared a "non-issue," the more clearly that something is likely to be an issue.

The more something is declared self-evident or a given, the more clearly that something needs further investigation.

[Politigal]

There is a certain ironic benefit for those engaged in a search for the truth.

The more something is declared a "non-issue," the more clearly that something is likely to be an issue.

The more something is declared self-evident or a given, the more clearly that something needs further investigation.

sorta like child psychology? :ohmy:

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a certain ironic benefit for those engaged in a search for the truth.

The more something is declared a "non-issue," the more clearly that something is likely to be an issue.

The more something is declared self-evident or a given, the more clearly that something needs further investigation.

It'd truly fascinating that you want to claim as evidence something that can't be demonstrated and, if it could be demonstrated, would point to walkaway or suicide.

Maybe you'll eventually convince me to increase the odds on walkaway.

[2-B]

Like N90, I'm searching for the truth of what happened to Ray Gricar. I've been saying that for years. I don't ignore evidence depending on theory.

Do I believe good science is better than flawed science? Yes.

Do I believe good science is better than guesses? Yes.

[Politigal]

the statute book

the mystery woman

the familiarity with the novel

Mel Wiley

the computer searches

all seem sort of a somewhat subtle (not really) push toward walkaway

[J. J. in Phila]

the statute book

the mystery woman

the familiarity with the novel

Mel Wiley

the computer searches

all seem sort of a somewhat subtle (not really) push toward walkaway

Of those, not as much as you are intimating.

Mystery woman. Possibly someone RFG left with, but as has been suggested, that person could be responsible for his death. Buehner has made that connection, to an extent.

The code book. If it could be demonstrated that RFG could have been the one who left it, yes. It cannot; it is much more likely he didn't.

20/20 Vision and Wiley, yes, those things point to walkaway, Wiley perhaps a bit more strongly. Both can be coincidences.

The searches strongly point to RFG being the one that destroyed the drive, but so do other things (some not reported). The thing is, there is evidence of a long term interest in doing that. That could be coincidental. If not, it could point to suicide as well as walkaway.

20/20 Vision and Wiley point to walkaway. The searches point to RFG wanting to destroy the data, something he wanted to do for a while, but that, in itself, does not point to walkaway.

[nittany90]

I was reviewing my results from my very unscientific Purdon's book test this morning. And the following questions cropped up again:

Let me start with a disclaimer, that this book could be a significant part of the puzzle. Or it could be completely coincidental, and irrelevant to the circumstances surrounding his disappearance. That said, I have some questions:

Was there an advantage, to anyone employed in the DA's office, if Gricar became unable to fulfill his term and MS was promoted to DA? Were there unknown administrative problems in the office that would have disappeared with Gricar if MS was the "boss"? Was someone about to lose their job? Was someone on a case they wanted off of, or wanted on? Was someone looking ahead to the fall election, and thinking, someone would have a better chance without Gricar's endorsement or political interference?

At the point he started talking about the purdon's book being left on his desk, MS also publicly said that there were no indications of a motive for suicide/walkaway. "There is no evidence of any medical, physical or mental condition whatsoever," said assistant district attorney Mark Smith (Source: USA Today, April 18, 2005)

Who had a motive to research what would happen if Gricar wasn't around, wasn't the chief LE officer anymore?

I read the article again and found a detail I hadn't seen before. I think we (at least I was, and I'd read Sunday or Monday being batted around) were under the assumption that the book was found on Monday am, when MS returned to work. The first paragraph clearly states that the book was found on MS' desk the day after Gricar's disappearance:

In yet another odd twist in the disappearance of former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, his nephew confirmed Wednesday that a legal book containing information on replacing a district attorney was found on the desk of an assistant district attorney the day after Gricar vanished. From published reports, Gricar disappeared Friday, April 15. That means MS found the book on Saturday. The full story on the CDT is only available by purchase, but I found its reprint here, about halfway down the page:

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=05331f756c73a0228fb8824b73d97276

Reviewing my list of VCF/Colleagues, who had opportunity to "do away with" Gricar on Friday? We know that SS was not at work that Friday. I'm not sure it was ever definitively determined that MS had taken a vacation day that Friday, or left for his weekend camping trip after work. I personally don't think either of these men were involved. But, was anyone else off work that day?

And the biggest question of all -- did LE explore all these questions???

[Politigal]

From JKA's googlepages...Smith didn't return from his trip til Sunday...so, I think the book was probably noticed at that time.

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

.....Sunday, April 17th when he has stated publicly that he went directly to the DA office after returning from Pittsburgh.

It really does get confusing with so many conflicting reports....that's for sure.

[gstickley]

IF "The Book" was found on Sun. & Co. officials were talking about "Grief Counseling" by Mon. morning, IMO somebody knew RG would not be returning. FGS, he was only gone 3 days, 2 of which were weekend days! In fact, by Sat. morning, an APB had been issued to surrounding states, an air search was underway, RG's office & computers were accessed, his vehicle was removed from where it had been left, all when RG reportedly had been unaccounted for less than 24 hrs. IMO, somebody was worried that RG would not be returning or somebody knew RG would not be returning.

Who or what changed? Who or what changed from panic mode to 'suicide'/'walkaway' in such a short time???

[nittany90]

Was there an advantage, to anyone employed in the DA's office, if Gricar became unable to fulfill his term and MS was promoted to DA? Were there unknown administrative problems in the office that would have disappeared with Gricar if MS was the "boss"? Was someone about to lose their job? Was someone on a case they wanted off of, or wanted on? Was someone looking ahead to the fall election, and thinking, someone would have a better chance without Gricar's endorsement or political interference?



Quoting my own post, LOL:rolleyes:

Found this, regarding the Scott Paxson (PSU football player) case while searching something else:

(snipped from article linked below):

Amendola said in his opening statement that when the case was originally brought to the District Attorney's office in April 2005, Assistant District Attorney Mark Smith turned down the opportunity to prosecute because of lack of evidence.

At the time, Smith was standing in for former District Attorney Ray Gricar, who had recently disappeared. When Madeira was elected to the District Attorney's Office, Marshall said he took over the case. Once in office, Madeira gave the go-ahead to prosecute Paxson.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/09/09-28-06tdc/09-28-06dnews-07.asp

Charges were brought against Paxson in March, 2005. The case was subsequently reviewed by Judicial Affairs, at which time, Paxson was cleared of the charges in early April 2005. Did Gricar know about the charges/subsequent Judicial Affairs investigation before his disappearance? In April, 2005, MS as Acting DA, passes on the case, citing lack of evidence. Months later, after MM has been elected as DA and MS has lost his "clout", ADA Lance Marshall (with MM's approval) decides to prosecute Paxson. We all know how it ended. With egg all over LM's face.

Hmmmm. I'm not sure what, if any, signficance this might be, but the timing is very curious.