The Disappearance of Ray Gricar

[logicworks]

I was just reviewing various links to news stories regarding Ray Gricar, and wasn't certain this one had ever been posted on the board, so providing a link to it.

http://pahomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=56281

A couple of statements in the video caught my attention.
One is the fact that it was said to be very uncharacteristic of RG to take off a Friday.
The second was when Madeira, current county DA, states that out of the thousands of cases RG prosecuted, they didn't fit due to timeline or alibi. Is he actually saying that out of the thousands of cases ALL of them were checked out? If so, who did the checking? Just curious here, because it was my understanding that any time it was mentioned, the 'lack of resources' to check out all of his cases continually came up as reason for not doing so. Which is the truth? They were checked out or they weren't?
JMO

[Politigal]

thanks for revisiting this link (S1 posted this 11/08 on our regular board in the Links thread)

I had read the article but don't recall watching the video.

I think Michael Madeira was saying the most *obvious* possibles for revenge out of the 1000's of cases Gricar tried - were looked at and either had alibis or were incarcerated already, etc. So, it does seem that they looked at some of his cases.

I do recall the part of the article that stood out for me the most, was MM admitting that Friday 4/15 was out of the norm for Gricar...and that point still leads me to believe that foul play was definitely a factor in his disappearance.

[2-B]

I find discussing an upcoming trial with stated future expectations completely 'out of character' for someone planning to walkaway. In order to believe that, I would have to believe RG was deliberately bluffing, and misleading others prior to disappearance. I also see such misleading as being out of character for the dedicated to his work DA,
RG. Future plans, both immediate and distant, are part of profiling, and I see nothing that indicates there was no planning for the future. All indication are that there were plans and none of them indicate anything that would lead to believe RG was going to walkaway from his job, his family, his retirement. He had already made his future plans very clear.


In the Cindy Song case, a walkaway/runaway scenario was ruled out early on based on CS having ordered parts for her computer and having (IIRC) registered for the next semester's classes. CS was in a class of people much more likely as a group to engage in runaway/walkaway than a 59-year-old DA deeply immersed in a career he was dedicated to and looking forward to a planned retirement only 8-9 months away. Yet 4+ years later, we're certainly being treated to a major push for the walkaway theory in RG's case, if not by LE, at least by other voices. Why, when RG (as one psychologist observed early in the case) was so clearly tied to the future?

IMO, 4+ years post-disappearance, the public has never had a clear, officially confirmed version of RG's status for that Friday. Was it a scheduled vacation day? Was it a scheduled morning off work? Did RG wake up that morning and decide to take the morning off? Did he decide mid-day to extend a half-day (previously scheduled or spontaneous) into a whole day away from the office? Was the alleged 11:15-ish call about the dog, about the afternoon at work, or about both? We have asked these questions many times over the years and never, IMO, had solid, clear answers. Has LE ever been able to determine those answers or do some of those same questions remain for the investigation as well?

As a corollary question, I wonder if the investigation has ever been able to determine for certain where the laptop was on April 15. It was said to have been in the closet where the case was found, yet colleagues at the court house were asked to search their work spaces for the missing laptop shortly after RG's disappearance. Did RG ever have the habit of taking the laptop into the office and leaving it there? If so, would that habit include leaving it there without the case, given the incident KA recalls where RG all but shut down work in the office until a missing dust cover for some piece of electronic equipment could be located?

[2-B]

I would guess that if the laptop had been in his car, it would have been in it's case, unless he had some sort of other protection, like a soft case, while leaving a hard case behind.

I'd have to search to see if I can still find it, but I'm positive there was an article where DZ mentioned the case for the laptop was a soft case. Soft cases are even easier to carry around than hard cases, since they're usually made like back packs or messenger bags. I can't imagine someone who was so bent on finding a dust cover for a piece of equipment sitting in the office taking a laptop in his car (and planning to take it out of the car and carry it somewhere) without some protection. Out of character if we're talking about a scenario where RG simply had a meeting with someone.

[kelloggirl]

I wonder how many people in general just grab their laptop and take it anywhere without a case? I wouldn't think to do so nor does anyone I know, and none of us are what I would call meticulous.

I can't imagine if RG planned to use it that day, that he wouldn't have taken the case along. I have never found my case to be a deterrent, but rather protection. I would think only someone in a rush or whose sole interest was the laptop itself would go to the trouble of removing it from the case in order to take it.

I would guess that if the laptop had been in his car, it would have been in it's case, unless he had some sort of other protection, like a soft case, while leaving a hard case behind. Imagining his just grabbing it to take along to a meeting without the case seems to me to be out of character for a meticulous RG, as does carrying it around in his car without a case. Even if there was something on it that he wanted to show someone else, still no reason why a meticulous person wouldn't transport it in a case.

Just doesn't add up-----nor does how it managed to get to Lewisburg without a case, unless he had a second protective case for transporting it on short gaunts. I would guess PF would know the answer to that.
JMO

Logicworks, I totally agree that the whole taking of the laptop without a case always stood out to me as very strange. I can't ever imagine taking my laptop out of the house, even just to put in the car, without some sort of case for it, if only just to make it easier to carry or handle. As someone who is glued at the hip to her laptop, there is just so much associated with the laptop that just doesn't make sense. Not that I know what any of it means, but still.

Can someone remind me if they found the laptop itself, or only the hard drive? It's been so long I can't recall.

[iluvmua]

www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/04/missing_district_attorney_ray.html

[Politigal]

And, drama or no drama, would be equally & totally out of character for RG.

[gstickley]

www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/04/missing_district_attorney_ray.html

Hi, iluvmua. While searches may have been done on the computer, there is no way to tell who made the searches.

[2-B]

Hi, iluvmua. While searches may have been done on the computer, there is no way to tell who made the searches.

Right, GS, and something those following this case casually may not realize if they didn't follow the discussions on our regular board closely.

While we're on the holiday forum and might have a number of the more casual case followers drop by, it's not a bad idea to point things like that out.

I'd also call attention to this sentence from the article:

Nephew and family spokesman Tony Gricar says his uncle's research into how to erase his own computer seems to lessen the probability he was a victim of foul play.

Those of us following the case closely on our own board know that TG commented on how the press represented his views, and we know that at least in mid-April, TG's views were slightly different from the way they've been represented in the media. How he feels in July, we have no way of knowing. But in April, he said he was speaking more about how the public would view the computer searches than about how he himself viewed them.

IMO, that kind of subtle slant doesn't have to be deliberate to have a huge effect on how the public reacts to this case. I can envision any number of casual case followers reading that sentence and thinking, "Even Gricar's own nephew now believes there's less chance his uncle was murdered."

How sad for Ray and for his loved ones if the release of the computer search information stirs apathy toward his disappearance rather than increased leads and tips LE said they hoped to encourage.

[Politigal]

The sad thing IMO, is that the slanted release of the news of the computer searches...probably *was* deliberate. The press release was prepared by Bellefonte police *and* Michael Madeira:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/15/police_release_computer_data.aspx

"A walk-away can really turn public opinion away from someone that can still be a victim in this case," Tony Gricar said. "This makes it look like a selfish act or a malicious act, when we don't know that that's the case."

[2-B]

The sad thing IMO, is that the slanted release of the news of the computer searches...probably *was* deliberate. The press release was prepared by Bellefonte police *and* Michael Madeira:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/15/police_release_computer_data.aspx

"A walk-away can really turn public opinion away from someone that can still be a victim in this case," Tony Gricar said. "This makes it look like a selfish act or a malicious act, when we don't know that that's the case."

Thanks for bringing that quote forward, Pgal. I'd forgotten about it, and it really goes to the heart of what media can do to public perception.

The sad thing for Ray Gricar is that we're not only dealing with some spotty reporting in this case. We've also had some non-journalists muddying the waters, IMO.

[7psig]

I hope Rickard and the department finally learned their lesson. The current district attorney is a political hack. This guy parades his kids around for his reelection and even posted an upskirt shot of his own daughter on Facebook. Blegghh!

[sherrijean981]

thanks for revisiting this link (S1 posted this 11/08 on our regular board in the Links thread)

I had read the article but don't recall watching the video.

I think Michael Madeira was saying the most *obvious* possibles for revenge out of the 1000's of cases Gricar tried - were looked at and either had alibis or were incarcerated already, etc. So, it does seem that they looked at some of his cases.

I do recall the part of the article that stood out for me the most, was MM admitting that Friday 4/15 was out of the norm for Gricar...and that point still leads me to believe that foul play was definitely a factor in his disappearance.

Here is the quote from the article listed. It sounds like they might have looked at certain top ones that could have been a problem. And it was not a normal thing for RG to do.

Quote:
""The most obvious ones of the thousands of cases I’m sure he did either have alibi's or the timeline doesn't fit. He did not follow his normal routine that day. It would be a very random thing where he wouldn’t normally be on a Friday," says Madiera."
Quote

My thoughts are that what could be a small, minor case to the DA's could be a time for that person to build up an anger or hate for the DA who put him away and want revenge. He didn't have to be a big time drug dealer, murderer, rapist.

No one knows what goes on in a prison, how a newbie to the jail can be singled out to be picked on by the hard time guys. Maybe someone didn't get a good treatment and built up that hate and anger.

Maybe someone who is doing time for something they hadn't done. Someone who lost the family because of it.

Could be it wasn't the person who went to jail, could be a family member who lost everything when the spouse or parent was sent to jail. Or one of the many spousal abuse cases that ended in a double murder.

There are just too many ways to look at this and to just look at hard time, "obvious cases", is not what should be done. This is not a normal case. Maybe DA Madeira should have looked at some of the not so obvious files of a person RG sent to jail.

I would like to know why some men who committed crimes against their children and went to jail for it are not on the list of sex offenders? I know one in particular that is not and he molested his step children and did time in jail. Biggest pervert I have ever met.

[Politigal]

I hope Rickard and the department finally learned their lesson. The current district attorney is a political hack. This guy parades his kids around for his reelection and even posted an upskirt shot of his own daughter on Facebook. Blegghh!

looks like they're all wearing jeans to me

http://www.facebook.com/find-friends/?ref=nur#/profile.php?id=661878574&hiq=michael%2Cmadeira

[Politigal]

snipped

I would like to know why some men who committed crimes against their children and went to jail for it are not on the list of sex offenders? I know one in particular that is not and he molested his step children and did time in jail. Biggest pervert I have ever met.

Perhaps it was prior to when the laws changed about sex offender registration?

[Politigal]

Thanks for bringing that quote forward, Pgal. I'd forgotten about it, and it really goes to the heart of what media can do to public perception.

The sad thing for Ray Gricar is that we're not only dealing with some spotty reporting in this case. We've also had some non-journalists muddying the waters, IMO.

I totally agree on that point. But IMO, police have muddied the waters about as much as anyone.

the case will never be cold/it's a cold case/they'll never stop investigating until there's a resolution
Fingerprints/no fingerprints
No software/software
Witnesses/Witnesses were all red herrings & none could be corroborated/Witnesses again
Computer searches....knowing they cannot prove who did the searches

etc etc etc

[7psig]

looks like they're all wearing jeans to me

http://www.facebook.com/find-friends/?ref=nur#/profile.php?id=661878574&hiq=michael%2CmadeiraYou're fishing in the wrong pond. But I won't be linking to child abuse. I saw it and it has been reported. Enough said.

[Politigal]

7psig --

You posted this on the links thread & I'm curious how you know it was before Lara flew home? It's dated 4/27/05.

I tried to find this here but I didn't see it. It's Lara on the Early Show before she flew home.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/daughter-miss...-50040377.html

[2-B]

I find discussing an upcoming trial with stated future expectations completely 'out of character' for someone planning to walkaway. In order to believe that, I would have to believe RG was deliberately bluffing, and misleading others prior to disappearance. I also see such misleading as being out of character for the dedicated to his work DA,
RG. Future plans, both immediate and distant, are part of profiling, and I see nothing that indicates there was no planning for the future. All indication are that there were plans and none of them indicate anything that would lead to believe RG was going to walkaway from his job, his family, his retirement. He had already made his future plans very clear.


Former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar was going to retire at the end of his fifth term in December 2005.
"I have always wanted to retire at 60; that has been my plan from the start," Gricar told The Daily Collegian in 2004. "I want to get used to life without an alarm clock, not having to wake up and just enjoying things that I haven't had time for."

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/04/15/gricar_missing_for_3_years.aspx



So in 2004, RG makes the public announcement that he plans to retire in Dec. 2005, indicating that this target date has been part of a long-term plan.

Are we to believe he had a concurrent, secret long-term plan that involved disappearance (minus his retirement monies) 8 months short of this long-term goal?

Are we to believe that a man who wanted simply to get used to life without an alarm clock and to have time to enjoy things his busy career had kept him from [B]really wanted instead a life of looking over his shoulder, trying to evade discovery?

Very difficult to imagine that a quiet, private man whose pleasures include drives in the country, watching Laurel and Hardy films, spending time with his daughter, hiking, etc. is in reality an adrenaline junkie longing to become "a legend" and willing to trade a long-planned retirement for a life on the run.

We hear from some corners that people do walk away from their lives. But we are not talking about "people." We are talking about one person, this person in particular. For this particular person, the circumstances are such that a long-planned walkaway seems highly unlikely. If RG is still alive somewhere, I do not believe it came about as the result of some long term plan or that it was motivated by RG's desire to "become a legend," as has been argued here before.

I think what Ray Gricar wanted was exactly what he said: to finish out his term and to enjoy his life without an alarm clock and without the pressures of his career interfering with the things he enjoyed. How sad to think he was likely prevented from having those simple pleasures after giving so much of himself to others for so many years.

[2-B]

Biggest confusion point I am at right now is understanding why the laptop was out of the case in Lewisburg. What possible reason? Question I have been pondering is IF he was turning the laptop over as evidence of wrongdoing, would he have taken it in the case or out of the case? And if he was doing so, who would he possibly be turning it over to? I would continue to guess he would have taken it in the case, therefore back to square one. The laptop in Lewisburg makes no sense unless it can be concluded indeed there were times when he transported his laptop without the case.

Otherwise, it goes back to who was in the house who knew where the laptop was stored and what was on it that someone didn't want to see the light of day.
JMO

We've got a laptop that was rarely taken anywhere except for conferences according to the reporting. It had sat unused since the purchase of the home computer according to PF. RG was a "paper and pencil guy" according to those who knew him, not someone joined at the hip to his laptop.

IF RG went driving that Friday and IF he took the laptop with him, some reason specific, unique, and unusual to that laptop had to motivate both the trip and the taking of the laptop, IMO. IOW--not simply that RG was meeting with someone and wanted to take notes or show information to someone.

The laptop minus the case is out of character for RG. The laptop going anywhere with RG is out of habit for RG. Unless the investigation can uncover that specific, unique reason for RG taking an unprotected laptop with him on what was held out to his SO as just a drive to relax, I'm led to look at the laptop more as staging after the fact than as catalyst to the disappearance.

The reported computer searches practically scream possible staging after the fact as well. Why would RG search for ways to destroy data on the laptop hard drive using the home computer rather than the drive he planned to destroy, assuming he planned to destroy the drive? And why would he use search wording so alien to a 59-year-old non-tech-oriented attorney?

[J. J. in Phila]

First, it would be in character for RFG to take off and drive; he took off part of Thursday.

Second, it was TG who noted that he didn't carry his laptop in its case. It would be strange for someone who wanted to remove the laptop quickly to go to trouble of taking it out of the case, but not for someone planning to use, or toss, the laptop.

We have a potential reason for RFG wanting to remove the laptop. That is, to destroy the data on the hard drive. At this point, I think it is likely RFG toss the drive. We have motive, opportunity, and means.

You might want to re-read Renner's article; the witnesses reported RFG was carrying something.

[Politigal]

snipped
Second, it was TG who noted that he didn't carry his laptop in its case.

When exactly did Tony say that???

I don't recall that info at all.

[Politigal]

Thanks Logic! I knew JJ's assertion wasn't correct.

[7psig]

7psig --

You posted this on the links thread & I'm curious how you know it was before Lara flew home? It's dated 4/27/05.

I tried to find this here but I didn't see it. It's Lara on the Early Show before she flew home.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/daughter-miss...-50040377.htmlWatch when Lara speaks. There's a place name that comes up. Don't remember what place now (maybe Port Matilda) but I remember I looked it up and it's in Centre County. The only other early interview I remember seeing of her was after she went home.

I've been trying to find the earliest reactions from family, friends and police. I think they can be most revealing in cold cases. This forum has been helpful. Do you know of any other clips from the first few weeks?

[Politigal]

Watch when Lara speaks. There's a place name that comes up. Don't remember what place now (maybe Port Matilda) but I remember I looked it up and it's in Centre County. The only other early interview I remember seeing of her was after she went home.

I've been trying to find the earliest reactions from family, friends and police. I think they can be most revealing in cold cases. This forum has been helpful. Do you know of any other clips from the first few weeks?

there are some here on my googlepages (some of the links are no longer avail though)

http://politigal.googlepages.com/

[sherrijean981]

7psig --

You posted this on the links thread & I'm curious how you know it was before Lara flew home? It's dated 4/27/05.

I tried to find this here but I didn't see it. It's Lara on the Early Show before she flew home.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/daughter-miss...-50040377.html


This link no longer works.

[J. J. in Phila]

When exactly did Tony say that???

I don't recall that info at all.

A while back TG noted that when he took his laptop he generally didn't carry it in the case. He didn't find it unusual if his uncle did the same thing.

Also, where LE initially looked for it was the office. It would be likely that they would have expected it to be there, without the case.

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks Logic! I knew JJ's assertion wasn't correct.


No, one again, you misunderstood the answer.

[Politigal]

perhaps I did misunderstand your post.


Whazzup with the tea leaves this weekend? No breaking news?

[J. J. in Phila]

perhaps I did misunderstand your post.


Whazzup with the tea leaves this weekend? No breaking news?

I doubt that there will be a major announcement over the weekend, unless it's something they want to bury.

Timing wise, I'd expect one over the summer.

Are they holding back stuff? Yes. Would it be enough to move my numbers. Maybe. Does what I know they are holding back move my numbers? No.

[Politigal]

I doubt that there will be a major announcement over the weekend, unless it's something they want to bury.

Timing wise, I'd expect one over the summer.

Are they holding back stuff? Yes. Would it be enough to move my numbers. Maybe. Does what I know they are holding back move my numbers? No.

Why keep it secret?

[J. J. in Phila]

Why keep it secret?

Didn't you once asked MM to release more information?

[Politigal]

Didn't you once asked MM to release more information?

But you are not in law enforcement.

[J. J. in Phila]

But you are not in law enforcement.

No, but it is their information. I do know that there is more out there.

It is not inconsistent with anything I've posted.

[Politigal]

No, but it is their information. I do know that there is more out there.

It is not inconsistent with anything I've posted.

so you are saying your source is someone in law enforcement?

[J. J. in Phila]

so you are saying your source is someone in law enforcement?

I'm saying it originated with LE. It is not earth shattering.

[Politigal]

I'm saying it originated with LE. It is not earth shattering.

If your source is someone like ....say for instance....Renner, who gleaned info from Zaccagni....

aren't you a little bit worried about the accuracy of the info?

Because you should be...IMO

[Cloudbuster]

I have to agree on Ray tossing the laptop. I really don't think he cared about the laptop case due to his situation. I have every reason to believe that he knew that someone was after it. Someone went to RG and told him that someone planned on murdering them meaning RG and someone else (don't know who the other was but could be the mystery woman or PF ect coworker ect). In other words Ray knew the danger he was in and that's why he tossed the laptop. He intended to go to LE with this at some point but never made it. Also when RG tosses the laptop its apparent someone else picked it up. Then it seems to reappear months later separated, hard from drive.

Im only telling you how Im interpreting what I can hear.

[Politigal]

Cloudbuster...

you've always been a very friendly poster, respectful of other's opinions...but I'm sorry. I just do not believe in "paranormal" tapes.

It sort of reminds me of when I was a kid - and the reports about the backmasking on the Beatles records.

I honestly don't believe in anything paranormal.

This link pretty much sums it up for me:

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

the United States National Science Foundation, contends that scientific evidence does not support paranormal beliefs.[4]

[J. J. in Phila]

If your source is someone like ....say for instance....Renner, who gleaned info from Zaccagni....

aren't you a little bit worried about the accuracy of the info?

Because you should be...IMO

I'm not worried about the accuracy.

You'll note that DZ said, in Renner's piece, that 3-4 witnesses placed RFG across from the museum on 4/16/05. After checking with Renner, that was not on my witness list, simply because of the possibility DZ misspoke and meant Friday. If DZ didn't misspeak, and 6-7 witnesses saw RFG, with the Mini on 4/16, the odds on walkaway would be at about 54-55%.

These are not Bennett, et al., that saw RFG at the SOS.

You'll note on my witness list, I don't list those 4/16/05 witnesses at the museum, because I'm unsure about the source. (DZ might have not misspoken, but I'm being careful).

Still, Renner's piece indicated that some witnesses saw RFG carrying something, unidentified, around the Mini when it was parked across from the museum, within 100 yards of where the drive was found.

You'll also note that in any scenario I've come up with in the blog, I said, RFG tossed the drive before what ever happened happened. That includes two murder scenarios.

[Politigal]

Aren't you forgetting that later on Zaccagni said all the sightings were pretty much red herrings???

And he said a few times that it looked more like foul play.

[J. J. in Phila]

I have to agree on Ray tossing the laptop. I really don't think he cared about the laptop case due to his situation. I have every reason to believe that he knew that someone was after it. Someone went to RG and told him that someone planned on murdering them meaning RG and someone else (don't know who the other was but could be the mystery woman or PF ect coworker ect). In other words Ray knew the danger he was in and that's why he tossed the laptop. He intended to go to LE with this at some point but never made it. Also when RG tosses the laptop its apparent someone else picked it up. Then it seems to reappear months later separated, hard from drive.

Im only telling you how Im interpreting what I can hear.

Note I said the drive, not the laptop itself. I've never said RFG tossed the laptop, though it is a possibility.

[Politigal]

bringing over a post by S1 from our regular board about James Renner

07-12-2007, 11:32 AM
Serendipitous1
Guest Posts: n/a

Speaking of blogs
All about James Renner, with a link to his own blog: http://www.grayco.com/cleveland/auth...s/author.shtml

On his blog, there is a brief 12/6/06 (archived) entry about RG, with a link to his 11/16/05 Free Times article on RG (The Rivers Edge...).

My opinion: Several posters here on the Gricar threads have previously pointed out numerous inaccuracies contained in that article. He also wrote a book (published last year) on his search for the killer of Amy Mihaljevic (an unsolved 1989 Ohio murder). Local LE criticized inaccurate information contained in that book (November 2006 archived entry - "Bay Village Issues Press Release").

[J. J. in Phila]

Aren't you forgetting that later on Zaccagni said all the sightings were pretty much red herrings???

And he said a few times that it looked more like foul play.

He also said of the Saturday park witnesses, "We can definitely put him there on Saturday, too."

[J. J. in Phila]

bringing over a post by S1 from our regular board about James Renner

07-12-2007, 11:32 AM
Serendipitous1
Guest Posts: n/a

Speaking of blogs
All about James Renner, with a link to his own blog: http://www.grayco.com/cleveland/auth...s/author.shtml

On his blog, there is a brief 12/6/06 (archived) entry about RG, with a link to his 11/16/05 Free Times article on RG (The Rivers Edge...).

My opinion: Several posters here on the Gricar threads have previously pointed out numerous inaccuracies contained in that article. He also wrote a book (published last year) on his search for the killer of Amy Mihaljevic (an unsolved 1989 Ohio murder). Local LE criticized inaccurate information contained in that book (November 2006 archived entry - "Bay Village Issues Press Release").

That, and the fact it came from DZ, is the reason those 4/16 museum witnesses are not on the witness list. Still, if DZ was confused and these were the 4/15 museum witnesses, RFG was still carrying something, within 100 yards of where the drive was found.

[Politigal]

That, and the fact it came from DZ, is the reason those 4/16 museum witnesses are not on the witness list. Still, if DZ was confused and these were the 4/15 museum witnesses, RFG was still carrying something, within 100 yards of where the drive was found.

could you post the portion about him carrying something? I haven't seen that.

[J. J. in Phila]

“We can definitely put him there on Saturday, too. There’s a museum right here, across from the park. I think it’s called Cottingwood House. The employees there watched Ray bring his car and park it two or three different times across the street. He came and left, came and left, came back. He got out of his car, sat on a bench. He was reading a newspaper or something. But by noon Saturday, he just seems to have fallen off the earth.”

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

At that distance, someone across the street could have confused the laptop with a newspaper.

Now, we have these things:

A. RFG talked to people, about a year before about eliminating the data on the laptop.

B. RFG did searches to eliminate the data.

C. People saw him in the park with something though not clearly identified.

D. The drive was found within about 100 yards of he was seen with that "something."

[Politigal]

You've made quite a stretch there from "reading a newspaper or something" to carrying something...i.e. the laptop.

[J. J. in Phila]

You've made quite a stretch there from "reading a newspaper or something" to carrying something...i.e. the laptop.

Unless the something was hanging in mid air he was carrying something.

[2-B]

If your source is someone like ....say for instance....Renner, who gleaned info from Zaccagni....

aren't you a little bit worried about the accuracy of the info?

Because you should be...IMO

Renner actually didn't make it past his first sentence without committing a factual error. :rolleyes:

I'm such a stickler for detail and for accuracy. I can't trust a reporter/writer who does not and will not check, double-check, and triple-check his facts. If Renner couldn't get something so easy right, what about the hard stuff?

[2-B]

Unless the something was hanging in mid air he was carrying something.

Oh good grief. No witness reported him carrying anything. Someone supposedly saw him reading something. Maybe whoever was doing the reading found a newspaper lying on a bench. It happens. Or maybe whoever was doing the reading had a magazine folded in his pocket--never carried it in his hands.

Pgal is right. Huge stretch.

The minute I saw you were running around talking about Gricar carrying something, I knew you'd were going to try to turn that "reading" line into something it wasn't.

And none of the Lewisburg witnesses--none--have been confirmed as valid identifications of Gricar.

It could have been Joe Blow reading a racing form.

[Politigal]

I've read that Renner thinks Gricar just walked away....guess that's why he & JJ have really hit it off...JJ has been pushing walkaway for yrs now.

http://jamesrenner.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/where-did-you-go-ray-gricar/

Personally, I’m leaning toward “walk away”. I think Ray, for whatever reason, changed his name and started a new life just months before his retirement. I’ve always had a feeling he ended up back here in Ohio, maybe living out his days Unabomber-style in some secluded cabin. Jonathan “J.J.” Jacobs over at the Centre Daily Times seems to agree.

[2-B]

I've read that Renner thinks Gricar just walked away....guess that's why he & JJ have really hit it off...JJ has been pushing walkaway for yrs now.

http://jamesrenner.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/where-did-you-go-ray-gricar/

Personally, I’m leaning toward “walk away”. I think Ray, for whatever reason, changed his name and started a new life just months before his retirement. I’ve always had a feeling he ended up back here in Ohio, maybe living out his days Unabomber-style in some secluded cabin. Jonathan “J.J.” Jacobs over at the Centre Daily Times seems to agree.

Fascinating find, Pgal.

Renner's vision of RG holed up in some cabin Unabomber-style certainly conflicts with what Chief Dixon had to say on the "cabin" issue:


Maybe DA Ray was just holed up in a hunting cabin somewhere, knocking back a tailgate-load of cold sixes, as some wooden-headed locals had been clappng their Charlie McCarthy gums about for more than a week. This brain-dead theory had brought one of the more quotable responses from Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon, who, at one of his press conferences, said he doubted it, since Ray, "wasn't a big cabin person. He was a bed-and-breakfast person."

http://www.yardbird.com/midnight_ride_another_missing_PA_prosecutor_2.htm

Sounds like Dixon couldn't begin to imagine RG as the next Unabomber (minus the manifestos, of course).

ETA: I may have to borrow this from Keisling for a new signature line:

One wonders, if no trace of Gricar ever materializes, if some in Happy Valley will always think he's out there in a cabin somewhere, chugging beer bongs.

[J. J. in Phila]

Oh good grief. No witness reported him carrying anything. Someone supposedly saw him reading something. Maybe whoever was doing the reading found a newspaper lying on a bench. It happens. Or maybe whoever was doing the reading had a magazine folded in his pocket--never carried it in his hands.

Pgal is right. Huge stretch.


Most magazines are smaller than a newspaper; so is a novel. Larger ones don't fit in a man's pocket.

Just continue down this course and look foolish later.


The minute I saw you were running around talking about Gricar carrying something, I knew you'd were going to try to turn that "reading" line into something it wasn't.

And none of the Lewisburg witnesses--none--have been confirmed as valid identifications of Gricar.

It could have been Joe Blow reading a racing form.

Please, continue with your mantra: All the witnesses are wrong, the dogs are wrong, polygraphs are completely inaccurate. Most people now regard that as a conspiracy theory.

BTW, DZ says they were confirmed; Buehner even thinks the Saturday witnesses are right (and I won't go that far).

[J. J. in Phila]

I've read that Renner thinks Gricar just walked away....guess that's why he & JJ have really hit it off...JJ has been pushing walkaway for yrs now.

http://jamesrenner.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/where-did-you-go-ray-gricar/

Personally, I’m leaning toward “walk away”. I think Ray, for whatever reason, changed his name and started a new life just months before his retirement. I’ve always had a feeling he ended up back here in Ohio, maybe living out his days Unabomber-style in some secluded cabin. Jonathan “J.J.” Jacobs over at the Centre Daily Times seems to agree.

Did you even both to read the comment?

[J. J. in Phila]

Did you even both to read the comment?


Well, obviously you didn't, so I'll post it:

I’m not too sure that I’ve ever said that I think Ray Gricar walked away. I currently don’t any theory that I would say is above 50% likely.

[Politigal]

Most magazines are smaller than a newspaper; so is a novel. Larger ones don't fit in a man's pocket.

Just continue down this course and look foolish later.



Please, continue with your mantra: All the witnesses are wrong, the dogs are wrong, polygraphs are completely inaccurate. Most people now regard that as a conspiracy theory.

BTW, DZ says they were confirmed; Buehner even thinks the Saturday witnesses are right (and I won't go that far).

Why do you repeatedly threaten us with looking foolish for expressing our opinions?

You keep forgetting that everything you post is also an opinion. It is not the gospel. I know you feel you have an edge...but really - you don't.

You're continually stretching the truth, making leaps to other truths, and ignoring other facts along the way.

But twist on....

[J. J. in Phila]

Why do you repeatedly threaten us with looking foolish for expressing our opinions?

You keep forgetting that everything you post is also an opinion. It is not the gospel. I know you feel you have an edge...but really - you don't.

You're continually stretching the truth, making leaps to other truths, and ignoring other facts along the way.

But twist on....

No, sometimes it isn't, much the your last major forays into foolishness, the Wilkes-Barre witness, or some of the comments I read on the CDT site regarding JKA.

I don't threaten. I merely point out, as a few other did on this thread, when you're moving in the wrong direction. Hey, when you look foolish, don't blame me.

BTW, you just helped confirm my statement that I spoke with Renner about the witnesses. The rest of my stuff is equally accurate (largely because I'm very skeptical).

Now, if DZ was accurate about the Saturday witnesses, that will change things.

Keep spinning though. :lol:

[2-B]

Most magazines are smaller than a newspaper; so is a novel. Larger ones don't fit in a man's pocket.

Just continue down this course and look foolish later.

Let me get this straight. Witnesses report a man reading "a newspaper or something." I say it's possible the man may have found newspaper lying on the park bench or that he may have had a magazine folded in his pocket. In other words, these are merely possible examples to show that a witness who saw the man walk to the bench may not have seen him carry anything.

But you want us to believe witnesses may have confused a laptop with with a newspaper and you think I am the one who looks foolish?


Please, continue with your mantra: All the witnesses are wrong, the dogs are wrong, polygraphs are completely inaccurate. Most people now regard that as a conspiracy theory.

BTW, DZ says they were confirmed; Buehner even thinks the Saturday witnesses are right (and I won't go that far).

And please--do continue to deliberately and knowingly misrepresent what I (and other posters) have said.

Twist the objective reality that valid identifications in missing persons' cases are rare and that none of the sightings in the RG case has ever been confirmed as a valid identification into whatever you choose.

Twist the objective reality that the dogs are our best witnesses (and found RG's scent only near where his car had stood with its doors open) into your version.

Bring polygraphs into a discussion that has nothing to at the moment with polygraphs, and twist the objective reality that they are not admissible in most court room proceedings because of reliability issues into whatever you choose.

Misrepresenting other posters' positions does nothing but undermine your credibility. Being able to demonstrate that you understand their positions fairly and honestly gains you credibility. But hey, it's your choice to make.

[J. J. in Phila]

Let me get this straight. Witnesses report a man reading "a newspaper or something." I say it's possible the man may have found newspaper lying on the park bench or that he may have had a magazine folded in his pocket. In other words, these are merely possible examples to show that a witness who saw the man walk to the bench may not have seen him carry anything.

But you want us to believe witnesses may have confused a laptop with with a newspaper and you think I am the one who looks foolish?




And please--do continue to deliberately and knowingly misrepresent what I (and other posters) have said.

Twist the objective reality that valid identifications in missing persons' cases are rare and that none of the sightings in the RG case has ever been confirmed as a valid identification into whatever you choose.

Twist the objective reality that the dogs are our best witnesses (and found RG's scent only near where his car had stood with its doors open) into your version.

Bring polygraphs into a discussion that has nothing to at the moment with polygraphs, and twist the objective reality that they are not admissible in most court room proceedings because of reliability issues into whatever you choose.

Misrepresenting other posters' positions does nothing but undermine your credibility. Being able to demonstrate that you understand their positions fairly and honestly gains you credibility. But hey, it's your choice to make.

And you were the one that claimed that none of the witnesses were "confirmed." You've yet to define what you consider "confirmed." Yet both DZ and Buehner say that they believe them. A bit of spinning on your part?

I've said RFG was seen with "something." That "something" was about the size of the laptop; it was not identified. Now, it might be a coincidence that the drive was found within 100 yards of that sighting. It comes substantially higher coincidence when we know that RFG wanted to eliminate the data on the drive. Peices for that part of of the mystery might begin to fall into place.

Keep somethings in mind; even if it can be shown that RFG probably (or even beyond a reasonable doubt) toss the drive, it doesn't explain what happened to him after that. Even if it can be shown that RFG probably (or even beyond a reasonable doubt) toss the drive, it doesn't explain what happened to him after that. Even if it can be shown that RFG probably (or even beyond a reasonable doubt) toss the drive, it does not necessarily mean he tossed the laptop.

The tossing of the drive may be unrelated to what happened to RFG, even if he didn't toss it.

[2-B]

Since accuracy and detail are critical, let's be accurate. It's never been a matter of confirming witnesses, JJ. To the best of my knowledge, every reported sighting has come from a reasonably credible witness. To the best of my knowledge, no witness has been shown to be mentally ill; was paid to give testimony or otherwise had a reason to lie; was legally blind; had anything to gain other than perhaps some minor publicity for a business; etc.

Confirming the validity of the identification made by the witness is the issue. And we know what confirmation means in that regard, because the FBI has a very clear definition. The FBI requires documentation or corroboration before it confirms a sighting in a missing persons case. Neither exists in the RG case. Witnesses can't corroborate each other. Scent is easily transferred. There is no documentation.

But you know all this.

What DZ, BB, or anyone else "thinks" about the witnesses is opinion, not confirmation. If you "think" the witnesses saw Ray Gricar in Lewisburg, that is your opinion, but Ray Gricar's presence in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 has never been confirmed.

Any scenarios you develop based on that opinion are also nothing more than your opinion.

You can't be faulted for having an opinion. But it is no more valid--and whatever scenarios you come up with are no more valid--than anyone else's simply because you think Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg with his laptop on 4/15/05.

If and when the investigation can confirm any of the witness sightings, I'm sure those of us with doubts about Gricar's presence in Lewisburg will gladly accept confirmatory proof. Show us real documentation or real corroboration. We are open-minded.

Meanwhile, you are so quick to make both the witness reports and the scent evidence at the SOS parking lot into more than what they are (for you, proof that RG was in Lewisburg) and yet you choose to ignore or lamely explain away the negative results from the dogs in all the places your ubiquitous witnesses popped up. Are you open-minded enough to consider--really consider--what that may mean to the validity of your witness identifications?

[J. J. in Phila]

We don't have the FBI's claim, only 2-B's claim only what she thinks is credible.

We do however have what a prosecutor thinks is a credible witness. Buehner thinks Bennett is credible; Bennett, et al., saw RFG on 4/16/05. Buehner also isn't one of those folks calling this a walkaway; he thinks it was murder.

We also have DZ, for what that's worth, that RFG in in Lewisburg Saturday.

I, on the other hand, am a bit more skeptical about Bennett and the 4/16 witnesses.

[2-B]

While I agree the reports of 'witnessing' may be by credible people, the method may be a more important element regarding how leading or suggestible the questions may have been. The witnesses in Lewisburg are after all people who were gone after and asked specifics.

Here are TG's words on it-----

"Fwiw, I think all of the Lewisburg "witnesses" came about due to LE canvassing."



Oh, I totally agree, Logic. But there's a great deal more than just the issue of canvassing vs. self-reporting in any MP case with respect to method affecting identification validity. Canvassed or self-reported, the RG witnesses still have the same system variables at work.

What role, for instance, does the assumption that RG was in Lewisburg play in evaluating identification credibility? [Note to JJ: this is but one small example of but one variable.] We do know that CF's self-reported sighting of RG was immediately dismissed based on time conflict with a canvassed report from a witness in Lewisburg who did not know RG.

[2-B]

There was someone else in that location in a red and white Mini that day. I would guess whoever that was may have been waiting on his wife to get done shopping or taking a lunch break in the park while reading something. IMO, the dogs said NO at the park and the river, and that is all the validation I need to know that whoever the woman saw, it obviously wasn't RG.

From TG----------

" Her account of Ray was seeing him sitting on a park bench, as well as possibly with his car as it was potentially parked in the spots that border the park, and her shop. There was one other red Mini that was parked along those spots that was later identified, so who knows."

JMO

And there were a total of three red and white Minis in town that weekend. (Did anyone total the number of pleasant looking middle-aged men of average height and build wearing blue jeans?)

Accurate witness identifications in MP cases are so exceedingly rare I find it difficult to understand why we're seeing the argument that these these sightings are likely to have been Ray Gricar, especially given the negative scent response by the dogs anywhere other than the SOS lot.

[2-B]

We don't have the FBI's claim, only 2-B's claim only what she thinks is credible.

You are well aware, or should be, that this is the FBI's policy on witness identification. The FBI will not confirm an identification without documentation or corroboration.

This has nothing to do with what I personally think. This is FBI protocol.

There are no confirmed witness identifications in the Ray Gricar case.


We do however have what a prosecutor thinks is a credible witness. Buehner thinks Bennett is credible; Bennett, et al., saw RFG on 4/16/05. Buehner also isn't one of those folks calling this a walkaway; he thinks it was murder.

We also have DZ, for what that's worth, that RFG in in Lewisburg Saturday.

I, on the other hand, am a bit more skeptical about Bennett and the 4/16 witnesses.

You are playing fast and loose with semantics again, JJ. Credible witness and valid identification are as different as night and day.

Need I remind you that LE described the witness in the Texas Chili's restaurant as credible as they come. FBI analysis of the photos she snapped, of course, proved that her identification was 100% wrong. So, please, do not continue the attempts to muddle things. Posters here are smart enough to know the difference between witness credibility and identification validity.

And again, what BB, DZ, you, or anyone else thinks about these witnesses is opinion, the same as LE opinion that the Texas Chili's woman was credible.

That opinion does not translate into accurate identification.

Accurate identification takes confirmation. When the FBI attempted to confirm the Texas woman's identification with photo analysis, her identification fell apart, didn't it? Her identification could not be confirmed.

She was still a credible witness, but the man in the restaurant was NOT Ray Gricar.

That is a perfect example of why the FBI requires documentation or corroboration before confirming witness identifications.

[2-B]

Meanwhile, you are so quick to make both the witness reports and the scent evidence at the SOS parking lot into more than what they are (for you, proof that RG was in Lewisburg) and yet you choose to ignore or lamely explain away the negative results from the dogs in all the places your ubiquitous witnesses popped up. Are you open-minded enough to consider--really consider--what that may mean to the validity of your witness identifications?

JJ: Can you please contemplate this question from a post up thread and give a fair and honest answer?

TIA.

[J. J. in Phila]

Oh, I totally agree, Logic. But there's a great deal more than just the issue of canvassing vs. self-reporting in any MP case with respect to method affecting identification validity. Canvassed or self-reported, the RG witnesses still have the same system variables at work.

What role, for instance, does the assumption that RG was in Lewisburg play in evaluating identification credibility? [Note to JJ: this is but one small example of but one variable.] We do know that CF's self-reported sighting of RG was immediately dismissed based on time conflict with a canvassed report from a witness in Lewisburg who did not know RG.

You forgot McKnight's witness, also self reporting, and W-B witnesses, a mixture of both.

As for why I "ignore" the alleged explanations for the 4/15 Lewisburg witnesses is ultimately because they are garbage. They do work in the real world.

If RFG was a defendant and you had to prove he was in Lewisburg to prove him guilty, he's guilty. If he were a defendant, and his alibi was he was in Lewisburg, he's not guilty.

Same place, same person, same car, multiple witnesses, and his scent and DNA are present.

Now, RFG being in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 dispels some of theories, but not murder overall.

If this was murder, that drive may not be related to it. Keep something in mind, RFG may have destroyed the drive, and then was murdered. There is more than able evidence of intent, a sizable amount of circumstantial evidence that he was the one who did it. Even if stronger evidence comes out that RFG destroyed the drive, that does not strengthen walkaway (and it probably won't weaken murder).

[Cloudbuster]

Pgal I respect that you don't believe in the paranormal and that is okay . Im not asking that you believe in it. Just try to understand I have to put it up at least with a paranormal title on it. It happened and I can't explain it but I need to follow thru.

[2-B]

You forgot McKnight's witness, also self reporting, and W-B witnesses, a mixture of both.

I forgot nothing. Did you see "Note to JJ"? One small example of but one variable?

As for why I "ignore" the alleged explanations for the 4/15 Lewisburg witnesses is ultimately because they are garbage. They do work in the real world.

If RFG was a defendant and you had to prove he was in Lewisburg to prove him guilty, he's guilty. If he were a defendant, and his alibi was he was in Lewisburg, he's not guilty.

Same place, same person, same car, multiple witnesses, and his scent and DNA are present.

Weak argument, JJ. People are wrongly convicted on a regular basis because of mistaken eyewitness identification. It's a huge problem in our justice system. With most evidence/testimony in the justice system, the science has preceded the entrance of that evidence/testimony into the court room. (Fingerprint evidence did not enter the court room before the science was established, for example). Unfortunately, eyewitness testimony was in the courtroom long before the science of eyewitness identification came into its own. Now it's stuck there, and many jurisdictions aren't doing much (at the LE level or in the courtroom) to improve the situation. Until LE and the courts catch up with the science, we'll continue to have wrongful convictions based on erroneous eyewitness identification for a huge variety of reasons.

Furthermore, Gricar isn't accused of a crime. He is missing. And eyewitness identifications of missing persons are far more problematic than eyewitness identifications of suspects in criminal cases. They are almost always incorrect. They are rarely confirmed as valid. They are another animal entirely, far more unreliable than the already unreliable criminal witness identification. At least witnesses in criminal cases get ID's right perhaps 40-some percent of the time. You like your numbers and percentages so much. I'd estimate given the extensive research I have done on the issue that MP eyewitness identifications might be correct perhaps .025 to .05% of the time, excluding those "last seen with known friends/acquaintances" kinds of sightings. Yet somehow you want us to believe that many of the Gricar witnesses in Lewisburg and even in Wilkes-Barre have made correct identifications. As S1 would say, poppycock and balderdash! It is just as likely that you will sprout wings and fly: possible, but highly unlikely.

ETA: I asked whether you were open-minded enough to consider what the dogs' negative responses everywhere except the SOS lot near where Gricar's car had been might mean to your witness claims. I can see that you are not.