What Helen Thomas and Chip Reid Could Tell Us About the Gricar Case

[2-B]

Bringing this partial post by Logic over from the closed weekend thread (the entire post in context is #21 on that thread):

I personally see it as a combination of factors which occurred when the newly elected DA took office and shut down the case to the public.
At that point in time, a good investigative journalist was necessary to step in for the good of the public, for the good of the missing DA and the family. As it stands locals have been permitted to be either left in the dark completely about many issues or led to believe certain time-released information presented as fact, when in fact it is nothing more than misleading.

If you've been following national news, you know that in a July 1 press briefing, CBS News correspondent Chip Reid expressed concerns that the Obama administration was controlling who would attend the next night's town hall meeting and what questions would be asked. When Press Secretary Gibbs tried to dodge Reid, Helen Thomas intervened, saying that no other administration had tried to put this much control over media coverage, especially in the face of its own calls for openness and transparency.

This is not a national political board, and I do not want to discuss those issues specifically. But I raise the Reid/Thomas/Gibbs incident to ask this question: do we see the same attempted control locally in coverage of the Ray Gricar case?

Do we hear echoes of Thomas and Reid in the parameters set for the press conference following the PSP-CIA review, especially when the public was led to believe there would be much fuller reporting from that review?

Do we hear echoes of Thomas and Reid in the way little tidbits are doled out as anniversary presents to the public in the Gricar case?

Where is Centre County's investigative reporter? Someone needs to be a real news reporter, ask the hard questions, do the real investigative reporting work in this case.

[gstickley]

(snip)
Where is Centre County's investigative reporter? Someone needs to be a real news reporter, ask the hard questions, do the real investigative reporting work in this case.

I've wondered this same thing for a long time, 2-B. We had some half-hearted reporting for awhile, mainly "I'll check & get back with you", but not heard from again. If nothing else, one would think there'd be a journalism class at PSU with someone/anyone who could or would 'ask the hard questions', but nothing thus far. Now, with the push to get a cold case squad together from PSU, I've really wondered why no 'real investigative reporting' was ever done on this case. Also, I don't understand why almost everything Gricar has been removed from the CDT, even from the archives; one would think the disappearance of the district attorney from Centre Co. would be one of the most important stories covered by the county newspaper.

(Actually, not only this case that needs an investigative reporter; the Rosa case seems to have been lost too.)

(This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.)

[2-B]

Also, I don't understand why almost everything Gricar has been removed from the CDT, even from the archives; one would think the disappearance of the district attorney from Centre Co. would be one of the most important stories covered by the county newspaper.


I'm glad you brought this up, GS, because I had it in the original (longer) version of my opening post, then edited for length.

So much of the early reporting is simply gone, and numerous articles on the case seem to have been there and then disappeared. How many of us have mentioned that we "remember reading about X," but can't find hide nor hair of those references when we go to look for them again? Occasionally, parts of the articles have been copied to other boards, but that's about the only way we have to retrieve lost snippets (other than S1's famous vault).

A good investigative reporter with access to all that's been printed in the CDT since day 1 could have an interesting time trying to reconcile all the conflicting information that's out there.

I still shake my head in disbelief that we're four+ years post-disappearance and still have no clear, officially confirmed answers to some of the most basic questions in this case.

I'd love to see an objective investigative reporter start with some of those!

[sherrijean981]

I've wondered this same thing for a long time, 2-B. We had some half-hearted reporting for awhile, mainly "I'll check & get back with you", but not heard from again. If nothing else, one would think there'd be a journalism class at PSU with someone/anyone who could or would 'ask the hard questions', but nothing thus far. Now, with the push to get a cold case squad together from PSU, I've really wondered why no 'real investigative reporting' was ever done on this case. Also, I don't understand why almost everything Gricar has been removed from the CDT, even from the archives; one would think the disappearance of the district attorney from Centre Co. would be one of the most important stories covered by the county newspaper.

(Actually, not only this case that needs an investigative reporter; the Rosa case seems to have been lost too.)

(This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.)

You need to send a letter of request to the professor of the journalism class before the beginning of the new classes start, to see if he can incorporate it into his class. Maybe an internship for an outgoing student?

[2-B]

IF the best idea that Centre County can come up with is that which is the equivalent to giving a third grader the keys to the county sheriff's vehicle and telling the student 'Now, go find RG'---, quite obviously RG's case and a resolution to hold feet to the fire is not being viewed as seriously as I would hope it would be.
JMO

We were promised no stone would be left unturned in the search for answers--at the same time we were told by the same voices the case was cold.

Cold cases wait on shelves for some "stroke of luck" to provide answers. No one is out actively turning those stones in a cold case, except where there's a cold case unit assigned, and RG obviously does not have that luxury. He's been stuck waiting for that stroke of luck, not waiting for someone to turn over the right stone.

Meanwhile, local media has made it easier, not more difficult, for this situation to continue. Media slant during the 4-year-anniversary gift-giving ceremony still rankles me. Who suggested and who allowed the headline "Foul play theory weakened" followed by an article that simply does not support that headline?

There's TG's out-of-context statement. And then there's MR's quote:

“This information is very important to the investigation,” Rickard said. “It, in and of itself, focuses on the possibility of walkaway or suicide. However, it certainly does not eliminate the possibility of homicide.”

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1228995.html#ixzz0KVxarGsw&C

If we assume an accurate quote from MR, the question is whether anyone teaches journalists to parse a sentence these days. "In and of itself" is the critical phrase in MR's quote.

Nothing else in that article even begins to support the "foul play weakened" headline, yet there we have it. Whether sloppiness or complicity is to blame, what is the casual RG case follower in Centre County to think seeing that headline?

If this is to be a cold case, then let's put a cold case investigator in charge of it. Perhaps we'll be lucky enough to get the kind who can't eat, sleep, breathe, or concentrate on anything else but delivering the truth of what happened to Ray Gricar.

And let's add a good investigative journalist reporting progress on the case. Maybe we can get one of the same genre as the hoped-for cold case guy--someone driven by a sense of right and wrong who won't eat, sleep, or breathe until he/she finds the answers.

That would be a formidable combination.

It would certainly take Centre County residents and other case followers far beyond the current status, where information is locked down and doled out in tiny little packages, to this point only to the detriment of Ray Gricar's good name.

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks 2B and Logic for bringing this on our board. Thomas and Reid definatly are tellin like it is in the current polical arena. It is very comparable to what happened in the Gricar case. I still wonder if this case is under some kind of state secret act as a excuse. The review board meeting on this case was done exactly the same way.

I feel there is a hidden agenda here. We really need to figure out what it is and why. Hey maybe Fox news might be interested. It's the closest station to revealing things like agenda's at play. I also know there are some things that they won't touch. I've seen it first hand on one particular person whom they was going to discuss but bailed out the next day and did not cover it. They never said why they dropped it. But truly they are the closest to revealing some truths. Perhaps Hannity would be interested at best. To understand some things perhaps you may want to watch this video on how and why in a different perspective. Just thought you might like to watch how this stuff is done and why's. If your not interested fine but it does give you some reasons on why things are done in a way. Deception wise.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Obama+deception&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

[J. J. in Phila]

Consider this:

We had what the checked, and ruled out, reported in the first months of the investigation. The LMW was actually reported in the Q and A first and in Renner's article. DZ gave a list of what some of the witnesses saw. We knew LE did a walk through of the residence, that the cell tower was checked, the results of the polygraphs, all within the first 7 1/2 months after RFG disappeared. Then, nothing new directly from LE until after Buehner's press conference.

What changed 7 1/2 months in? MM became DA.

Even after "Missed Leads," nothing new from the police. Only when MM was directly criticized was there a response with new information.

[Politigal]

MM became DA

and Patty became his employee/friend

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/04/04-17-06tdc/04-17-06dnews-08b.jpg

And it just still seems like a conflict of interest there IMO....since Patty was the last known person to be with Gricar.

[2-B]

My opinion: MM closed things down tighter than a drum. But information issues date back to the start of the investigation, long before MM walked into the DA's office. Still unresolved conflicting "facts" about the investigation remain on the table 4+ years post-disappearance, and those stem from the earliest days of the investigation. MM's role deserves to be examined, but MM alone is not accountable for what we've seen.

Besides, even with MM in office, a good investigative reporter digging hard and asking the right questions of the right people might have broken the log jam. That is what Centre County lacked. That is what we need.

[J. J. in Phila]

MM became DA

and Patty became his employee/friend

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/04/04-17-06tdc/04-17-06dnews-08b.jpg

And it just still seems like a conflict of interest there IMO....since Patty was the last known person to be with Gricar.

It isn't. I posted a link to the real world definition of "conflict of interest" when I started the series on what more can be done. It's the one thing I'll currently give MM a pass on.

[J. J. in Phila]

My opinion: MM closed things down tighter than a drum. But information issues date back to the start of the investigation, long before MM walked into the DA's office. Still unresolved conflicting "facts" about the investigation remain on the table 4+ years post-disappearance, and those stem from the earliest days of the investigation. MM's role deserves to be examined, but MM alone is not accountable for what we've seen.

Besides, even with MM in office, a good investigative reporter digging hard and asking the right questions of the right people might have broken the log jam. That is what Centre County lacked. That is what we need.

Actually go back and look at what was out prior to 1/1/06 and what was supressed.

Here is some of what was surpressed (that we know know about):

Fenton: I saw Ray at 3:00 PM behind the Courthouse in a different car.

Lewisburg witness: I saw this Gricar fellow in Lewisburg with a mystery woman and she was good looking.

Cop (and I know his name): I saw Ray in Wilkes-Barre two days after he disappeared talking about the Indians.

The BPD knew about those things by 5/1/05. What do think the public reaction would have been if they announced it on 5/1/05?

As Willoughby said, "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it." I'm overjoyed that wish of yours was not granted.

Even knowing those things, I'm not calling it walkaway. I'd bet if there was a poll of Centre County residents, I'd be in the minority.

[J. J. in Phila]

It isn't. I posted a link to the real world definition of "conflict of interest" when I started the series on what more can be done. It's the one thing I'll currently give MM a pass on.

Here is the actual definition of what a conflict of interest is:

http://www.answers.com/topic/conflict-of-interest

[gstickley]

My opinion: MM closed things down tighter than a drum. But information issues date back to the start of the investigation, long before MM walked into the DA's office. Still unresolved conflicting "facts" about the investigation remain on the table 4+ years post-disappearance, and those stem from the earliest days of the investigation. MM's role deserves to be examined, but MM alone is not accountable for what we've seen.

Besides, even with MM in office, a good investigative reporter digging hard and asking the right questions of the right people might have broken the log jam. That is what Centre County lacked. That is what we need.

It's easy to blame MM (& I do) for the lack of information; however, you're right about the lack of information from the beginning, though it got worse after MM. What I don't understand is the attitude of the local newspaper in allowing "the lack of information". "Ray Gricar: gone & forgotten" seems to be the attitude of those at the CDT.

It also appears to be the attitude of law enforcement . . . except at anniversary time or, as we just saw, close to the primary election; even then the news release was slanted. If LE has proof RG walked away, fine. Just lay it out there for the public & stop waiting for "momentous occasions".

(This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.)

[2-B]

Actually go back and look at what was out prior to 1/1/06 and what was supressed.

Here is some of what was surpressed (that we know know about):

Fenton: I saw Ray at 3:00 PM behind the Courthouse in a different car.

Lewisburg witness: I saw this Gricar fellow in Lewisburg with a mystery woman and she was good looking.

Cop (and I know his name): I saw Ray in Wilkes-Barre two days after he disappeared talking about the Indians.

The BPD knew about those things by 5/1/05. What do think the public reaction would have been if they announced it on 5/1/05?

As Willoughby said, "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it." I'm overjoyed that wish of yours was not granted.

Even knowing those things, I'm not calling it walkaway. I'd bet if there was a poll of Centre County residents, I'd be in the minority.

And now you are the Amazing Kreskin, can read my mind, and know what "wish" I had in mind?

I actually wasn't referring to Fenton, the LMW, or the cop in WB when I mentioned early pre-MM issues, JJ. (For one thing, you're the only one who seems to think the cop in WB is significant. I've said time and time again it is a non-issue.)

Nopey nope. I said, "Still unresolved conflicting 'facts' about the investigation remain on the table 4+ years post-disappearance, and those stem from the earliest days of the investigation."

The phrase "conflicting facts" should have told you your list was way off the mark. Those conflicts have been and continue to be the heart of much discussion here. Yet the journalism in this case has allowed those conflicts to continue essentially unquestioned. It's especially disheartening to know that our local journalism has allowed this to happen. Helen Thomas, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, stood up to a liberal administration and said in essence that being a good journalist and getting facts out to the folks was more important than going along to get along. Do we have no one in local journalism willing to do that? That is the question this thread raises.

As a side note: your repetition of Willoughby's "be careful what you wish for" quote with regard to walkaway is another Amazing Kreskin area you'd be wise to avoid. You seem to delight in telling posters they'll be disappointed, even furious, when they "get what they wish for" and learn the truth about what happened to RG (as if you actually know the truth). You and some of your BFF's have even gone so far as to write that some posters want Ray Gricar dead and will be disappointed to discover he's alive.

That dog won't hunt. I don't know of a single poster who believes RG most likely met with foul play who reached that position without thoroughly examining all possible scenarios for an alive RG and deciding they were less likely, unlikely, or impossible. I don't know of a single poster who believes RG most likely met with foul play who wouldn't want to find out he's actually alive, regardless of the circumstances.

[Chump#7]

Forgive me for not following as closely as the rest of you, but...

I thought the context of Willoughby's, now purged, "be careful what you wish for" comment was about posters who wished JKA to be the dem nominee to run against MM, and if that were the case, she very well may lose. That's it.

Was there something else?

[2-B]

Forgive me for not following as closely as the rest of you, but...

I thought the context of Willoughby's, now purged, "be careful what you wish for" comment was about posters who wished JKA to be the dem nominee to run against MM, and if that were the case, she very well may lose. That's it.

Was there something else?

Willoughby asserts that those who believe RG was murdered will be furious (his word) when more details about the disappearance come out.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=293012

JJ has frequently blended this concept with the "be careful what you wish for" notion.

[Chump#7]

Thank you very much, 2-B. :thumbsup:

I wasn't aware of that board (I work - a lot), but it is certainly filling in all the missing pieces, context to innuendos, etc...

[7psig]

Here is the actual definition of what a conflict of interest is:

http://www.answers.com/topic/conflict-of-interestThat's a good defn. of actual conflict but aren't prosecutors suppose to avoid even the appearance of a conflict? I don't see anywhere that police announced no possible murder. So if murder's possible, there's people of suspicion right?

His girlfriend would be such a person and she works in the district attorney's office. Maybe there's others in that office who could be suspected. So they gave her a lie detector test and she passed. But I remember reading police saying that didn't mean she could never be a suspect if new information came up.

If police can't rule out murder and can't rule out the girlfriend or others who work in that office if it was murder then how have they avoided the appearance of a possible conflict of interest? Wouldn't it be better to have someone not connected to the office investigating?

[J. J. in Phila]

That's a good defn. of actual conflict but aren't prosecutors suppose to avoid even the appearance of a conflict? I don't see anywhere that police announced no possible murder. So if murder's possible, there's people of suspicion right?

His girlfriend would be such a person and she works in the district attorney's office. Maybe there's others in that office who could be suspected. So they gave her a lie detector test and she passed. But I remember reading police saying that didn't mean she could never be a suspect if new information came up.

If police can't rule out murder and can't rule out the girlfriend or others who work in that office if it was murder then how have they avoided the appearance of a possible conflict of interest? Wouldn't it be better to have someone not connected to the office investigating?

It still does not even come close to a conflict of interest or an appearance of one.

Let me give you an example. About a year ago Montour County DA Bob Buehner helped stop a jewelry store robbery; he physically helped grab the suspect at the scene. I know somebody up there that occasionally talks with me, and found out the name of the guy who prosecuted the case: Bob Buehner. He was there, he saw the robber running, he helped catch the guy, and he prosecuted the case; that wasn't a conflict of interest.

What's being claimed as a conflict here is that MM knows the girlfriend of the guy who disappeared (he knew the guy too). She's not a suspect, because there are no suspects; even if she was, it wouldn't involve any official duty.

You don't have any conflict.

[J. J. in Phila]

And now you are the Amazing Kreskin, can read my mind, and know what "wish" I had in mind?

I actually wasn't referring to Fenton, the LMW, or the cop in WB when I mentioned early pre-MM issues, JJ. (For one thing, you're the only one who seems to think the cop in WB is significant. I've said time and time again it is a non-issue.)


Thank you for illustrating my point that your argument is basically **All the witnesses are wrong, all evidence is wrong,I'm right because it's my opinion.** The "cop in WB" was so important that LE kept supressed for 3.5 years.

I'm glad to know that you don't think the credibility of witnesses is important.


Nopey nope. I said, "Still unresolved conflicting 'facts' about the investigation remain on the table 4+ years post-disappearance, and those stem from the earliest days of the investigation."

The phrase "conflicting facts" should have told you your list was way off the mark. Those conflicts have been and continue to be the heart of much discussion here. Yet the journalism in this case has allowed those conflicts to continue essentially unquestioned. It's especially disheartening to know that our local journalism has allowed this to happen. Helen Thomas, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, stood up to a liberal administration and said in essence that being a good journalist and getting facts out to the folks was more important than going along to get along. Do we have no one in local journalism willing to do that? That is the question this thread raises.


What conflicting facts, facts that actually conflict with each other, not your opinion.


As a side note: your repetition of Willoughby's "be careful what you wish for" quote with regard to walkaway is another Amazing Kreskin area you'd be wise to avoid. You seem to delight in telling posters they'll be disappointed, even furious, when they "get what they wish for" and learn the truth about what happened to RG (as if you actually know the truth). You and some of your BFF's have even gone so far as to write that some posters want Ray Gricar dead and will be disappointed to discover he's alive.



I don't have to, we have threads full of those examples, such as the whole thread on the computer searches. That is probably the latest new example, though I've noted Tyrone has popped up again.


That dog won't hunt. I don't know of a single poster who believes RG most likely met with foul play who reached that position without thoroughly examining all possible scenarios for an alive RG and deciding they were less likely, unlikely, or impossible. I don't know of a single poster who believes RG most likely met with foul play who wouldn't want to find out he's actually alive, regardless of the circumstances.

You have just demonstrated it. "Most likely met with foul play." You have concluded something. If you have evidence to support that conclusion, please call the BPD.

Now, I'm happy to let folks look at your posts and make a judgment. Willoughby, and I really would like to see him/her back, did, and had a better understanding of the politics of the case than I do.

[2-B]

Now, I'm happy to let folks look at your posts and make a judgment.

I wasn't aware anyone here had to secure your permission and your happiness before reading posts and making up their own minds.

But I'll help you out.

Here's some of what I wrote just this past weekend with regard to witnesses, witness credibility vs. confirmed identification, and willingness to accept witness identifications. There's more on the weekend thread that spells out what's necessary for confirmed identifications:

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. . . .

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.



In other words, I understand that having credible witnesses is only a start, and as I showed you on the weekend thread, very credible witnesses can have completely inaccurate identifications. While I recognize how rare accurate identifications are in MP sightings, I remain open-minded and will gladly accept confirmatory proof per the FBI's parameters regarding any Gricar sightings.

Terribly unreasonable position. Just shameful, really. :rolleyes:

[2-B]

The "cop in WB" was so important that LE kept supressed for 3.5 years.


Surely you're not suggesting that an unreleased detail equals a suppressed detail. Every case, including the Gricar case, has thousands of unreleased details. Only a small subset of those could be termed "suppressed" or "held back" when LE has a specific reason for not wanting the public or a suspect to know they're aware of something.

What is your evidence that police had a specific reason for deliberately withholding that one WB witness was a cop, as opposed to simply not having released that information? I'm looking for a statement from LE, not your opinion. I'm aware you believe LE deliberately withheld this because they thought the WB identification of RG had increased credibility based on the profession of a witness. But I'm looking for something from LE saying they deliberately suppressed this information and giving a reason for this alleged suppression.

I'm especially interested in this because LE made no secret that they were unable to rule out the Michigan sighting, where a retired Detroit police officer sketch artist identified a man in a restaurant as Ray Gricar. Witness identity in that sighting was widely publicized.

Where witness "resume" is a factor, a retired police sketch artist would certainly have far better training in facial recognition and would have a far better grasp of what some sketch artists call the "gestalt" of the face than a police officer not trained as a sketch artist. If any witness' profession might have been deliberately suppressed, the Michigan witness' profession would have made more sense! Don't tell the folks this is someone whose specialty is facial features!

Either which way, it makes no sense to deliberately suppress the "cop in WB" while releasing the "sketch artist in Michigan." And either which way, the scientific testing data show that better observational skills don't translate into better memory or better accuracy of identification, which is ultimately why I believe it's a non-issue that one witness in WB was a cop.

[2-B]

Here is a guideline that I think answers many of the questions about what could have been done and what we missed out on up to this point as a result of the lack of indepth investigative reporting.

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%202/volume2_40.htm

Good link, Logic, thanks for bringing it on board.

[sherrijean981]

Thank you for illustrating my point that your argument is basically **All the witnesses are wrong, all evidence is wrong,I'm right because it's my opinion.** The "cop in WB" was so important that LE kept supressed for 3.5 years.

I'm glad to know that you don't think the credibility of witnesses is important.



What conflicting facts, facts that actually conflict with each other, not your opinion.



I don't have to, we have threads full of those examples, such as the whole thread on the computer searches. That is probably the latest new example, though I've noted Tyrone has popped up again.



You have just demonstrated it. "Most likely met with foul play." You have concluded something. If you have evidence to support that conclusion, please call the BPD.

Now, I'm happy to let folks look at your posts and make a judgment. Willoughby, and I really would like to see him/her back, did, and had a better understanding of the politics of the case than I do.

JJ, 2b said "I don't know of A SINGLE POSTER who believes RG most likely met with foul play", not that 2B thought it.

[Politigal]

here's what 2-B said:

I don't know of a single poster who believes RG most likely met with foul play who reached that position without thoroughly examining all possible scenarios for an alive RG and deciding they were less likely, unlikely, or impossible. I don't know of a single poster who believes RG most likely met with foul play who wouldn't want to find out he's actually alive, regardless of the circumstances

[2-B]

Thank you Sherrijean and Pgal, for pointing out the difference between what I said and what JJ claims I said.

[J. J. in Phila]

Surely you're not suggesting that an unreleased detail equals a suppressed detail. Every case, including the Gricar case, has thousands of unreleased details. Only a small subset of those could be termed "suppressed" or "held back" when LE has a specific reason for not wanting the public or a suspect to know they're aware of something.

What is your evidence that police had a specific reason for deliberately withholding that one WB witness was a cop, as opposed to simply not having released that information? I'm looking for a statement from LE, not your opinion. I'm aware you believe LE deliberately withheld this because they thought the WB identification of RG had increased credibility based on the profession of a witness. But I'm looking for something from LE saying they deliberately suppressed this information and giving a reason for this alleged suppression.

I'm especially interested in this because LE made no secret that they were unable to rule out the Michigan sighting, where a retired Detroit police officer sketch artist identified a man in a restaurant as Ray Gricar. Witness identity in that sighting was widely publicized.

Where witness "resume" is a factor, a retired police sketch artist would certainly have far better training in facial recognition and would have a far better grasp of what some sketch artists call the "gestalt" of the face than a police officer not trained as a sketch artist. If any witness' profession might have been deliberately suppressed, the Michigan witness' profession would have made more sense! Don't tell the folks this is someone whose specialty is facial features!

Either which way, it makes no sense to deliberately suppress the "cop in WB" while releasing the "sketch artist in Michigan." And either which way, the scientific testing data show that better observational skills don't translate into better memory or better accuracy of identification, which is ultimately why I believe it's a non-issue that one witness in WB was a cop.

2-B the profession of the other witness was released. Even the Post Gazette article at the time noted how unusual it was.

A, 2-B, perhaps, since you are hiding behind your "knowledge" of other postes, you should tell us what you think.

[2-B]

So what you're saying, JJ, is that you have no statement from LE that they suppressed or deliberately held back the WB cop's profession.

That's what I thought.

[2-B]

2-B the profession of the other witness was released. Even the Post Gazette article at the time noted how unusual it was.


And one other thing. If you're referring to the Dennis Roddy piece in the Post Gazette, 4/30/05, nothing in that article indicates "how unusual" it was that the cop's profession was not released to the public.

Of course, many of us have become accustomed to you seeing things which are decidedly not there in source material and in posters' posts, so this is not particularly surprising.

[J. J. in Phila]

And one other thing. If you're referring to the Dennis Roddy piece in the Post Gazette, 4/30/05, nothing in that article indicates "how unusual" it was that the cop's profession was not released to the public.

Of course, many of us have become accustomed to you seeing things which are decidedly not there in source material and in posters' posts, so this is not particularly surprising.

Try two different stories with two different writers:

Dixon wouldn't say precisely where Gricar was seen, but word came down after the press conference that the witness is a bartender, that Gricar was drinking Heineken, and talking with enthusiasm about the Cleveland Indians.

Yesterday's press conference was strange in a few respects. The family asked that questions be sent to them in advance, but then took fresh ones until reporters finally ran out. They left in a group, met with Dixon and his investigators, and Centre County, where mysteries have usually focused on the Penn State front line.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496817-156.stm#ixzz0KmI0D7TV&D

The witness, who police would not identify, contacted authorities April 22, telling them that he spoke with Gricar at a business on Highland Park Boulevard in Wilkes-Barre on the evening of April 18, three days after Gricar was reported missing.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496950-85.stm

[2-B]

Try two different stories with two different writers:

Dixon wouldn't say precisely where Gricar was seen, but word came down after the press conference that the witness is a bartender, that Gricar was drinking Heineken, and talking with enthusiasm about the Cleveland Indians.

Yesterday's press conference was strange in a few respects. The family asked that questions be sent to them in advance, but then took fresh ones until reporters finally ran out. They left in a group, met with Dixon and his investigators, and Centre County, where mysteries have usually focused on the Penn State front line.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496817-156.stm#ixzz0KmI0D7TV&D

The witness, who police would not identify, contacted authorities April 22, telling them that he spoke with Gricar at a business on Highland Park Boulevard in Wilkes-Barre on the evening of April 18, three days after Gricar was reported missing.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496950-85.stm

Story #1: Says Dixon wouldn't identify where Gricar was seen. My recollection is that this had to do with not identifying the specific business and had nothing to do with witnesses in any specific way.

Says the press conference was "strange" in that the family asked for questions to be submitted in advance, then took fresh (not pre-submitted) questions. "Strange" has nothing to do with the witness issue.

Story #2: Says only that the police would not identify the Witness A (apparently the cop). Says that Witness B (apparently the bartender) was located after they began investigating Witness A's claims. LE does not identify Witness B, either.

The story does not note anything "strange" about LE talking about witnesses without identifying them.

Neither story individually mentions that it is unusual for LE not to identify the witness' profession or identity. Both stories taken together do not add up to that conclusion, either.

Misrepresenting what source material says and what posters have said does a disservice to Ray Gricar. Whether deliberate or unintentional, it does not help find the truth of what happened to a man whose life was dedicated to truth and justice. There is already enough misinformation and disinformation inherent in this case. Those of us who want the truth do not need the waters muddied more. For my part, I will continue to demand as much fairness and accuracy as we can achieve when discussing facts of this case. Ray Gricar deserves that much.