~Who Killed Ray Gricar?~

[Politigal]

IMO, suicide or walkaway just do not jibe with the man we've all come to know through this forum.

Tony Gricar once posted this:

02-28-2008, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by tonyGricarsnipped
A very large percentage of us (the family and office) really thought that he was in the river, given the similarities to my Father.

IMO, Ray Gricar was murdered. And I believe he was killed by someone in the "family" or in the "office" --- someone who *knew* the similiarities that the Lewisburg scene would conjure up in people's minds. It was someone very familiar - with Gricar & with his family history --- someone who deliberately wanted to plant that visual by placing his car in Lewisburg near that river --- and someone who was also familiar with Lewisburg.

IMO - every one in the DA's office should definitely be scrutinized - their laptops/work computers/etc. and law enforcement should try & learn which of those people had been to Lewisburg before. Considering family were hundreds of miles away....I think that narrows the suspect pool to those at the office.

And, much to the chagrin of some....I still believe from the bottom of my heart that you have to look very closely at the last known person to have been with Gricar....the person who had access to the upstairs closet and access to the laptop...the person who knew the ins/outs of the office phone...the person who had also been to Lewisburg in the past...and the person who was familiar with Gricar's family history.

I've tried & tried, but I simply can *not* find a way to eliminate that person as a suspect.

[Cloudbuster]

IMHO Whoever Ray knew by this SPARKLES

[2-B]

someone who *knew* the similiarities that the Lewisburg scene would conjure up in people's minds. It was someone very familiar - with Gricar & with his family history --- someone who deliberately wanted to plant that visual by placing his car in Lewisburg near that river --- and someone who was also familiar with Lewisburg.


I agree with you on this point. I think it is likely the Lewisburg scene was deliberately staged.

[Politigal]

I agree with you on this point. I think it is likely the Lewisburg scene was deliberately staged.


And, I don't think it would take a great deal of time to come up with the staging plan.....no criminal mastermind needed, just someone very *familiar.*

[J. J. in Phila]

The office phone has nothing to do with the cell phone.

As pointed out previously, it is unlikely that anyone from Centre County was was ever at the site of Roy Gricar's suicide, other than EG (who wasn't in Centre County anymore), and RFG.

The actual answer to your question might be: Nobody

That answer might be the true elephant in the parlor.

[Politigal]

The office phone has nothing to do with the cell phone.

As pointed out previously, it is unlikely that anyone from Centre County was was ever at the site of Roy Gricar's suicide, other than EG (who wasn't in Centre County anymore), and RFG.

The actual answer to your question might be: Nobody

That answer might be the true elephant in the parlor.

the office phone is very relevant, since the call was placed to the office

And no one needed to be present at the place where Roy Gricar committed suicide --- becoming aware by word of mouth is a simple simple thing

:closedeyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

the office phone is very relevant, since the call was placed to the office

And no one needed to be present at the place where Roy Gricar committed suicide --- becoming aware by word of mouth is a simple simple thing

:closedeyes:

The call was not placed from the office; the location was known early on in the investigation. Getting a call proves nothing about where the call originated.

"Word of mouth" would only include that Roy Gricar committed suicide by drowning in a river, at best. Believe it or not, it would not explain the much touted appearance of the site of Roy's suicide.

Why might have been at that site, RFG and possibly his then future wife. The site similarity could point to suicide, since RFG knew what it looked like. Likewise, since Mr. Gricar might have wanted the police to search the river, where he wasn't, it might point to walkaway.

The problem with the site similarities is that one person knew what both sites looked like, RFG.

[Politigal]

The call was not placed from the office; the location was known early on in the investigation. Getting a call proves nothing about where the call originated.

"Word of mouth" would only include that Roy Gricar committed suicide by drowning in a river, at best. Believe it or not, it would not explain the much touted appearance of the site of Roy's suicide.

Why might have been at that site, RFG and possibly his then future wife. The site similarity could point to suicide, since RFG knew what it looked like. Likewise, since Mr. Gricar might have wanted the police to search the river, where he wasn't, it might point to walkaway.

The problem with the site similarities is that one person knew what both sites looked like, RFG.

That's not true either.

How do you know that on one of their many trips to Ohio that Ray didn't take Patty to the site of Roy's suicide?

How do you know that Stephen Sloane has never been there?

And those who had worked with Gricar for years were familiar with his brother's suicide. Tony even wrote that....that the family and some in the office felt RG was probably in the river, due to the similarities to Roy's place of death.

Refer to Tony's comments in the 1st post of this thread....

[2-B]

Every time this subject comes up, JJ wants to argue that nobody in Centre County was familiar with the site of Roy Gricar's suicide (and/or, variously, that "better" places in Central PA exist to mimic the site).

Both arguments are obviously flawed, since as Pgal has pointed out, TG himself said, "A very large percentage of us (the family and office) really thought that he was in the river, given the similarities to my Father."

What counts is how people reacted to the Lewisburg scene. TG has told us how a large percentage of the family and the office reacted.

I also remember TG posting that the Lewisburg scene didn't replicate the scene of his father's passing, in that his father's car was left in a relatively urban setting near his office. Yet both TG and CG had an immediate gut reaction to the Lewisburg scene--the missing Gricar, the abandoned car, the river, the park, the bridge. That was all that was necessary.

[J. J. in Phila]

That's not true either.

How do you know that on one of their many trips to Ohio that Ray didn't take Patty to the site of Roy's suicide?

How do you know that Stephen Sloane has never been there?

And those who had worked with Gricar for years were familiar with his brother's suicide. Tony even wrote that....that the family and some in the office felt RG was probably in the river, due to the similarities to Roy's place of death.

Refer to Tony's comments in the 1st post of this thread....

We've not heard anyone actually say that RFG took either PEF or SS on the "Gricar family tragedy tour." No family member lived close to the site, so it is unlikely to have been a random passing.

TG also wrote who initially thought it was suicide, TG and CG when they heard "Water Street." Who found the similarities between the sites? TG. Did anyone in Centre County? No.

Could somebody have known or found out that Roy Gricar committed suicide by jumping in a river? Yes. Could he have known what the place looked like? Only if he was there. So far as we know, only RFG was the only one from Centre County that was there (though his then girlfriend, and future wife, might have).

[2-B]

We've not heard anyone actually say that RFG took either PEF or SS on the "Gricar family tragedy tour." No family member lived close to the site, so it is unlikely to have been a random passing.

TG also wrote who initially thought it was suicide, TG and CG when they heard "Water Street." Who found the similarities between the sites? TG. Did anyone in Centre County? No.

Could somebody have known or found out that Roy Gricar committed suicide by jumping in a river? Yes. Could he have known what the place looked like? Only if he was there. So far as we know, only RFG was the only one from Centre County that was there (though his then girlfriend, and future wife, might have).

"A very large percentage of us (the family and office) really thought that he was in the river, given the similarities to my Father."

[Cloudbuster]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video%20Ray%20Gricar&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

Click on the video called psychic help--it is what Carla said about this case and yes she is saying drug related and to me she is actually saying unknowingly what some of us believe. She speaks toward the end of the tape about another crime taking place -could that be the Kre&Ung case? Sounds like it.

Also she says he came on information from another case. I always say they book a party from a party. She said he came upon a name. If Ray went to meet this person I would think its someone he trusted. Would a officer working for the drug task force be trustable? IMHO yes!

[J. J. in Phila]

"A very large percentage of us (the family and office) really thought that he was in the river, given the similarities to my Father."


And did those similarities have anything to do with the appearance of the site?

No, because TG thought suicide when he heard "Water Street," on his way to Lewisburg.

Keep spinning. :lol:

[Politigal]

And did those similarities have anything to do with the appearance of the site?

No, because TG thought suicide when he heard "Water Street," on his way to Lewisburg.

Keep spinning. :lol:

http://tinyurl.com/nry6qm

Theory Two: SUICIDE. The family history supports this. Tony Gricar
tracked down aerial photographs of both the site where his father's
car was found by a river in Dayton and from North Water Street where
Ray's car was parked by the Susquehanna. The similarities are
striking. The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other.

[2-B]

http://tinyurl.com/nry6qm

Theory Two: SUICIDE. The family history supports this. Tony Gricar
tracked down aerial photographs of both the site where his father's
car was found by a river in Dayton and from North Water Street where
Ray's car was parked by the Susquehanna. The similarities are
striking. The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other.

Thanks, Pgal. Hearing "Water Street" may have been an initial trigger, but it's obvious that bridge, river, abandoned car were the principal elements leading that "large percentage" of family and office to think early on that Ray was in the river.

[Politigal]

Thanks, Pgal. Hearing "Water Street" may have been an initial trigger, but it's obvious that bridge, river, abandoned car were the principal elements leading that "large percentage" of family and office to think early on that Ray was in the river.

And in JKA's googlepages, she wrote this:

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/partiii:onlinediscussion

By late July, 2005, BW was presenting his view that suicide and walkaway were equally likely. In support of suicide, he offered that the Lewisburg scene where the Mini-Cooper was discovered was 'eerily similar' to the setting in which Roy Gricar's body was found.

[2-B]

And in JKA's googlepages, she wrote this:

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/partiii:onlinediscussion

By late July, 2005, BW was presenting his view that suicide and walkaway were equally likely. In support of suicide, he offered that the Lewisburg scene where the Mini-Cooper was discovered was 'eerily similar' to the setting in which Roy Gricar's body was found.

TG himself said as much on the boards. I'm sure that post is long gone in the purge that occurred when we moved to the new software, but I remember him saying it.

[sherrijean981]

The problem with suicide being mentioned ASAP? It focused on the river, and Lewisburg, and away from a possible murder/foul play somewhere else.

Just my oopinion.

[Politigal]

The problem with suicide being mentioned ASAP? It focused on the river, and Lewisburg, and away from a possible murder/foul play somewhere else.

Just my oopinion.

I agree 100%....the car being placed in Lewisburg was to deflect away from a crime scene...most likely in Bellefonte....IMO

[2-B]

I agree 100%....the car being placed in Lewisburg was to deflect away from a crime scene...most likely in Bellefonte....IMO

I don't know where the crime took place. But I do agree with you and SJ that Lewisburg has always been a sleight of hand. Look this way!

[sherrijean981]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video%20Ray%20Gricar&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

Click on the video called psychic help--it is what Carla said about this case and yes she is saying drug related and to me she is actually saying unknowingly what some of us believe. She speaks toward the end of the tape about another crime taking place -could that be the Kre&Ung case? Sounds like it.

Also she says he came on information from another case. I always say they book a party from a party. She said he came upon a name. If Ray went to meet this person I would think its someone he trusted. Would a officer working for the drug task force be trustable? IMHO yes!


CB, how long was the Kre&Ung case going on? I've never seen the video you put a link to. There has to be another large case brought down by what she says, before we find out what happened to RG.

I also didn't get the feeling the warehouse she was in front of as the one I was taking photo's of. DZ was driving in front of the doors. The doors where I was told to go to, were on the side. I will look at my photo's again to see a similarity.

[gstickley]

Don't forget that it's been reported that SS was also interviewed by the profiler.

[gstickley]

I want to know who had enough clout to turn the investigation away from PSP, Union County, hence pushing foul play to the background while placing BPD in the lead with 'RG is responsible for what happened to him'. Who could make that decision?
JMO

The Highest Ranking Law Enforcement Officer in Centre Co. could make that decision; at the time, the interim HRLEO was Smith, & not sure he would/could make that decision. Next in line would probably be the AG?? MM would certainly have been able to make the decision on 01/01/06 unless he was 'running the show' prior to 01/06.

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

[gstickley]

I've never understood why the PSP didn't take control of the investigation in the beginning, since two different jurisdictions were involved. Had this occurred in my state, I believe the SP would have taken charge, with the assistance of the other agencies. The SP has more resources available, more personnel, statewide jurisdiction, etc.

(Don't forget, LW, MS "found the book"; that's about all I've heard about him, other not renewing RG's license.)

[J. J. in Phila]

That's not true either.

How do you know that on one of their many trips to Ohio that Ray didn't take Patty to the site of Roy's suicide?

How do you know that Stephen Sloane has never been there?

And those who had worked with Gricar for years were familiar with his brother's suicide. Tony even wrote that....that the family and some in the office felt RG was probably in the river, due to the similarities to Roy's place of death.

Refer to Tony's comments in the 1st post of this thread....

Well, you are free to believe that RFG conducted "Gricar family tragedy tours," but we've not heard a single account him doing so.

In the case of Sloane, what was his initial reaction? Check Cleveland. What does he think happened? RFG walked away.

Now, I would not be too surprised that the staff would have known that RFG brother committed suicide and did so by drowning in the river. But the evocation of the same site wouldn't be there; frankly, if wanted to "evoke" that image, from maps or aerial photograpths, I wouldn't use Lewisburg.

And ultimately, who was the one person that knew what both sites looked like? RFG. He can never be ruled out as being the person who "picked" Lewisburg.

[2-B]

Reviewing other cases, particularly the one this past week in Florida, where everything and anything that could come out was brought out, the difference is they had plenty to bring out.

Since you raised the Florida case, just a quick diversion from the subject currently being discussed on this thread.

How many times on the Gricar board or in blogland have we seen suggestion of any kind of murder plot involving more than one or two people mocked? Seems as if just today that happened again. And yet how many people have Florida authorities already arrested in the Billings case? Seven, with three more possible arrests outstanding.

Conspiracy to murder does occur. Yes, the Billings case is a pretty complex conspiracy (but certainly one that wouldn't have been expected). And no, I don't know whether a conspiracy was involved in RG's disappearance.

Just a caution to those who smirk and who mock any suggestion of conspiracies that they do occur, sometimes with surprising details when the truth comes out.

[2-B]

Now, I would not be too surprised that the staff would have known that RFG brother committed suicide and did so by drowning in the river. But the evocation of the same site wouldn't be there; frankly, if wanted to "evoke" that image, from maps or aerial photograpths, I wouldn't use Lewisburg.


The next time you need/want to recreate the scene of RG's brother's passing, you are free to use your mapping programs and pick whatever site you wish.

But if Lewisburg was chosen as a staged scene, designed in part to make RG's family and colleagues think of Roy's suicide, it seems to have done the trick extremely well. Apparently whoever chose the site did not need your advice or alternative site list.

[2-B]

I've never understood why the PSP didn't take control of the investigation in the beginning, since two different jurisdictions were involved.

I was re-reading old posts earlier today and came across this from TG:

01-09-2008, 11:10 PM
tonyGricar
Registered User

IMO, I felt that the PSP should have been handling it from the 1st hour due to potential manpower and jurisdictional issues that could have arisen given the geographic spread. The fact that the various bodies assumedly played nice together, in my eyes, doesn't supercede the fact that potentially investigation-hindering issues could have arisen.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=11064381#post11064381

[Cloudbuster]

Sherrij the KRe and UNG case went down after Carla made the video. IMO I think a case going down that she refered to very well fits the Kre and Ung case. Problem is nothing has been said by LE. If they was looking at this I doubt they would tell the public at this point.

[J. J. in Phila]

The next time you need/want to recreate the scene of RG's brother's passing, you are free to use your mapping programs and pick whatever site you wish.

But if Lewisburg was chosen as a staged scene, designed in part to make RG's family and colleagues think of Roy's suicide, it seems to have done the trick extremely well. Apparently whoever chose the site did not need your advice or alternative site list.

Except, according to TG's post, they though of suicide on their way to Lewisburg.

The key was, Roy Gricar committed suicide. There is enough information out there there to see that there can genetic predisposition for depression, and depression can lead to suicide.

Now, who could have known that? Everybody, including RFG. The "lookalike" site, so far as we know, just one person, RFG (and possibly his SO in 1996). Looking at via maps and aerial photographs, which someone unfamiliar with the site would have to, Lewisburg is not as close a match as other locations.

The problem is, we know one person who knew both sites from the ground, RFG. His name will always be on the list on who chose Lewisburg.

[Politigal]

Except, according to TG's post, they though of suicide on their way to Lewisburg.

snipped.

I posted a link to Tony using maps and finding the striking similarities between the 2 sites and how both family and some in the office thought RG had committed suicide because of those similarities.

Can you quote Tony's post you are referring to here?

[J. J. in Phila]

I posted a link to Tony using maps and finding the striking similarities between the 2 sites and how both family and some in the office thought RG had committed suicide because of those similarities.

Can you quote Tony's post you are referring to here?

That post is long gone, but there is another one. (A few of the older posters might remember it)

Tony Gricar tracked down aerial photographs of both the site where his father’s car was found by a river in Dayton and from North Water Street where Ray’s car was parked by the Susquehanna. The similarities are striking. The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other.

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

Emphasis added.

I could come up with what Roy's site looked like from online photos and maps, fairly easily. I still couldn't find out where the car in relation to the others, unless I was at Roy's site in May 1996. Hint: I wasn't. Neither could anyone else, unless they were there or RFG made some very specific diagrams.

The one guy who could? RFG. Maybe the future second ex-wife went with him, but the one person in Pennsylvania who definitely knew where that car was parked was RFG.

I think that TG and CG might have jumped to a reasonable, but wrong, conclusion that night.

If they didn't, P'gal, you just might have added some support to RFG being in Lewisburg and that he walked away.

[2-B]

Except, according to TG's post, they though of suicide on their way to Lewisburg.

The key was, Roy Gricar committed suicide. There is enough information out there there to see that there can genetic predisposition for depression, and depression can lead to suicide.

Now, who could have known that? Everybody, including RFG. The "lookalike" site, so far as we know, just one person, RFG (and possibly his SO in 1996). Looking at via maps and aerial photographs, which someone unfamiliar with the site would have to, Lewisburg is not as close a match as other locations.

The problem is, we know one person who knew both sites from the ground, RFG. His name will always be on the list on who chose Lewisburg.

Repeating my earlier post:

Hearing "Water Street" may have been an initial trigger, but it's obvious that bridge, river, abandoned car were the principal elements leading that "large percentage" of family and office to think early on that Ray was in the river.

And referring you to Pgal's posts. . . .

[Politigal]

That post is long gone, but there is another one. (A few of the older posters might remember it)

Tony Gricar tracked down aerial photographs of both the site where his father’s car was found by a river in Dayton and from North Water Street where Ray’s car was parked by the Susquehanna. The similarities are striking. The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other.

snipped

lol :) - you posted the same thing I had already posted...

jeez

[2-B]

That post is long gone, but there is another one. (A few of the older posters might remember it)

Tony Gricar tracked down aerial photographs of both the site where his father’s car was found by a river in Dayton and from North Water Street where Ray’s car was parked by the Susquehanna. The similarities are striking. The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other.

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



You don't really read anyone else's posts, do you, JJ? Pgal quoted that post from TG earlier in the thread. I referred to it as well once Pgal put it up on the thread.

It doesn't mean RG had to be the one to choose Lewisburg (you know, the place you thought was down the list for evoking the Dayton scene? The one you now seem to think is the perfect place for RG himself to have picked?).

Bridges are almost always over water. And cars are rarely parked on bridges or in the water if they're left for family members or S.O.'s to collect. They're in parking lots.

But a scene having those elements, now that's something different. A killer could have chosen to leave the Mini Cooper in a Wal Mart parking lot or abandoned and burned out in a forest.

Someone chose to leave the Mini Cooper near a river with a bridge.

That doesn't narrow it to RG. It narrows staging to anyone who knew Roy Gricar's car was found abandoned near a bridge by a river.

[2-B]

lol :) - you posted the same thing I had already posted...

jeez

You beat me to it by three minutes while I was posting.

It would help immensely if LHG would read our posts.

Guess what he calls "the chattering class" doesn't have anything of import to say.

[J. J. in Phila]

And who in Pennsylvania knew where that car was positioned? Maybe EG, possibly, but definitely RFG.

That is evidence that RFG (with an outside chance of EG) positioned the car, if the intent was to "evoke" Roy's suicide. That, however, might not have been the intent.

[J. J. in Phila]

You beat me to it by three minutes while I was posting.

It would help immensely if LHG would read our posts.

Guess what he calls "the chattering class" doesn't have anything of import to say.

In this case, the "chattering class" missed something very important.

:rolleyes:

The emphasis was needed.

[Politigal]

In this case, the "chattering class" missed something very important.

:rolleyes:

The emphasis was needed.

JJ - you've completely missed the point.

both family and people in the office felt the scene was similar to the suicide scene of Roy Gricar.

Apparently, they were all aware of the circumstances of Roy Gricar's death....bridge/water/abandoned vehicle...

Get it???

[2-B]

And who in Pennsylvania knew where that car was positioned? Maybe EG, possibly, but definitely RFG.

That is evidence that RFG (with an outside chance of EG) positioned the car, if the intent was to "evoke" Roy's suicide. That, however, might not have been the intent.

Please read and digest my post #42. The closest parking lot to the SOS and the river and bridge was where the car was positioned. A no-brainer.

I have always felt Lewisburg was staged for the three-way possibility it has become: possible suicide scene, possible stage for a walkaway, possible stage for foul play.

[2-B]

JJ - you've completely missed the point.

both family and people in the office felt the scene was similar to the suicide scene of Roy Gricar.

Apparently, they were all aware of the circumstances of Roy Gricar's death....bridge/water/abandoned vehicle...

Get it???

It's as obvious as the nose on his face.

Not sure why he's not seeing this.

[J. J. in Phila]

You don't really read anyone else's posts, do you, JJ? Pgal quoted that post from TG earlier in the thread. I referred to it as well once Pgal put it up on the thread.

It doesn't mean RG had to be the one to choose Lewisburg (you know, the place you thought was down the list for evoking the Dayton scene? The one you now seem to think is the perfect place for RG himself to have picked?).

Bridges are almost always over water. And cars are rarely parked on bridges or in the water if they're left for family members or S.O.'s to collect. They're in parking lots.

But a scene having those elements, now that's something different. A killer could have chosen to leave the Mini Cooper in a Wal Mart parking lot or abandoned and burned out in a forest.

Someone chose to leave the Mini Cooper near a river with a bridge.

That doesn't narrow it to RG. It narrows staging to anyone who knew Roy Gricar's car was found abandoned near a bridge by a river.

Note the emphasis again: "The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other." It's more than "near a river and a bridge."

I'm also not sure that Roy's car was in a parking lot outside of the park. I frankly don't know the relationship to the bridge at that site.

Now, I'd suspect that any of that Inner Circle would know that Roy committed suicide and did so by drowning, but if you wish to insist that there were greater similarities, it points to RFG (and possibly ex-wife #2)

[Politigal]

Note the emphasis again: "The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other." It's more than "near a river and a bridge."

I'm also not sure that Roy's car was in a parking lot outside of the park. I frankly don't know the relationship to the bridge at that site.

Now, I'd suspect that any of that Inner Circle would know that Roy committed suicide and did so by drowning, but if you wish to insist that there were greater similarities, it points to RFG (and possibly ex-wife #2)

The article was about Tony using maps and looking at the location of the car.

*BUT* the article also says family and office felt there were *similarities* to Roy Gricar's suicide.

It doesn't say they *all* felt the location of the car was the same.

good grief, you're really grasping at straws...again

[2-B]

The article was about Tony using maps and looking at the location of the car.

*BUT* the article also says family and office felt there were *similarities* to Roy Gricar's suicide.

It doesn't say they *all* felt the location of the car was the same.

good grief, you're really grasping at straws...again

Thank heavens for your common sense, Pgal.

Seriously, Roy's car was found abandoned in a Dayton park two days after he disappeared, near a river and a bridge.

If you've got those four particular elements, how many configurations can you come up with? Does JJ think the bridge was under the river? That the park was on the bridge?

Of course the scene was similar once those elements existed. In Lewisburg, it would be just a matter of "add abandoned car to existing parking lot." Everything else was already there.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ - you've completely missed the point.

both family and people in the office felt the scene was similar to the suicide scene of Roy Gricar.

Apparently, they were all aware of the circumstances of Roy Gricar's death....bridge/water/abandoned vehicle...

Get it???


Okay, where does TG or anyone say that the staff was aware of the "bridge/water/abandoned vehicle?"

I'm sure that the staff that was there in 1996 knew that Roy's suicide was by drowning in a river, but where do you get the rest of this?

[2-B]

I am certain that there would have been two separate stories that would have made the rounds. One, in the first week when RG's brother went missing. The second would be when his body was found.

I would guess everyone who knew RG, knew this, and probably even some who didn't know him who the 'talk' was passed along to. I seriously doubt that it was a big secret that only the ex-wife could possibly know.
JMO

Besides office talk, I wonder what might have been published or broadcast in the news at the time.

When Ray disappeared, details of his disappearance appeared in the Dayton Daily News. Granted, that was in part likely due to Roy having gone missing under similar circumstances nine years earlier. However, Ray was Centre County's DA. That his brother was missing in Ohio may well have received press coverage in Centre County.

[2-B]

Also, Tony and Chris Gricar remember how their uncle dropped everything when his older brother, their father, went missing in 1996. Roy Gricar’s body was pulled out of Ohio’s Great Miami River a few days later. Officials ruled his death a suicide.

“It was a straight-up missing-persons case,” Tony Gricar said. “Ray came up to meet with investigators and the prosecutors there. He was a big help during that. He eventually had to get back to work, and then Dad’s body turned up.”

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t163.html

Roy went missing on May 8; his body was found May 20. How many days was Ray in Dayton helping his family? Surely enough of a gap that office staff would have been aware of his absence and the details behind the reason for it.

[Politigal]

IMO, if the staff were aware of Ray's brother's suicide by drowning....they were probably also aware of the events that *preceded* that drowning - that he was missing and that his abandoned car was found near a river & a bridge. (the body wasn't located til some time after)

http://www.nampn.org/cases/gricar_ray.html

His car was found two days later abandoned at a Dayton park near a river and a bridge. Roy Gricar’s body was pulled out of Ohio’s Great Miami River a few days later.

and from news archives (you have to pay to read the full article):

The Cincinnati Post - May 21, 1996

BODY FOUND IN RIVER:
A body recovered from the Great Miami River near Dayton on Saturday has been identified as Roy Gricar, 53, of West Chester. Officials said Gricar had been missing since May 8. His car was found at Veterans Park. The cause of death was not immediately determined, officials said Monday. ...

Purchase Complete Article, of 53 words

[Politigal]

Also, Tony and Chris Gricar remember how their uncle dropped everything when his older brother, their father, went missing in 1996. Roy Gricar’s body was pulled out of Ohio’s Great Miami River a few days later. Officials ruled his death a suicide.

“It was a straight-up missing-persons case,” Tony Gricar said. “Ray came up to meet with investigators and the prosecutors there. He was a big help during that. He eventually had to get back to work, and then Dad’s body turned up.”

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t163.html

Roy went missing on May 8; his body was found May 20. How many days was Ray in Dayton helping his family? Surely enough of a gap that office staff would have been aware of his absence and the details behind the reason for it.

we're on the same wave length again....I was just researching the same stuff and posted the same....lol

[2-B]

we're on the same wave length again....I was just researching the same stuff and posted the same....lol

Great minds, and all.

But seriously, it's only common sense if someone looking at the situation has common sense and isn't grasping at straws to make it seems as if Ray Gricar is the only one who could have chosen Lewisburg as a staging scene.

[Politigal]

As far as the "staging" at Lewisburg...I think you have to also go back to the fact that the hard drive was found *upstream* of the laptop and there's no way it could have traveled there in the river on it's own. Someone placed it there.

[puzzled]

It could be sheer coincidence that the " scene" of Ray's dissapearance was similar to the scene where Roy ended his life. Suicide is a solitary thing generally. This is why I will never believe that Ray chose this route. Also there is no way Ray would walk away from his happy life. I realize that the family was less than thoroughly impressed with Carla but what if she was right? What if she was getting the correct feelings etc. about one case connecting to another and Ray getting some info? I don't think that Ray thought he would meet his demise that day...but I do think that he did. If they try and sell you a song and dance JJ about Ray walked away ....don't buy it!:wink:

[Cloudbuster]

I agree with you LW. The FACT remains that the scent dog never went to the water or the SOS. It stayed where the car area was only.
I have never believed that the hard drive was Ray's (but he could have used another one) and I believe he tossed something earlier in route to where he was going. Perhaps that was the inpersonating hard drive. Ray was much to smart to give up the real thing. My question is if he still had the laptop in hand to what purpose was it to serve? I don't believe he used it to walk away. He didn't need the drama of creating 3 scenario's for himself, and besides he had nothing to run from.

What he did have was a retirement coming up in 8 months.
He had a solid relationship.
He had a daughter he wanted to go see after he would retire.
Seems he looked forward to all of that.
There is no indicator of suicide from that list either.

What I see is someone(s) stopped him from being able to have those things.

IMO however got Ray also got his laptop when they got him. Its their scent that the dog can not follow, because we don't know who that person(S) was. They or one person returned that laptop to the river and thats a whole other scent then Ray's.

[J. J. in Phila]

It could be sheer coincidence that the " scene" of Ray's dissapearance was similar to the scene where Roy ended his life. Suicide is a solitary thing generally. This is why I will never believe that Ray chose this route. Also there is no way Ray would walk away from his happy life. I realize that the family was less than thoroughly impressed with Carla but what if she was right? What if she was getting the correct feelings etc. about one case connecting to another and Ray getting some info? I don't think that Ray thought he would meet his demise that day...but I do think that he did. If they try and sell you a song and dance JJ about Ray walked away ....don't buy it!:wink:

If I have the correct site, Roy's suicide took place across the river from a town with about 60,000 people in it. The last one that involved me personally took place in a house with 3-5 people in it, about 36 feet from where I was at the time (and where I am now).

The drive was removed before the laptop was tossed. I suspect RFG tossed the drive, but I draw a distinction between that and the laptop.

Actually, tossing the drive does not strengthen walkaway. It actually could explain why RFG go there so early and was seen alive in Lewisburg for a five hour plus period.

It could strengthen suicide a bit.

[Politigal]

I believe the drive was removed before the laptop was tossed. I suspect the killer tossed the drive and tossed the laptop.

Actually, tossing the drive strengthens foul play. It could explain why the killer would go there.....to add to the staged scene of the car abandoned near a park/a bridge/and water.

And since search dogs didn't find RG's scent anywhere near the park, the bridge or the water.....it most likely was tossed by someone else.

[J. J. in Phila]

I believe the drive was removed before the laptop was tossed. I suspect the killer tossed the drive and tossed the laptop.

Actually, tossing the drive strengthens foul play. It could explain why the killer would go there.....to add to the staged scene of the car abandoned near a park/a bridge/and water.

And since search dogs didn't find RG's scent anywhere near the park, the bridge or the water.....it most likely was tossed by someone else.

It doesn't strengthen foul play, but it would explain why, if RFG got there just after noon, what he was doing walking abound Lewisburg for 5-6 hours.

The scent that the dogs detected might just have been fresher, but that also corresponds to the witness time line for 4/15/05.

Actually the stuff we argue about here really doesn't help support the idea of murder, but it hides what is the (currently) most likely murder scenario.

Here is a partial summary of it:

1. RFG was meeting someone, possibly a lover, in Lewisburg, between 5:00 and 6:30 PM.

2. RFG wanted to the data on the drive (it could be unrelated to the visit).

3. RFG:

A. Calls PEF at 11:14 AM.

B. Gets to Lewisburg about an hour later.

C. Pulls in across from the Museum. Removes drive

D. Might drive upstream and look for a spot to toss either the laptop or drive.

E. .Gets back at the SOS around 5:30 PM

F. Meets lover.

G. Something happens.

E,

[Politigal]

my numbers :sneaky:

Walkaway 0%
Suicide 0%
Foul Play 100%

[Cloudbuster]

Foul play 100 percent and the only thing that would change that is if there is any strange activity in the finances that LG overlooks.

I am still open to a MW and also think she might be a informant or a AG drug tasker. Its possible its work related or other. Rumor mill which is really large speaks of a RG in a silent light. I will bet that she furnished some info to him in some capcity.

LW love your post!!!

[2-B]

The fantasies of a secret lover seem to me to be those of others, not RG's.

My opinion: "others" have taken BB's suggestion that LE canvass motels in a 30-mile radius looking at female registrants and run with that as an indication that RG was murdered in some kind of love tryst gone bad.

I tend to think the motel checking was merely a concrete suggestion BB was able to offer LE, and that BB doesn't necessarily see "love tryst gone bad" as any more prominent a murder theory than other possibilities.

During an interview this month [September 2008], Buehner discounted the suicide theory, saying Gricar was due to retire at the end of 2005 and was thrilled about specific travel plans he mapped out. Moreover, Buehner said, Gricar would never leave the office or his daughter without some explanation.

Prosecutors, he said, often make enemies they don't even realize they have. "This is just baffling," Buehner said. "Ray was a top-notch prosecutor, and this is one of the greatest mysteries in our area -- ever."

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/09/whatever_happened_to_pa_das_di.html

Too bad the statement I've bolded above for emphasis hasn't received the attention BB's suggestion to check female motel registrants has.

(And, as a side note, also interesting that board members here have been mocked and red inked for saying exactly what BB says, that RG would never leave his daughter or his responsibilities to the county without some explanation.)

My opinion, to which I am entitled.

[2-B]

The scent that the dogs detected might just have been fresher, but that also corresponds to the witness time line for 4/15/05.


Dogs brought to the scene were from the state police, LE trained, handled, and certified, not civilian trained/handled SAR dogs.

LE K-9 units need to meet standards for court requirements, in most states a 5-tiered system for qualification. Do you honestly think the PSP sent in a Bloodhound and other dogs unable to meet these requirements?

The use of human-scent-evidence canines in criminal investigations must be limited to those dogs able to demonstrate proficiency in a number of areas. The abilities of the dog-handler team must be verifiable through training records and blind-proficiency testing. . . . A dog must be proficient with seven-day-old trails in rural and urban environments. . . . Agencies employing a dog team must ensure that the team has met appropriate casework training and preparation standards to ensure the dog's work will be admissible in court.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm

Further, the dogs' negative responses everywhere except the vicinity of where the car had been parked don't "correspond" with the witness timeline. The negative responses tend to invalidate the alleged witness timeline.

[puzzled]

So JJ did the person who ended their life in your home ask any of you to assist or observe? Were you aware that the person was ending their life? It really does not matter how many people live in a town suicides take place every day in this country and generally the person does it alone....ie without the assistance of friends or family or observers. This is what I mean. Of the three people who I know of in the last three years all of them were alone when they did it. Meaning no one in the room with them. No one realizing what was happening. If Ray was seen speaking with others, shopping with others, waiting for someone...then believe me he did not commit suicide that day!

[Politigal]

Dogs brought to the scene were from the state police, LE trained, handled, and certified, not civilian trained/handled SAR dogs.

LE K-9 units need to meet standards for court requirements, in most states a 5-tiered system for qualification. Do you honestly think the PSP sent in a Bloodhound and other dogs unable to meet these requirements?

The use of human-scent-evidence canines in criminal investigations must be limited to those dogs able to demonstrate proficiency in a number of areas. The abilities of the dog-handler team must be verifiable through training records and blind-proficiency testing. . . . A dog must be proficient with seven-day-old trails in rural and urban environments. . . . Agencies employing a dog team must ensure that the team has met appropriate casework training and preparation standards to ensure the dog's work will be admissible in court.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm

Further, the dogs' negative responses everywhere except the vicinity of where the car had been parked don't "correspond" with the witness timeline. The negative responses tend to invalidate the alleged witness timeline.

It was reported that a bloodhound & cadaver dogs were used in the search for RG. And bloodhounds are not trained to scent only the "freshest scent." The bloodhound did not find RG's scent anywhere but where that car was found.

Here's how they work:

http://www.sardogs.org/articles/whichdog.html

A Trailing dog (this includes the bloodhound) is trained for scent discrimination. The dog is usually worked in a harness and on leash. The dog is given an uncontaminated article belonging to the missing person. The dog is trained to follow that scent and no other. At times the dog may track or he may airscent. The dog will go wherever he smells that specific scent. Contamination should not effect the work of this dog. The dog should be able to work pavements, streets and wilderness. If there is a good scent article and if there is a "point last seen"(PLS), a trailing dog can be the fastest way from point A (PLS) to point B (the victim). Without a scent article and a PLS, a trailing dog can not work. There are separate evaluations for urban or wilderness work. A normal certification process would be by an outside evaluator and would include locating an unknown person, usually placed in a group or line-up, on a minimum of a 24 hour old trail in an unknown, heavily contaminated area with a varied terrain that includes streets, water, grass, pavement, etc.

[2-B]

It was reported that a bloodhound & cadaver dogs were used in the search for RG. And bloodhounds are not trained to scent only the "freshest scent." The bloodhound did not find RG's scent anywhere but where that car was found.

Here's how they work:

http://www.sardogs.org/articles/whichdog.html

A Trailing dog (this includes the bloodhound) is trained for scent discrimination. The dog is usually worked in a harness and on leash. The dog is given an uncontaminated article belonging to the missing person. The dog is trained to follow that scent and no other. At times the dog may track or he may airscent. The dog will go wherever he smells that specific scent. Contamination should not effect the work of this dog. The dog should be able to work pavements, streets and wilderness. If there is a good scent article and if there is a "point last seen"(PLS), a trailing dog can be the fastest way from point A (PLS) to point B (the victim). Without a scent article and a PLS, a trailing dog can not work. There are separate evaluations for urban or wilderness work. A normal certification process would be by an outside evaluator and would include locating an unknown person, usually placed in a group or line-up, on a minimum of a 24 hour old trail in an unknown, heavily contaminated area with a varied terrain that includes streets, water, grass, pavement, etc.

Thanks, Pgal.

For years, JJ has confused tracking dogs and trailing dogs, even for a long time insisting that there was no difference between the two. IIRC, he took his "freshest scent" idea from a Schutzhund website (Schutzhund dogs track). And if I IIRC, he latched on to his "48-hour-magic-expiration-date" for scent from a tracking site. He didn't/doesn't understand that tracking dogs work footstep to footstep without scent discrimination while trailing dogs work a diffuse body scent trail using scent discrimination.

Empirical evidence has shown body scent trails successfully worked by Bloodhounds after six months aging. Given the conditions in Lewisburg that April weekend, there's no reason to believe any body scent trails would have magically expired in all the places the magically morphing witnesses allegedly popped up. There's also no reason to believe the Bloodhound wouldn't have trailed from the area where the car had been parked unless a) the only thing RG did was pull into the lot and immediately get into another vehicle or b) RG did not drive the Mini Cooper into the lot.

[J. J. in Phila]

So JJ did the person who ended their life in your home ask any of you to assist or observe? Were you aware that the person was ending their life? It really does not matter how many people live in a town suicides take place every day in this country and generally the person does it alone....ie without the assistance of friends or family or observers. This is what I mean. Of the three people who I know of in the last three years all of them were alone when they did it. Meaning no one in the room with them. No one realizing what was happening. If Ray was seen speaking with others, shopping with others, waiting for someone...then believe me he did not commit suicide that day!

It wasn't my home, it was two doors down. I was right here, and I think I was writing a PM to SJ at the time. I heard the paramedics.

I didn't know him, because it was cousin's house. He'd driven there and was with his cousin's children, in their early 20's. He was in the basement; they were upstairs and heard something.

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks, Pgal.

For years, JJ has confused tracking dogs and trailing dogs, even for a long time insisting that there was no difference between the two. IIRC, he took his "freshest scent" idea from a Schutzhund website (Schutzhund dogs track). And if I IIRC, he latched on to his "48-hour-magic-expiration-date" for scent from a tracking site. He didn't/doesn't understand that tracking dogs work footstep to footstep without scent discrimination while trailing dogs work a diffuse body scent trail using scent discrimination.

Empirical evidence has shown body scent trails successfully worked by Bloodhounds after six months aging. Given the conditions in Lewisburg that April weekend, there's no reason to believe any body scent trails would have magically expired in all the places the magically morphing witnesses allegedly popped up. There's also no reason to believe the Bloodhound wouldn't have trailed from the area where the car had been parked unless a) the only thing RG did was pull into the lot and immediately get into another vehicle or b) RG did not drive the Mini Cooper into the lot.

And, let's look at the case one of our "former" posters was so fond of quoting, Laci Peterson. The dog could never detect the scent between the house and the warehouse where the boat was located. The dog did detect the scent from the warehouse to the bay, a quite long distance, but never back to the house. Yet the body did get from the house to the warehouse (unless you believe Scott Peterson was innocent).

[J. J. in Phila]

I am certain that there would have been two separate stories that would have made the rounds. One, in the first week when RG's brother went missing. The second would be when his body was found.

I would guess everyone who knew RG, knew this, and probably even some who didn't know him who the 'talk' was passed along to. I seriously doubt that it was a big secret that only the ex-wife could possibly know.
JMO

Thanks for making my point.

If this was as "close" a match, as a few have claimed on this thread, there was one person who did know. RFG.

Now, I don't agree that it was as close a match as a few have claimed.

For example, if the Veteran's Park site is where Roy's was parked, the railroad bridge was north of that and the highway bridge was very close but south of that. In RFG's case, the railroad bridge and the highway bridge were both south and the highway bridge was further south that the railroad bridge.

[Politigal]

And, let's look at the case one of our "former" posters was so fond of quoting, Laci Peterson. The dog could never detect the scent between the house and the warehouse where the boat was located. The dog did detect the scent from the warehouse to the bay, a quite long distance, but never back to the house. Yet the body did get from the house to the warehouse (unless you believe Scott Peterson was innocent).

There were 3 or 4 different types of dogs used in the Peterson case JJ....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/26/BAGQN58KV51.DTL

[Politigal]

Thanks for making my point.

If this was as "close" a match, as a few have claimed on this thread, there was one person who did know. RFG.

Now, I don't agree that it was as close a match as a few have claimed.

For example, if the Veteran's Park site is where Roy's was parked, the railroad bridge was north of that and the highway bridge was very close but south of that. In RFG's case, the railroad bridge and the highway bridge were both south and the highway bridge was further south that the railroad bridge.

Are you then saying that Tony Gricar is incorrect or being dishonest when he said that family and people in the office felt the scene was similar to his father's place of death???

LHGG/JJ knows more than Tony Gricar??? Is that what you would have us believe?

[2-B]

And, let's look at the case one of our "former" posters was so fond of quoting, Laci Peterson. The dog could never detect the scent between the house and the warehouse where the boat was located. The dog did detect the scent from the warehouse to the bay, a quite long distance, but never back to the house. Yet the body did get from the house to the warehouse (unless you believe Scott Peterson was innocent).

a) the Bloodhound in the Peterson case was not trained, handled, or certified by/for criminal investigation work. He was CARDA certified, an SAR certification which is not as demanding or as broad-based as the requirements for police working Bloodhounds.

b) the Bloodhound in the Peterson case was pulled off the trail between the house and the warehouse by LE directing the case (LE who were not dog handlers).

You will never create a reasonable parallel between Merlin in the Peterson case and the Bloodhound in the Gricar case.

Merlin, while well-trained and well-handled, was a civilian dog handled by a civilian at the mercy of law enforcement direction. He was not allowed to complete his work.

The Bloodhound in the Gricar case was trained, certified, and handled by the state police and allowed to complete the job.

Apples and oranges.

[2-B]

Are you then saying that Tony Gricar is incorrect or being dishonest when he said that family and people in the office felt the scene was similar to his father's place of death???

LHGG/JJ knows more than Tony Gricar??? Is that what you would have us believe?

Go back and read TG's posts to the LHG patiently explaining why it was no big deal that his uncle would have had a conversation about the Wiley case.

Yet we still have JJ claiming that one purported conversation with SS about Wiley belongs under the heading of "evidence Ray had a long-term interest in walkaway cases."

It's abundantly obvious that any number of family members, colleagues, and friends were familiar enough with the Dayton scene to see echoes of it in the Lewisburg scene.

JJ wants us to believe that if someone staged the Lewisburg scene, Ray himself was the only one capable of doing so, because he is the only one who could have taken out his compass, protractor, mapping programs, and colored grease pencils to create an exact replica of the scene.

I don't think any of us are gullible enough to believe those are the kind of similarities TG was talking about.

[J. J. in Phila]

Go back and read TG's posts to the LHG patiently explaining why it was no big deal that his uncle would have had a conversation about the Wiley case.

Yet we still have JJ claiming that one purported conversation with SS about Wiley belongs under the heading of "evidence Ray had a long-term interest in walkaway cases."

It's abundantly obvious that any number of family members, colleagues, and friends were familiar enough with the Dayton scene to see echoes of it in the Lewisburg scene.

JJ wants us to believe that if someone staged the Lewisburg scene, Ray himself was the only one capable of doing so, because he is the only one who could have taken out his compass, protractor, mapping programs, and colored grease pencils to create an exact replica of the scene.

I don't think any of us are gullible enough to believe those are the kind of similarities TG was talking about.

Oh, and where do you get that claim.

It's one thing to know that Roy Gricar committed suicide by drowning in a river. I'm sure most of the staff (and beyond) knew about it.

It's another thing to claim that they all thought Lewisburg was this "matched" the site of Roy's suicide.

It's the ultimate leap to suddenly assume that PEF, who wasn't even with the office at that time, knew what site of Roy's suicide looked like.

[gstickley]

Huh?????

At no time in 2-B's post was PF even mentioned.

At no time did 2-B claim that "all" RG's family members, colleagues, friends thought Lewisburg "matched" the site of Roy's suicide.

What 2-B stated was that "any number" of RG's family members, colleagues, friends were familiar enough with the Dayton scene to see echoes of it in the Lewisburg scene.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing; too bad it's lacking in some.

[J. J. in Phila]

Huh?????

At no time in 2-B's post was PF even mentioned.

At no time did 2-B claim that "all" RG's family members, colleagues, friends thought Lewisburg "matched" the site of Roy's suicide.

What 2-B stated was that "any number" of RG's family members, colleagues, friends were familiar enough with the Dayton scene to see echoes of it in the Lewisburg scene.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing; too bad it's lacking in some.

It has been in the past on this thread, including the "Gricar Family Tragedy Tour."

[Politigal]

revisiting the call that day....

IIRC, there were no other calls placed *out* from the phone that day other than the call to the courthouse, and the phone was turned off when found in the car.

Was the phone turned on specifically for that one call...and if so....that's a little hinky in itself.

[J. J. in Phila]

revisiting the call that day....

IIRC, there were no other calls placed *out* from the phone that day other than the call to the courthouse, and the phone was turned off when found in the car.

Was the phone turned on specifically for that one call...and if so....that's a little hinky in itself.


Gee, it is really stunning for someone, who has voice mail, to turn off his phone on his day off.

[Politigal]

Gee, it is really stunning for someone, who has voice mail, to turn off his phone on his day off.


you may have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, hence your sarcasm....

But, I would say turning off one's phone just because they take off work isn't a common practice. Most people still like to keep in touch. And considering Gricar's position of District Atty I would think that he would still prefer to be available to staff.

[Amused]

you may have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, hence your sarcasm....

But, I would say turning off one's phone just because they take off work isn't a common practice. Most people still like to keep in touch. And considering Gricar's position of District Atty I would think that he would still prefer to be available to staff.

I strongly agree.

When I am "off" work, but know an important call might come in, I would never turn my cell off. If I don't want it to ring I would simply put it on vibrate.
I just look at the number calling on the screen and decide whether to answer or let it go to voice mail.

[J. J. in Phila]

you may have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, hence your sarcasm....

But, I would say turning off one's phone just because they take off work isn't a common practice. Most people still like to keep in touch. And considering Gricar's position of District Atty I would think that he would still prefer to be available to staff.

Let's see. Nothing pending for that day, does not need minute by minute updates on a case, taking a day off, has voice mail and can check it periodically. Wow, how odd.

Hint: DA's are not emergency responders and anything urgent does not need an immediate response.

[Politigal]

Let's see. Nothing pending for that day, does not need minute by minute updates on a case, taking a day off, has voice mail and can check it periodically. Wow, how odd.

Hint: DA's are not emergency responders and anything urgent does not need an immediate response.

Still most people don't turn their phones *off*

Now, have you tried metamucil? :closedeyes:

[Politigal]

a great letter on the state of the case which I think is worth reposting:

http://www.dailyitem.com/0111_letters/local_story_188233009.html

an excerpt --

That there is little to support the contention that Ray Gricar was a victim of a crime is a poor excuse for not approaching the matter as though a crime had occurred.

[2-B]

It has been in the past on this thread, including the "Gricar Family Tragedy Tour."

But you were responding to a post of *mine,* JJ. And nowhere on this thread or anywhere on this board have I ever suggested that anyone learned of the Dayton site by visiting it with Ray Gricar.

I've suggested that office/local discussion of Roy's suicide (and possibly news coverage) was enough for office staff to have a sense of the critical elements involved in the scene of Roy's passing.

That would be all that was necessary to support TG's observations that a large percentage of family and office were struck by the similarities between the Dayton scene and the Lewisburg.

Similarities, JJ. That's what TG said. Not exact match. You're the only one claiming exact match.

And likewise, as GS has already pointed out, I said nothing about PF. Three years, and you've still got that old PF "Derangement Syndrome," don't you--dragging PF into a conversation when the poster you're responding to said nothing about her and wasn't even thinking about her. As many posters have said in the past, your obsession with PF has done more to raise suspicion about her than to quell suspicion about her. When no one is talking or thinking about her, having you jump to her defense just looks, well, fishy.

[2-B]

you may have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, hence your sarcasm....

But, I would say turning off one's phone just because they take off work isn't a common practice. Most people still like to keep in touch. And considering Gricar's position of District Atty I would think that he would still prefer to be available to staff.

No one I know in a "head" position turns his/her phone off on a vacation day or day off from work. Doesn't matter if anything is "pending." We know from MS and others that RG prided himself on being able to be reached. We also know that "the buck stopped with RG" when it came to urgent situations and that RG was the one who wanted to speak to LE and the press in such situations, so the argument about not being an emergency responder doesn't really hold water.

It seems contradictory to say that "nothing was pending" and in the same breath assume that RG had to turn his phone off to keep from being bothered by it.

I have always felt, and still do, that the phone being turned to "off" is significant.

[Chump#7]

It seems contradictory to say that "nothing was pending" and in the same breath assume that RG had to turn his phone off to keep from being bothered by it.

I have always felt, and still do, that the phone being turned to "off" is significant.

Heh, Smootches!

Yes, the phone being "off" typically goes straight to voice mail, leading the caller to believe that perhaps the battery is dead, or they are out of coverage area. No worries. On the other hand, "on", ringing and no answer might set off red flags.

Was the battery still good when found? Could they turn it on without charging it first? Yeah, yeah... Nobody knows...

[Cloudbuster]

Perhaps the killer didn't want to send any red flags. So he turns the attention grabbing cell phone to the OFF position as not to garner attention. Or perhaps there is bad reception in a area RG was at. Why keep the phone on when you can save battery power in a area that has bad reception?

Then there is always the possibility that the killer didn't want the phone on pinging off cell towers and showing areas that was traveled?

[Politigal]

Heh, Smootches!

Yes, the phone being "off" typically goes straight to voice mail, leading the caller to believe that perhaps the battery is dead, or they are out of coverage area. No worries. On the other hand, "on", ringing and no answer might set off red flags.

Was the battery still good when found? Could they turn it on without charging it first? Yeah, yeah... Nobody knows...

"on, ringing and no answer might set off red flags"

IMO, that's why it was turned off (and not by RG)

[J. J. in Phila]

But you were responding to a post of *mine,* JJ. And nowhere on this thread or anywhere on this board have I ever suggested that anyone learned of the Dayton site by visiting it with Ray Gricar.

I've suggested that office/local discussion of Roy's suicide (and possibly news coverage) was enough for office staff to have a sense of the critical elements involved in the scene of Roy's passing.

That would be all that was necessary to support TG's observations that a large percentage of family and office were struck by the similarities between the Dayton scene and the Lewisburg.

Similarities, JJ. That's what TG said. Not exact match. You're the only one claiming exact match.

And likewise, as GS has already pointed out, I said nothing about PF. Three years, and you've still got that old PF "Derangement Syndrome," don't you--dragging PF into a conversation when the poster you're responding to said nothing about her and wasn't even thinking about her. As many posters have said in the past, your obsession with PF has done more to raise suspicion about her than to quell suspicion about her. When no one is talking or thinking about her, having you jump to her defense just looks, well, fishy.

The only this "fishy" is this thread are the red herrings like the site of the suicide and turning off the cell phone..

Now, certainly all the long term staff, those that were there in 1996, would know that Roy Gricar committed suicide by drowning in a river (including SS, JKA, LM, and MS, and Wife #2 but not limited to them). I could easily believe that newer staff, and more recent friend, could have learned the same thing. So could someone researching RFG online.

And one person who also knew, and new in greatest detail, was RFG.

That doesn't tell us anything.

[Politigal]

Even turned off, unless the battery was pulled out of the phone, it can still be traced. Although there is an area on route 192 where there is no reception, and an area on route 45 that has no reception, as soon as you are out of the wooded areas, there is reception again. There is a tower just the other side of RB Winter park wooded area and one in Mifflinburg area. IF RG traveled either of those routes that day, and the battery wasn't pulled, LE should have a good idea of what route the phone traveled that day and what time.

I'm with you-------I do not believe RG shut the phone off. Most people traveling with a cell phone have their adapter to plug in and recharge with them in the vehicle and keep it in their vehicle. I wonder if it was a practice of RG's to have it with him and whether it was found in the vehicle. I don't recall any mention of it being there. If it wasn't in the Mini, I wonder if it was found back at the house?

JMO

I don't think the phone can be tracked when it's turned off, but I could be wrong.

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't think the phone can be tracked when it's turned off, but I could be wrong.

I think you are correct, at that time. Judging from what do in search attempts, it cannot be pinpointed, even when on, though the tower carrying the signal from a "pinging" can be determined.

A few years ago in Phila, the police tried to find a guy locked in a trunk of a car, that was calling out on a cell phone. They later found the car and his body, but they could only get a general location of the car (general as in someplace in Philadelphia).

[Politigal]

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2b-cellprivacy.htm#5

if your phone is turned on.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/37989

from Dec 2005
At this time, when you turn off your cell phone, it is truly turned off. For your phone to be tracked, it must send a signal which would drain the battery. In the future, they could change this so that send a signal every few minutes but there is not any profit in building this feature so it is unlikely unless there is some sort of government intervention.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/2866-37-turn-tracking-v551

when you turn your cell phone off towers will not communicate with
your cell phone

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/want-privacy-turn-off-your-cell-phone-18871039/

Want privacy? Turn off your cell phone!

and on the CIA operation you posted about....I think that involved the FBI or CIA placing bugs inside some cellphones.

[Politigal]

another link

http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/cell-phone-tracking.html

the only way to be sure you're not being tracked is to turn the phone off

and another

http://www.cell-phone-numbers.com/cell-phone-tracking.htm

The bottom line is simple: the only way to prevent a cell phone from registering (and revealing your location) is to turn it off. To make sure, remove the battery pack.

[2-B]

The only this "fishy" is this thread are the red herrings like the site of the suicide and turning off the cell phone..

Now, certainly all the long term staff, those that were there in 1996, would know that Roy Gricar committed suicide by drowning in a river (including SS, JKA, LM, and MS, and Wife #2 but not limited to them). I could easily believe that newer staff, and more recent friend, could have learned the same thing. So could someone researching RFG online.

And one person who also knew, and new in greatest detail, was RFG.

That doesn't tell us anything.

Red herring?

The origins of that term come from a hunting practice, where an irrelevant scent is dragged across the true path to the quarry. Are you suggesting you know the true path to "quarry" in the Gricar case and therefore can determine what diverges from that true path? If so, perhaps you can share with the rest of the board, and with the BPD and the FBI.

In logic, the term is used to indicate an irrelevant issue raised to distract from the true issue. Are you suggesting you are certain that the similarities between the Dayton scene and the Lewisburg scene as noted by TG are irrelevant to the mystery of what happened to Ray Gricar? Are you suggesting you are certain that the phone being turned off is irrelevant to Ray's disappearance?

Please, enlighten those of us who have taken the wrong path by thinking the Lewisburg scene could possibly have been staged and/or thinking the phone being turned off could have significance.

[Politigal]

Red herring?

The origins of that term come from a hunting practice, where an irrelevant scent is dragged across the true path to the quarry. Are you suggesting you know the true path to "quarry" in the Gricar case and therefore can determine what diverges from that true path? If so, perhaps you can share with the rest of the board, and with the BPD and the FBI.

In logic, the term is used to indicate an irrelevant issue raised to distract from the true issue. Are you suggesting you are certain that the similarities between the Dayton scene and the Lewisburg scene as noted by TG are irrelevant to the mystery of what happened to Ray Gricar? Are you suggesting you are certain that the phone being turned off is irrelevant to Ray's disappearance?

Please, enlighten those of us who have taken the wrong path by thinking the Lewisburg scene could possibly have been staged and/or thinking the phone being turned off could have significance.

bumping for JJ....who seems to be avoiding this one

[2-B]

bumping for JJ....who seems to be avoiding this one

And bumping again, since JJ is on the board now.

[J. J. in Phila]

1. I am certain that if someone didn't want to be disturbed on his day off, had nothing urgent pending, and had voice mail, it would be very likely to turn his phone off. I know of one person who could have turned off the phone for that, or another reason. His name is Ray Gricar.

2. I know of one person that definitely knew what the site of Roy's suicide looked like, and was in a 50 miles of Bellefonte. His name was Ray Gricar.

Now, if you really want to explore this, that's fine, but the name Ray Gricar or RFG, will keep coming up in the context it has here.

[2-B]

1. I am certain that if someone didn't want to be disturbed on his day off, had nothing urgent pending, and had voice mail, it would be very likely to turn his phone off. I know of one person who could have turned off the phone for that, or another reason. His name is Ray Gricar.

2. I know of one person that definitely knew what the site of Roy's suicide looked like, and was in a 50 miles of Bellefonte. His name was Ray Gricar.

Now, if you really want to explore this, that's fine, but the name Ray Gricar or RFG, will keep coming up in the context it has here.

So, you don't know what the true path to the answer is in this case. You're not certain the similarities between the Dayton scene and the Lewisburg scene are irrelevant to the disappearance of Ray Gricar. And you're not certain the phone being turned off is irrelevant to the disappearance.

All of which makes these issues far from being the red herrings you claimed them to be.

Ray Gricar was not the only person who knew Roy's suicide scene included a car abandoned by a river near a bridge and a park. Ignore that, and you ignore a potentially critical piece of the puzzle.

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B, that is one of there reasons you didn't gee a blog on how much this looked like Roy's suicide site (and I really with there was a more delicate name for it).

I personally do not think it is as similar as TG thought it was, at least from photos and maps (I will grant you that the bridges are the same color, and the RR bridge has a similar structure).

Somebody looking at it on the Internet would probably have chosen Lockhaven or at least parked the car closer to the highway bridge.

If to "evoke" the Ohio site, because of ground conditions, whomever did it would have to have been familiar with the site, from the ground. The one person where we're reasonably sure did see the site from the ground is RFG. RFG parking the Mini there would point to suicide or walkaway, but not murder.

[J. J. in Phila]

So, you don't know what the true path to the answer is in this case. You're not certain the similarities between the Dayton scene and the Lewisburg scene are irrelevant to the disappearance of Ray Gricar. And you're not certain the phone being turned off is irrelevant to the disappearance.

All of which makes these issues far from being the red herrings you claimed them to be.

Ray Gricar was not the only person who knew Roy's suicide scene included a car abandoned by a river near a bridge and a park. Ignore that, and you ignore a potentially critical piece of the puzzle.

No, as I just posted, I know it would point to RFG as the most likely person, if the match were as close as TG thinks it is.

I know if the match wouldn't be that close, it would include the entire Internet.

Similar situation with the phone, except there is a plausible reason for RFG to turn it off.

[2-B]

2-B, that is one of there reasons you didn't gee a blog on how much this looked like Roy's suicide site (and I really with there was a more delicate name for it).

I personally do not think it is as similar as TG thought it was, at least from photos and maps (I will grant you that the bridges are the same color, and the RR bridge has a similar structure).

Somebody looking at it on the Internet would probably have chosen Lockhaven or at least parked the car closer to the highway bridge.

If to "evoke" the Ohio site, because of ground conditions, whomever did it would have to have been familiar with the site, from the ground. The one person where we're reasonably sure did see the site from the ground is RFG. RFG parking the Mini there would point to suicide or walkaway, but not murder.

There you go again, with the mapping programs and overlays and grease pencils. You're being much too literal.

TG said a very large percentage of family and office thought Ray was in the river given the similarities.

Anyone familiar with the sketchiest details of Roy's suicide would know this: parking the Mini in the SOS lot would send a message of possible suicide.

But what's most clever about Lewisburg is its multiple messages: could have been suicide, could have been walkaway, could have been murder.

You insist you've "followed the evidence," and that it leads you to RG being in Lewisburg and tossing the drive before either walking away or (in your mind, less likely) being murdered.

But the evidence does not, IMO, take us inevitably to the conclusions you have reached.

There is no objective evidence placing Ray Gricar in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

There is no objective evidence that Ray Gricar took the laptop with him when he left Bellefonte on 4/15.

There is no objective evidence that Ray Gricar tossed the laptop and hard drive into the river in Lewisburg.

While he might have done any or all of these things, they are all supposition and theory, not things which have been proven.

[Politigal]

and....

There is no objective evidence that Ray Gricar was *anywhere* after about 9:15pm Thursday night April 14, 2005.

[Politigal]

I was doing a little reading over the weekend about geographic profiling - about average distances from an offender's home base to where they might dump their victim's body....

There are several studies online - mainly dealing with data on serial killers - but some are generic in content and reflect an average of about 1.5 miles to 11.5 miles distance.

One statement that pretty much sums it up IMO --

A killer will be confined by their "mental map" derived from their daily and weekly travel patterns.

IMO, RG's probably not too far from home.

[Cloudbuster]

I wonder if RG was using a different name at any time? Do you remember the Michigan sighting? There is a Nola Gricar and a Nola J Gricar with unclaimed property.

https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/unclaimedProperty/search.asp?destURL=unclaimedProperty&name=Nola+Gricar

[Politigal]

I was first drawn to this board thru a report about Jonathan Luna, and after briefly reading, my first opinion was that Gricar simply walked away from his life with some mystery woman. But after months/and now years of further research, I don't believe that to be the case. I believe the only scenario even remotely possible is that he was killed. Maybe it was an accident - maybe it was a spur of the moment crime of passion - or maybe it was premeditated....But however it happened, Bellefonte Police dropped the ball in those first few days IMO. They let history, familiarity, connections, and maybe even tears ....cloud their judgement, in what procedures to follow.

Our former poster S1 wrote this back in April and I was surprised to see him admit to this....but I have the same dilemma. It's not something I *want* to be true....but it is a possibility I simply cannot eliminate based on the facts of the case currently available to the public.

4/11/09 9:05pm
originally posted by Serendipitous1

I cannot eliminate foul play. And I cannot eliminate PF in the event of foul play. It is up to LE to figure it out.

[Hbgchick]

I was first drawn to this board thru a report about Jonathan Luna, and after briefly reading, my first opinion was that Gricar simply walked away from his life with some mystery woman. But after months/and now years of further research, I don't believe that to be the case. I believe the only scenario even remotely possible is that he was killed. Maybe it was an accident - maybe it was a spur of the moment crime of passion - or maybe it was premeditated....But however it happened, Bellefonte Police dropped the ball in those first few days IMO. They let history, familiarity, connections, and maybe even tears ....cloud their judgement, in what procedures to follow.

Our former poster S1 wrote this back in April and I was surprised to see him admit to this....but I have the same dilemma. It's not something I *want* to be true....but it is a possibility I simply cannot eliminate based on the facts of the case currently available to the public.

4/11/09 9:05pm
originally posted by Serendipitous1

And that sums it up nicely, IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

I was first drawn to this board thru a report about Jonathan Luna, and after briefly reading, my first opinion was that Gricar simply walked away from his life with some mystery woman. But after months/and now years of further research, I don't believe that to be the case. I believe the only scenario even remotely possible is that he was killed. Maybe it was an accident - maybe it was a spur of the moment crime of passion - or maybe it was premeditated....But however it happened, Bellefonte Police dropped the ball in those first few days IMO. They let history, familiarity, connections, and maybe even tears ....cloud their judgement, in what procedures to follow.

Our former poster S1 wrote this back in April and I was surprised to see him admit to this....but I have the same dilemma. It's not something I *want* to be true....but it is a possibility I simply cannot eliminate based on the facts of the case currently available to the public.

4/11/09 9:05pm
originally posted by Serendipitous1

Well, some things can be ruled out, like the "power of suggestion."

From the CDT on 5/10/06:

"Although Zaccagni now describes the witness report as the first credible sighting of Gricar after he went missing, he and Weaver said police were following a plethora of leads at the time and it simply did not come up in communications with the media."

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=19a90cc4a9a5e0d0b2a7d7f772d7a07a

The MW was seen on 4/15/05

The first witness would predate Bennett:

"Dixon said the owner of a co-op antiques store across the street from the lot said Gricar may have been at the shop earlier Saturday."

http://web.archive.org/web/20050418102105/www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/11414918.htm

It could be a prime example that I'll be able to use in the blog, where I note how commentators on the case like to suppress facts that don't fit their theories.

[Politigal]

JJ in Phila with all your amazin' knowledge....

According to the article you posted:

A witness inside an antiques market in Lewisburg initially reported seeing Gricar with a woman on April 15, 2005. Gricar and the woman were walking through the market and did not make any physical contact, the witness reported.


It doesn't say that the witness came *forward* on 4/15.....

It says the witness claims to have seen Gricar on 4/15...

Big big difference.

[2-B]

Quoting Elizabeth Loftus, who along with Gary Wells is one of the pioneers in witness memory research. Like Wells, she is among the top scholars in this field:

My own research into memory distortion goes back to the early 1970s, when I began studies of the "misinformation effect." These studies show that when people who witness an event are later exposed to new and misleading information about it, their recollections often become distorted. In one example, participants viewed a simulated automobile accident at an intersection with a stop sign. After the viewing, half the participants received a suggestion that the traffic sign was a yield sign. When asked later what traffic sign they remembered seeing at the intersection, those who had been given the suggestion tended to claim that they had seen a yield sign. Those who had not received the phony information were much more accurate in their recollection of the traffic sign.

My students and I have now conducted more than 200 experiments involving over 20,000 individuals that document how exposure to misinformation induces memory distortion. In these studies, people "recalled" a conspicuous barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all, broken glass and tape recorders that were not in the scenes they viewed, a white instead of a blue vehicle in a crime scene, and Minnie Mouse when they actually saw Mickey Mouse. Taken together, these studies show that misinformation can change an individual's recollection in predictable and sometimes very powerful ways.

Misinformation has the potential for invading our memories when we talk to other people, when we are suggestively interrogated or when we read or view media coverage about some event that we may have experienced ourselves. After more than two decades of exploring the power of misinformation, researchers have learned a great deal about the conditions that make people susceptible to memory modification.


http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

As Professor Elizabeth Loftus notes, “[m]ost people, including eyewitnesses, are motivated by a desire to be correct, to be observant, and to avoid looking foolish. People want to give an answer, to be helpful, and many will do this at the risk of being incorrect. People want to see crimes solved and justice done, and this desire may motivate them to volunteer more than is warranted by their meager memory. The line between valid retrieval and unconscious fabrication is easily crossed.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/9973f3ec244ba99685256f6a00558f39?opendocument

[Politigal]

as always...excellent research 2-B

this term pretty much says it all IMO -

honestly-mistaken witness

[2-B]

Well, some things can be ruled out, like the "power of suggestion."



Want to discuss ruling out the power of suggestion with Elizabeth Loftus, JJ? She's testified as an expert in hundreds of trials on the subject of eyewitness memory. Here's a brief passage from one of her books, Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts the Memory on Trial:

On the stand [as an expert witness], I remember talking about the power of suggestion and the ways in which unintentional information can be communicated to a witness. When police officers question a witness, I testified, they can actually impart information to the witness at the same time that they are trying to obtain information from the witness. This is particularly dangerous when the police have a suspect in mind, or when they have a theory about the case, for their ideas can be transmitted to the witness and can affect the witness's memory. Suggestive questioning, I continued, can actually induce a memory of something that never occurred. Witnesses will change their accounts out of an honest desire to cooperate with authorities.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IXWyHFyMD4MC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=witness+misidentification+%22power+of+suggestio n%22&source=bl&ots=2-L4uBFlkP&sig=F9nQQVrLWZl-DZnro6_x-rnx5zE&hl=en&ei=JgmWSs3UGsax8Qa98YGSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Now I completely agree with Pgal that you've misinterpreted the passages you posted on this thread and you've incorrectly concluded that a witness to the MW was the first to report to LE that he saw Gricar.

But you see, that's a moot point where the power of suggestion is concerned.

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B, part of the "power of suggestion" involves something to be there to suggest. There wasn't anything there to suggest. :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

2-B, part of the "power of suggestion" involves something to be there to suggest. There wasn't anything there to suggest. :rolleyes:

maybe to a cave dweller there wasn't anything there....

lol

[2-B]

maybe to a cave dweller there wasn't anything there....

lol

Isn't it fascinating how JJ spends so much time trying to "explain away" established research from esteemed experts?

And how he rarely if ever has anything but his own opinion to offer in rebuttal?

[Politigal]

Isn't it fascinating how JJ spends so much time trying to "explain away" established research from esteemed experts?

And how he rarely if ever has anything but his own opinion to offer in rebuttal?

well...when one is "lord high" their head tends to be in the clouds a bit...lol

jmho

[2-B]

well...when one is "lord high" their head tends to be in the clouds a bit...lol

jmho

I just grow a bit weary of the charge that a group of us is running around trying to "explain away" the evidence when what we're doing is ANALYZING THE EVIDENCE.

We're not the ones trying to "explain away" anything.

[Politigal]

I just grow a bit weary of the charge that a group of us is running around trying to "explain away" the evidence when what we're doing is ANALYZING THE EVIDENCE.

We're not the ones trying to "explain away" anything.

Surely that's obvious to anyone else who reads here....and "there." :)

[J. J. in Phila]

maybe to a cave dweller there wasn't anything there....

lol

Not prior 11:00 AM on 4/17/05 in Lewisburg. There was a witness, and it wasn't Bennett.

That is an excellent example of evidence that you are trying to explain away.

There will be more, but, please, continue.

It's even popped up here, and not from me. ;)

[Politigal]

Not prior 11:00 AM on 4/17/05 in Lewisburg. snipped

what exactly are you referring to here?

[2-B]

Not prior 11:00 AM on 4/17/05 in Lewisburg. There was a witness, and it wasn't Bennett.

Does this sentence remain the sole evidence for your claim that a witness prior to Bennett reported a Gricar sighting to LE?

From the CDT on 5/10/06:

Although Zaccagni now describes the witness report as the first credible sighting of Gricar after he went missing, he and Weaver said police were following a plethora of leads at the time and it simply did not come up in communications with the media.

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com...a7d7f772d7a07a

[Politigal]

Does this sentence remain the sole evidence for your claim that a witness prior to Bennett reported a Gricar sighting to LE?

From the CDT on 5/10/06:

Although Zaccagni now describes the witness report as the first credible sighting of Gricar after he went missing, he and Weaver said police were following a plethora of leads at the time and it simply did not come up in communications with the media.

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com...a7d7f772d7a07a


it looks like he's rehashing the same stuff he did a couple days ago..

go figger

[Politigal]

Redux/redux/redux

Bellefonte Police held a Press Conference on the disappearance on Saturday 4/16/05. I would assume this conference was covered by television & radio.

It was also on the AP 4/16/05

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-107507231.html

There were numerous reports on 4/17/05

And another press conference 4/18/05.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-18-05tdc/04-18-05dnews-01.asp

However, no witnesses came forward until it was reported Gricar's car had been found in Lewisburg.

Why was Gricar so evident in Lewisburg yet so invisible in Bellefonte?

......the POWER of suggestion

jmho

[2-B]

it looks like he's rehashing the same stuff he did a couple days ago..

go figger

He is. But I'm glad he raised it again. I've been thinking about what he's apparently trying to accomplish.

It looks as if he's trying to strengthen witness credibility by arguing that what he calls this first witness, the one he claims reported to LE prior to Bennett, could not not have been influenced in any way by any "power of suggestion."

But his theory has multiple problems.

First, the sentence he keeps quoting as evidence--as a number of us have pointed out to him--doesn't mean what he says it does.

IF--and I repeat IF--the sentence had read "Zaccagni now describes the sighting as the first credible witness report of Gricar after he went missing," then JJ might have a leg to stand on.

But it doesn't say that. It says "Zaccagni now describes the witness report as the first credible sighting of Gricar after he went missing."

Second, the word "now." Zaccagni NOW describes. Sounds as if Det. Z is NOW discounting one or more earlier sightings in the timeline. I think the Packwood Museum sighting is off the table with this declaration. That's the woman who saw a Mini Cooper around noon and was focused on the car because she'd seen The Italian Job and liked the car in the movie. She said she saw a man who might have resembled Gricar, nothing very definitive in her wording IIRC.

And here's why I think that sighting was earlier than the MW sighting:

a) the CF sighting appears to have been discounted on the basis of the MW sighting.

[P]olice said it [the Fenton sighting] could not have been Gricar because he was spotted by witnesses in Lewisburg during the early afternoon.

Police said they dismissed the [Fenton] sighting because it did not fit their timeline of where Gricar supposedly was, at an antiques mall in Lewisburg.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/usedtobedoe/ar/t2226.htm

b) PF appears to indicate the MW sighting was in the early afternoon:

"His last words to me in that phone call (on April 15, 2005) was 'I love you.' You don't say 'I love you,' get that same response back and two hours later run off with another woman."

Two hours after the phone call would put Gricar with the MW around 1:15-1:30.

(same URL as above)

Curiously, I believe JJ has argued here and elsewhere that no Lewisburg sighting would have prevented the Fenton sighting from having been accurate. I am not arguing for the accuracy of any of the Lewisburg sightings. But I believe these clues tell us the timing of the MW sighting may well have been in the early afternoon and may be the sighting which made the Fenton sighting seem unlikely to investigators.

Meanwhile, back to the original issue, even if JJ were correct that the person who reported the MW sighting was the first of all the witnesses to report, prior to Bennett, he would still be incorrect that no influences could play a role in "the power of suggestion." Apparently he's failed to read the material from Elizabeth Loftus I provided. But then why should he bother. She's only one of the two biggest names in memory and witness identification in the country. She's only testified as an expert at hundreds of trials. She couldn't possibly shed any light on this issue. . . .

[Politigal]

yep 2-B, I posted links just above you - of the press conferences & media coverage.

and, I'd like to remind JJ of post #120

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13406760&postcount=120

And in addition, we all know that police showed photos & video of Gricar to various witnesses, and who the heck knows what questions were asked of these people...

[2-B]

yep 2-B, I posted links just above you - of the press conferences & media coverage.

and, I'd like to remind JJ of post #120

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13406760&postcount=120

And in addition, we all know that police showed photos & video of Gricar to various witnesses, and who the heck knows what questions were asked of these people...

I just fail to understand this three year insistence that Gricar HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN LEWISBURG no matter how much you have to twist the evidence to make it so.

The evidence is inconclusive. He may have been there. He may not have been there.

The witnesses certainly are far from conclusive.

What's the big deal with looking realistically at the evidence which exists and then asking, "What if something happened to Ray before he reached Lewisburg?" Maybe that means starting back in Bellefonte. Maybe that means starting at a point after the 11:15-ish call.

But there's no conclusive evidence he ever made it to Lewisburg, not out in the public at any rate.

It was right to be in Lewisburg in April 2005, gathering evidence, searching the river and the river banks, etc. But insisting for three years that Gricar had to have been in Lewisburg and asking, "What happened from there?" may not be "asking the right question" if you know what I mean.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll try to explain this slowly.

Witness A: Saw RFG on 4/15/05 in the evening in the SoS with the Mystery woman.

Witness B (probably Bennett): Saw RFG in SoS, around lunchtime on 4/16/05

First witness LE had: Witness A, reported prior to 11:00 AM on 4/17/05 (possibly 4/16/05).

Witness B was known sometime in the day of 4/17/05.

No local media on RFG until after 11:00 AM on 4/17/05, and there was no suggestion that RFG would be with a woman, until late summer or early fall of 2005.

Witness A was not the product of "suggestion," because there was no suggestion. There will be more there as well. Just keep on spinning and you will eventually be twisting in the wind. You are doing a great job of convincing people RFG walked away, however.

BTW, LE didn't canvass until midweek.

[Politigal]

No local media on RFG until after 11:00 AM on 4/17/05,snipped.

JJ, as posted above, that's simply not the truth.

Bellefonte Police held a *Press Conference* Saturday 4/16/05

It was in the news, on tv, on radio, and on the AP as well.

[2-B]

JJ, as posted above, that's simply not the truth.

Bellefonte Police held a *Press Conference* Saturday 4/16/05

It was in the news, on tv, on radio, and on the AP as well.

Absolutely, Pgal. The Saturday press conference was well established in KA's Magnificent Manuscript. Perhaps some folks missed her details of that while they were busy complaining about how she didn't include stuff they wanted in the manuscript, like descriptions of Gricar in the courtroom or whatever.

I believe there was an AP report out before midnight on 4/16.

But as usual JJ has missed a couple really critical points, both of which have been discussed here before:

1. Media coverage is not the only way information travels, especially in a small town like Lewisburg. I've said this before and will say it again till it sinks into the brains of those who don't get it: tomkat's posts on the free republic site are evidence that people in Lewisburg knew some of what was going on at the SOS lot not long after the Mini-Cooper was found there.

Maybe living in a big shot city like Philadelphia, JJ doesn't realize that's a hot time on a Saturday night in small town, USA. Maybe JJ doesn't realize small town America is filled with folks who entertain themselves with listening to police scanners and calling Herb and Myrtle down the street to tell them what they heard over the scanner. Esther and Roy probably knew more about this by the time they went to bed that night than the AP writer. :wink:

2. Media coverage and local talk are not the only potential powers of suggestion. If only JJ had bothered to read this (link and previous quote above), he might begin to understand the bigger picture:

On the stand [as an expert witness], I remember talking about the power of suggestion and the ways in which unintentional information can be communicated to a witness. When police officers question a witness, I testified, they can actually impart information to the witness at the same time that they are trying to obtain information from the witness. This is particularly dangerous when the police have a suspect in mind, or when they have a theory about the case, for their ideas can be transmitted to the witness and can affect the witness's memory. Suggestive questioning, I continued, can actually induce a memory of something that never occurred. Witnesses will change their accounts out of an honest desire to cooperate with authorities.

Loftus is not implying anything conscious or nefarious on the part of law enforcement. She is describing an unconscious, unintentional power of suggestion that can occur during witness questioning, something that can actually affect witness memory to the point of creating memories of things which never occurred.

She has demonstrated that people can "remember" buildings that weren't there, mustaches that weren't there, cars that weren't there, etc.

This is why Wells says questioning should be done by blind administration--by someone who doesn't know the suspect [substitute "missing person"] and who, as Loftus says, doesn't have a theory of the case. And all of that has wound up in the DOJ guidelines for witnesses, which the LE community was involved in developing, so it's not as if they don't agree with the principle.

We don't know the questioning strategies that were used with the Gricar witnesses. But we cannot rule out power of suggestion playing a role there, just as we cannot rule out power of suggestion playing a role from media and post-event "around town" gossip/discussion.

In short, it's exceptionally naive to think the Lewisburg Gricar witnesses are somehow exempt from the typical influences on witnesses. Were they, like, hermetically sealed away or something and questioned by computer programs?

[gstickley]

(snip)
1. Media coverage is not the only way information travels, especially in a small town like Lewisburg. I've said this before and will say it again till it sinks into the brains of those who don't get it: tomkat's posts on the free republic site are evidence that people in Lewisburg knew some of what was going on at the SOS lot not long after the Mini-Cooper was found there.

Maybe living in a big shot city like Philadelphia, JJ doesn't realize that's a hot time on a Saturday night in small town, USA. Maybe JJ doesn't realize small town America is filled with folks who entertain themselves with listening to police scanners and calling Herb and Myrtle down the street to tell them what they heard over the scanner. Esther and Roy probably knew more about this by the time they went to bed that night than the AP writer. :wink:
(snip)


I loved your post, 2-B, because this is exactly what happens in small towns where people talk to each other. It's called gossip, & it abounds in small towns.

Recently, there was a horrific murder in my area. Any "police scanner listener" knew "something" was going on by the "radio traffic"; they knew the area where "something" had happened, that the "something" was "really big" by the number of units responding to the scene. They knew when a suspect had been apprehended, when the suspect was transported to the jail, that the "something" involved a death because the coroner had been called to the scene & the identity of the owner of a vehicle involved.

Judging by the number of telephone calls, apparently several people had been "police scanner listening". Later, at a sports event, the "something" was discussed in detail by many people in attendance. Still later Sat. night, more telephone calls with "Did you hear about. . .?"

This all occurred on a Sat. afternoon; there was no media coverage until the following morning, & it came from out-of-the-area news, because there was no local news until Mon. morning.

I'm certain the disappearance of the District Attorney was well known due to word of mouth & the police activity long before it became publicized in the media. And, the Associated Press had the story some 6 hrs. after the vehicle was found.

[2-B]

I loved your post, 2-B, because this is exactly what happens in small towns where people talk to each other. It's called gossip, & it abounds in small towns.

Recently, there was a horrific murder in my area. Any "police scanner listener" knew "something" was going on by the "radio traffic"; they knew the area where "something" had happened, that the "something" was "really big" by the number of units responding to the scene. They knew when a suspect had been apprehended, when the suspect was transported to the jail, that the "something" involved a death because the coroner had been called to the scene & the identity of the owner of a vehicle involved.

Judging by the number of telephone calls, apparently several people had been "police scanner listening". Later, at a sports event, the "something" was discussed in detail by many people in attendance. Still later Sat. night, more telephone calls with "Did you hear about. . .?"

This all occurred on a Sat. afternoon; there was no media coverage until the following morning, & it came from out-of-the-area news, because there was no local news until Mon. morning.



Thanks for this vivid description of a real example, GS. As they say these days, "THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"

[gstickley]

I didn't know exactly where to post this, but I'm thinking of posting it on every thread. I noted what I think is important information in red.

This is the official Bellefonte PD Missing Person Flier information on Ray Gricar.

MISSING PERSON
RAY FRANK GRICAR
Last Seen April 15, 2005 Bellefonte, Pennsylvania

DESCRIPTION

Date of Birth: October 9, 1945 Place of Birth: Cleveland, Ohio
Sex: Male Race: White
Hair: Brown (Graying) Eyes: Green
Height 6’0” Weight: 170 pounds

DETAILS
For almost twenty years, Ray Frank Gricar has served as the District Attorney for Center County, Pennsylvania. On the morning of April 15, 2005, he called his girlfriend and told her that he was going to go for a drive in his red and white Mini Cooper along state Route 192 in Penns Valley, Pennsylvania. He was reported missing when he did not return. The car was located in a parking lot in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River, on April 16, 2005; however, Gricar has not been located.

Ray Gricar may also use the names Ray Lange or Ray Gray. He was last seen wearing a blue fleece jacket, jeans, and tennis shoes. He has ties to Ohio and California. There have been “sightings" of Ray over the past two years (unconfirmed).

We are requesting that law enforcement agencies provide this information to their patrol officers, and check local homeless shelters and rest areas where applicable. Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Any positive information can be directed to Detective Matt Rickard, Bellefonte Borough Police Department @ 814-353-2320 Office 814-353-2318 Fax or by email @ mrickard@bellefonte.net

bellefonte.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gricar-flyer-2007.doc

[J. J. in Phila]

The 4/16/05 press conference was carried by media in Central Pennsylvania Media Market (CPMM); Lewisburg is not in the CPMM.

The local newspaper's website and the local television station's website did not carry the story as of the early morning of 4/17/05. We've been over all of this.

[gstickley]

The 4/16/05 press conference was carried by media in Central Pennsylvania Media Market (CPMM); Lewisburg is not in the CPMM.

The local newspaper's website and the local television station's website did not carry the story as of the early morning of 4/17/05. We've been over all of this.

Go back & read Posts #140, #141, #142 of this thread.

[2-B]

Yes, we've been over "this" all before, and it's clear that there were folks in Lewisburg who knew about Gricar's disappearance Saturday evening.

Obviously, news gets around by means other than local newspaper and local TV websites.

I second GS's advice to re-read posts #140, #141, #142 of this thread.

Comprehend. Absorb.

[2-B]

Go back & read Posts #140, #141, #142 of this thread.

Let's also add this, GS:

The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

[gstickley]

(snip)

This is the official Bellefonte PD Missing Person Flier information on Ray Gricar.

MISSING PERSON
RAY FRANK GRICAR

Last Seen April 15, 2005 Bellefonte, Pennsylvania
(snip)

There have been “sightings" of Ray over the past two years (unconfirmed).
(snip)

bellefonte.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gricar-flyer-2007.doc

This missing person flier is dated 2007, with updates in 01/09 & 07/09.

[Politigal]

This missing person flier is dated 2007, with updates in 01/09 & 07/09.

Exactly right -- "last modified" July 7, 2009

http://bellefonte.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/

so, that means "Unconfirmed" with regard to all the witness sightings still stands in 2009

[2-B]

Exactly right -- "last modified" July 7, 2009

http://bellefonte.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/

so, that means "Unconfirmed" with regard to all the witness sightings still stands in 2009

And it means last seen in Bellefonte still stands as well.

[ladyheartfixer]

And it means last seen in Bellefonte still stands as well.

but last seen in Bellefonte by whom? we have the video...and then a person who says she saw him last in her home...I could say the same thing...but would it be true?

[2-B]

but last seen in Bellefonte by whom? we have the video...and then a person who says she saw him last in her home...I could say the same thing...but would it be true?

Excellent questions, LHF. I've been puzzling over the wording and the dating (April 15) in that flyer myself since I made the "Bellefonte" post yesterday.

The video was April 14. The AMW site has always had a page using the 4/14/05 date and it's never been clear whether that's a deliberate choice.

http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/brief.cfm?id=31411

The 4/14/05 date would at least be confirmed by objective evidence.

A 4/15/05 date, would, as you say, be confirmed only by report, not by objective evidence.

I can understand the FBI flyer simply stating "Missing Person April 15, 2005, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania."

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/gricar_rf.htm

That likely refers to the date and place of the missing persons' report.

The wording of the BPD flyer is distinctly different, saying specifically, "Last Seen April 15, 2005 Bellefonte, Pennsylvania."

:confused:

[Politigal]

is there any physical evidence of Ray Gricar being anywhere Friday, whether it be at home or in the car or on the phone....

not to my knowledge

[J. J. in Phila]

is there any physical evidence of Ray Gricar being anywhere Friday, whether it be at home or in the car or on the phone....

not to my knowledge


His scent, and the DNA, technically.

[2-B]

is there any physical evidence of Ray Gricar being anywhere Friday, whether it be at home or in the car or on the phone....

not to my knowledge

None to my knowledge. That's one of the reasons I asked awhile back about breakfast and breakfast dishes. If the dishwasher had been run and emptied Thursday night, and if there breakfast dishes with RG's fingerprints and DNA on them, it might be a step toward physical evidence of his presence in the house on Friday morning, had any of that evidence been collected.

Otherwise, JJ's oft repeated demand for evidence that Gricar was somewhere other than Lewisburg on Friday is specious. There's no objective evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg on Friday, either.

[Politigal]

His scent, and the DNA, technically.

Technically - his scent was found where his vehicle was found. His DNA was found on a water bottle inside the vehicle.

*Neither* are evidence of when or where Gricar was that day.

[Politigal]

None to my knowledge. That's one of the reasons I asked awhile back about breakfast and breakfast dishes. If the dishwasher had been run and emptied Thursday night, and if there breakfast dishes with RG's fingerprints and DNA on them, it might be a step toward physical evidence of his presence in the house on Friday morning, had any of that evidence been collected.

Otherwise, JJ's oft repeated demand for evidence that Gricar was somewhere other than Lewisburg on Friday is specious. There's no objective evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg on Friday, either.

There's no objective evidence that Gricar was in Bellefonte either....

[2-B]

His scent, and the DNA, technically.

[bolding mine]

Pgal, I wonder if "technically" means like a "technical foul" in basketball or "he got off on a technicality" in a trial. He didn't really commit a foul, but we'll charge him with one. He's not really exonerated, but we have to let him off based on this loophole. The scent and the DNA don't really prove RG was there, but we'll say that they do. . . . :wink:

[Politigal]

Going back to the beginning when the car was found in Lewisburg ---

Police opened the Mini Cooper & immediately noticed the smell of cigarette smoke and found cigarette ash in the passenger floorboard.

They obtained DNA from the butts but it was reported that the butts probably were not related to the case. They ran the nuclear DNA thru codis with no hits. Later they obtained mitochondrial DNA for testing per reports. But did they ask any of RG & PF's friends who smoke to contribute DNA???

Police also found an exercise cassette tape by the rear passenger tire, and watched it, and determined it also probably wasn't related to the case.

Why didn't police ever provide the contents of that exercise cassette to the public - in an effort to determine who it might have belonged to?

Finally, the last verifiable sighting of Ray Gricar was when he worked late at the courthouse Thurs night 4/14/05 at approx 9:15pm as he was leaving the building. Why have police never shown that video?

This case is truly maddening.....:crying:

[2-B]

Going back to the beginning when the car was found in Lewisburg ---

Police opened the Mini Cooper & immediately noticed the smell of cigarette smoke and found cigarette ash in the passenger floorboard.

They obtained DNA from the butts but it was reported that the butts probably were not related to the case. They ran the nuclear DNA thru codis with no hits. Later they obtained mitochondrial DNA for testing per reports. But did they ask any of RG & PF's friends who smoke to contribute DNA???

Police also found an exercise cassette tape by the rear passenger tire, and watched it, and determined it also probably wasn't related to the case.

Why didn't police ever provide the contents of that exercise cassette to the public - in an effort to determine who it might have belonged to?

Finally, the last verifiable sighting of Ray Gricar was when he worked late at the courthouse Thurs night 4/14/05 at approx 9:15pm as he was leaving the building. Why have police never shown that video?

This case is truly maddening.....:crying:

Some time ago I remember watching a case on 48 Hours Mystery where a woman was killed in her home by an intruder. The husband killed the intruder and was hailed as a hero and treated as a victim for a couple of years--until two pieces of evidence that hadn't been given serious consideration started getting a second look.

I couldn't remember the names of people involved and wanted to look the case up--then saw that the episode recently re-ran on a night we weren't home. I was so disappointed I didn't get to catch the re-run!

What made an impression on me when I saw the first viewing was one of the two cops working the case saying something like, "Every case has pieces of evidence that don't fit and you just wind up ignoring."

In that particular case, a piece of paper with the family's name and a time written on it was left in the "intruder's" car. It turned out that the husband had set his wife up to be murdered, using a kind of wacko limo driver who had harassed her on a drive home from the airport shortly before her death. The cops had ignored the slip of paper. They'd also ignored something about positioning of the bodies in the original crime scene photos, which just got filed away without close study.

To make a long story short, that case stuck in my mind and has often made me wonder if the emphasis on certain things like the laptop in the RG case might not be keeping focus away from items that in the end could be more important. There have been times I've wondered whether the cigarette smoke, the ashes, and the cell phone being turned off might not be the most significant clues in the case. And like you, there are times I've wondered whether the aerobics tape isn't more significant than it has seemed.

Sometimes it feels as if we're trying to do a giant jigsaw puzzle of a polar bear on an ice flow in the middle of a blizzard . . . so hard to tell which white piece is important and which goes where.

[Politigal]

Great post 2-B and I agree -- the "little" things need a much closer look...and that still includes the 1/2day/whole day/call/the dog/ etc....IMO

[Politigal]

He is. But I'm glad he raised it again. I've been thinking about what he's apparently trying to accomplish.

It looks as if he's trying to strengthen witness credibility by arguing that what he calls this first witness, the one he claims reported to LE prior to Bennett, could not not have been influenced in any way by any "power of suggestion."

But his theory has multiple problems.

First, the sentence he keeps quoting as evidence--as a number of us have pointed out to him--doesn't mean what he says it does.

IF--and I repeat IF--the sentence had read "Zaccagni now describes the sighting as the first credible witness report of Gricar after he went missing," then JJ might have a leg to stand on.

But it doesn't say that. It says "Zaccagni now describes the witness report as the first credible sighting of Gricar after he went missing."

Second, the word "now." Zaccagni NOW describes. Sounds as if Det. Z is NOW discounting one or more earlier sightings in the timeline. I think the Packwood Museum sighting is off the table with this declaration. That's the woman who saw a Mini Cooper around noon and was focused on the car because she'd seen The Italian Job and liked the car in the movie. She said she saw a man who might have resembled Gricar, nothing very definitive in her wording IIRC.

And here's why I think that sighting was earlier than the MW sighting:

a) the CF sighting appears to have been discounted on the basis of the MW sighting.

[P]olice said it [the Fenton sighting] could not have been Gricar because he was spotted by witnesses in Lewisburg during the early afternoon.

Police said they dismissed the [Fenton] sighting because it did not fit their timeline of where Gricar supposedly was, at an antiques mall in Lewisburg.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/usedtobedoe/ar/t2226.htm

b) PF appears to indicate the MW sighting was in the early afternoon:

"His last words to me in that phone call (on April 15, 2005) was 'I love you.' You don't say 'I love you,' get that same response back and two hours later run off with another woman."

Two hours after the phone call would put Gricar with the MW around 1:15-1:30.

(same URL as above)

Curiously, I believe JJ has argued here and elsewhere that no Lewisburg sighting would have prevented the Fenton sighting from having been accurate. I am not arguing for the accuracy of any of the Lewisburg sightings. But I believe these clues tell us the timing of the MW sighting may well have been in the early afternoon and may be the sighting which made the Fenton sighting seem unlikely to investigators.

Meanwhile, back to the original issue, even if JJ were correct that the person who reported the MW sighting was the first of all the witnesses to report, prior to Bennett, he would still be incorrect that no influences could play a role in "the power of suggestion." Apparently he's failed to read the material from Elizabeth Loftus I provided. But then why should he bother. She's only one of the two biggest names in memory and witness identification in the country. She's only testified as an expert at hundreds of trials. She couldn't possibly shed any light on this issue. . . .

didn't realize you had already posted about the infamous "now" uttered by Zaccagni...lol

[2-B]

didn't realize you had already posted about the infamous "now" uttered by Zaccagni...lol

Didn't realize you'd posted this before I posted on the other thread! :ohmy:

[Politigal]

And, I don't think it would take a great deal of time to come up with the staging plan.....no criminal mastermind needed, just someone very *familiar.*

Bumping my own post because I still feel very strongly that someone very familiar killed Ray Gricar.

Someone very familiar with the death of his brother - someone very familiar with the scene at the river - someone aware of his antiquing - someone aware of perhaps his previous trips to Lewisburg - someone very closely associated with him - KILLED him.

JMHO

[Politigal]

back to the premise of someone "familiar" killing Gricar

don't you think it's possible that the perpetrator may have been aware of another red Mini Cooper in the Lewisburg area (not belonging to Gricar) and that might have been a reason for abandoning the car there?

We know that reportedly Gricar and Patty had both been to the Street of Shops before.

Isn't it possible they saw another red Mini Cooper when there and commented about it to someone else?

like "hey - we saw someone with the exact same model as Ray's when we were in Lewisburg..."

[J. J. in Phila]

back to the premise of someone "familiar" killing Gricar

don't you think it's possible that the perpetrator may have been aware of another red Mini Cooper in the Lewisburg area (not belonging to Gricar) and that might have been a reason for abandoning the car there?

We know that reportedly Gricar and Patty had both been to the Street of Shops before.

Isn't it possible they saw another red Mini Cooper when there and commented about it to someone else?

like "hey - we saw someone with the exact same model as Ray's when we were in Lewisburg..."

The Mini that was spotted the next day had Maryland plates; unless someone did prolonged surveillance of Lewisburg, that one wouldn't have turned up, even assuming that it just wasn't there for the week (I'm thinking a Bucknell student from Maryland).

They'd have to know the Mini would be in the area of the SOS on that day. That becomes very unlikely.

[2-B]

The Mini that was spotted the next day had Maryland plates; unless someone did prolonged surveillance of Lewisburg, that one wouldn't have turned up, even assuming that it just wasn't there for the week (I'm thinking a Bucknell student from Maryland).

They'd have to know the Mini would be in the area of the SOS on that day. That becomes very unlikely.

At one point (and again fairly recently) we've had a post on the board which referred to TG and, IIRC, his understanding at one point that an MW sighting with RG in a Mini Cooper had actually been traced to a local (Lewisburg) couple in their red and white Mini Cooper.

[J. J. in Phila]

At one point (and again fairly recently) we've had a post on the board which referred to TG and, IIRC, his understanding at one point that an MW sighting with RG in a Mini Cooper had actually been traced to a local (Lewisburg) couple in their red and white Mini Cooper.

Yes, but just going to Lewisburg before would not yield that information, even if someone saw it prior to 4/15. Just seeing a Mini in Lewisburg in March, wouldn't mean that the car would be there in April. It could have been a visitor's car. As you should be aware, unlike some states, PA plates don't list counties.

The person would also have to assume that the Mini would be in a 200-300 yard area.

[2-B]

Yes, but just going to Lewisburg before would not yield that information, even if someone saw it prior to 4/15. Just seeing a Mini in Lewisburg in March, wouldn't mean that the car would be there in April. It could have been a visitor's car. As you should be aware, unlike some states, PA plates don't list counties.

The person would also have to assume that the Mini would be in a 200-300 yard area.

I was simply pointing out that there was indeed a local red and white Mini Cooper in response to your focus on the Maryland Mini, JJ, not making any particular argument.

[Kirsten]

And the trashing continues . . .

Exactly what does your so-called "evidence" have to do with anything?

I dont remember anyone ever saying Ray Gricar was "perfect". But anyone with any humanity in his soul & one who does have reading comprehension might go back & read 2-Bs post, the one before this
2nd trashing.

However, I dont know why anyone would wonder about the "trashman", one who bragged about breaking up with his girl by e-mail. Not much feeling for his fellow man woman there, IMO.

[day2day]

but last seen in Bellefonte by whom? we have the video...and then a person who says she saw him last in her home...I could say the same thing...but would it be true?

Nice to "see you" lhf!! -I agree with you 100 percent. I will never believe that he was last seen in Bellefonte. IMO the truth is-the last sighting of Mr. Ray Gricar was in the courthouse on 4/14. The rest I beileve to be PA BS. JMO

[2-B]

Nice to "see you" lhf!! -I agree with you 100 percent. I will never believe that he was last seen in Bellefonte. IMO the truth is-the last sighting of Mr. Ray Gricar was in the courthouse on 4/14. The rest I beileve to be PA BS. JMO

Day! Bless your little heart. We thought we'd lost you completely. So good to see your virtual face around these parts!

One thing is certain--the last confirmed sighting of Ray Gricar is that courthouse video. Too much reliance IMO on unreliable witness identifications in some people's theories.

[gstickley]

Nice to "see you" lhf!! -I agree with you 100 percent. I will never believe that he was last seen in Bellefonte. IMO the truth is-the last sighting of Mr. Ray Gricar was in the courthouse on 4/14. The rest I beileve to be PA BS. JMO

Day, my "cyber daughter", I'm so glad to "see" you! We agreed on quite a lot, but the one thing we definitely agreed on was that the last sighting of Ray Gricar was at the courthouse on Thu., 04/14/05. :wub:

[gstickley]

And the trashing continues . . .

Exactly what does your so-called "evidence" have to do with anything?

I dont remember anyone ever saying Ray Gricar was "perfect". But anyone with any humanity in his soul & one who does have reading comprehension might go back & read 2-Bs post, the one before this
2nd trashing.

However, I dont know why anyone would wonder about the "trashman", one who bragged about breaking up with his girl by e-mail. Not much feeling for his fellow man woman there, IMO.

Hey Kirsten. Your post is 'right on'! :thumbsup:

I'm glad you're here, & I hope you'll stay.

[juror1]

Delurking on this thread, which seems to be the most active. I've been looking into grand juries in PA. While the indicting grand jury has been done away with, there are still investigating grand juries, which "develop evidence and solve difficult crimes," according to the AG's website. They also have the power of subpoena--of people and, perhaps most pertinent to the Gricar case, of documents like telephone and bank records. The DA can convene a county grand jury; the AG a multi-county one. I'm sure all this is known to you guys already, but, take pity, I'm a newbie.

Some questions: even though the investigation, to my knowledge, has not been classified as a criminal one, an investigating grand jury can look into "suspected criminal wrong-doing." Would SPM be able to use this to convene a grand jury? Also, are there any downsides to this (besides the fact that we couldn't be guaranteed to be on it!), as opposed to a new investigation conducted by, say, the PSP? Who else could SPM draw upon for a new investigation? I'm just curious to know what you all think.

Also, even though, yes, Gricar tried a lot of cases, it still seems pertinent to me to check high-profile ones that elicited threats. The case I was a juror on was scary in that regard. The family of the convicted killer started screaming at RG in court. I wonder if there were similar instances over his career. If there are to be "no stones unturned," looking under rocks like these shouldn't be ruled out. JMO.

Of course, all of this is moot if a. he walked away (which I still have trouble with) or b. there was foul play involving someone he knew.

In any case, as everyone agrees, we need more info. What's the best way to get it? Grand jury or new investigation?

[Politigal]

Delurking on this thread, which seems to be the most active. I've been looking into grand juries in PA. While the indicting grand jury has been done away with, there are still investigating grand juries, which "develop evidence and solve difficult crimes," according to the AG's website. They also have the power of subpoena--of people and, perhaps most pertinent to the Gricar case, of documents like telephone and bank records. The DA can convene a county grand jury; the AG a multi-county one. I'm sure all this is known to you guys already, but, take pity, I'm a newbie.

Some questions: even though the investigation, to my knowledge, has not been classified as a criminal one, an investigating grand jury can look into "suspected criminal wrong-doing." Would SPM be able to use this to convene a grand jury? Also, are there any downsides to this (besides the fact that we couldn't be guaranteed to be on it!), as opposed to a new investigation conducted by, say, the PSP? Who else could SPM draw upon for a new investigation? I'm just curious to know what you all think.

Also, even though, yes, Gricar tried a lot of cases, it still seems pertinent to me to check high-profile ones that elicited threats. The case I was a juror on was scary in that regard. The family of the convicted killer started screaming at RG in court. I wonder if there were similar instances over his career. If there are to be "no stones unturned," looking under rocks like these shouldn't be ruled out. JMO.

Of course, all of this is moot if a. he walked away (which I still have trouble with) or b. there was foul play involving someone he knew.

In any case, as everyone agrees, we need more info. What's the best way to get it? Grand jury or new investigation?

IMO, the investigation in this case was botched from the beginning - especially with Zaccagni in charge.

I still firmly believe a new investigation needs to occur - from scratch.

[gstickley]

IMO, the investigation in this case was botched from the beginning - especially with Zaccagni in charge.

I still firmly believe a new investigation needs to occur - from scratch.

I agree with you, Pgal. But I'm not sure the PSP is the way to go; they had their chance & muffed it.

[2-B]

I lean toward a new investigation because I've seen how empty-handed a grand jury can wind up. Been there, done that many years ago with the JBR grand jury. Watching Alex Hunter come to the microphones with a no true bill was one of the biggest disappointments I've ever had while following a true crime case.

[2-B]

And the trashing continues . . .

Exactly what does your so-called "evidence" have to do with anything?

I dont remember anyone ever saying Ray Gricar was "perfect". But anyone with any humanity in his soul & one who does have reading comprehension might go back & read 2-Bs post, the one before this
2nd trashing.

However, I dont know why anyone would wonder about the "trashman", one who bragged about breaking up with his girl by e-mail. Not much feeling for his fellow man woman there, IMO.

Hello Kirsten and welcome to the board.

If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious: is there a particular reason you took one of gstickley's posts from another thread and posted it here without using the quote feature, without mentioning that you were quoting GS, and without commenting on what GS had to say?

Was there some comment of your own you wanted to add?

[ladyheartfixer]

I lean toward a new investigation because I've seen how empty-handed a grand jury can wind up. Been there, done that many years ago with the JBR grand jury. Watching Alex Hunter come to the microphones with a no true bill was one of the biggest disappointments I've ever had while following a true crime case.

but....as in the JBR case...a lot has changed...yes, even in the 4+ years we are talking about...new methods... touch DNA...new additions to data banks (both AFIS and CODIS)...and most of all..the chance (yes, I will say it Saunterer ...keeping my fingers crossed the entire time) that a "fresh set of eyes" will make a difference. I have mixed feelings about the AG office taking the case due to the past DA being on his coatails and in his pocket...the PSP worked with what they were given..but who is to say it was really "everything". I was watching tv the other night and clicked over to find the "Haunted Evidence' episode on RG...made me think of a few things. It also made me really po'd that this case was sensationalized and used to make some people important...or was it impotent? Any way...just my 50 cents worth (and that won't buy you a cup of coffee at Micky D's anymore either).

[J. J. in Phila]

I lean toward a new investigation because I've seen how empty-handed a grand jury can wind up. Been there, done that many years ago with the JBR grand jury. Watching Alex Hunter come to the microphones with a no true bill was one of the biggest disappointments I've ever had while following a true crime case.

You make a couple of assumptions.

1. That there was an indictable crime in the RFG case.

2. That LE has been able to, and has, verified the whereabouts of the "Inner Circle," and has looked at all the evidence.

Those are both facts not in evidence. BTW: If this was a crime and no indictment could be returned by a grand jury, what possibly makes you think that there could be an indictment without one?

The old saying, that "A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" comes into play.

It sounds to me like someone doesn't want the case investigated.

[2-B]

Good grief, JJ. You make a lot of assumptions about what I'm thinking, and you have no idea what I'm thinking. You know what they say about assuming.

And BTW, it was very, very clear there was an indictable crime in the JBR case. The old ham sandwich came up empty there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Good grief, JJ. You make a lot of assumptions about what I'm thinking, and you have no idea what I'm thinking. You know what they say about assuming.

And BTW, it was very, very clear there was an indictable crime in the JBR case. The old ham sandwich came up empty there.

All that I can see is that you don't want a potential investigative tool used in the RFG case, one BB has actually suggested. Why is that?

BTW, even if one grand jury would fail to indict, that would not prevent one in the future from indicting.

[sherrijean981]

Hello Kirsten and welcome to the board.

If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious: is there a particular reason you took one of gstickley's posts from another thread and posted it here without using the quote feature, without mentioning that you were quoting GS, and without commenting on what GS had to say?

Was there some comment of your own you wanted to add?


I think she added it with the first sentence:

Post by Kirsten:
"and the trashing continues...."

Probably reads the forum all the time like many of us and being an outsider, only 1 post, even she can see the lay of the land on here. All of us newbies sitting here shaking our heads. :rolleyes:

[2-B]

I think she added it with the first sentence:

Post by Kirsten:
"and the trashing continues...."

Probably reads the forum all the time like many of us and being an outsider, only 1 post, even she can see the lay of the land on here. All of us newbies sitting here shaking our heads. :rolleyes:

This is GS's post, verbatim:

And the trashing continues . . .

Exactly what does your so-called "evidence" have to do with anything?

I don't remember anyone ever saying Ray Gricar was "perfect". But anyone with any humanity in his soul (& one who does have reading comprehension) might go back & read 2-B's post, the one before this
2nd trashing.

However, I don't know why anyone would wonder about the "trashman", one who bragged about breaking up with his girl by e-mail. Not much feeling for his fellow man (woman) there, IMO.

Exactly what Kirsten posted, including the first sentence.

So I am still puzzled why she would take GS's post from another thread without using the quote feature, without mentioning she was quoting GS's post, and without adding any comment of her own. Don't you find that curious?

[sherrijean981]

This is GS's post, verbatim:



Exactly what Kirsten posted, including the first sentence.

So I am still puzzled why she would take GS's post from another thread without using the quote feature, without mentioning she was quoting GS's post, and without adding any comment of her own. Don't you find that curious?


Curious on the Ray Gricar forum? Curious at almost 5 years later? No, that doesn't make me curious. I have a whole lot more that makes me curious and it has to do with the attitudes of some towards JJ. I don't even find him curious. Amazing! would do it, with all the abuse he takes on here. :thumbdown:

[2-B]

Curious on the Ray Gricar forum? Curious at almost 5 years later? No, that doesn't make me curious. I have a whole lot more that makes me curious and it has to do with the attitudes of some towards JJ. I don't even find him curious. Amazing! would do it, with all the abuse he takes on here. :thumbdown:

Let me see if I understand you.

Are you saying that if someone took one of your posts or one of your friends' posts (say your buddy JJ, for instance), then 1) posted it under his/her name, 2) totally out of context, 3) on another thread, 4) under his/her name as if he/she had written it, that wouldn't make you at all curious?

I was trying to give newbie poster "Kirsten" the benefit of the doubt by asking whether there was some comment she had meant to attach to what I knew GS had written on another thread. Short of some newbie problem with using the quote feature combined with forgetting to add a comment, it's plagiarism just to take someone else's words, SJ. I doubt you would want someone else to take your words and pass them off as his/her own, and I imagine you might be a bit upset if someone did that. As I say, I was giving "Kirsten" the benefit of the doubt.

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks SJ, but, despite some folks efforts, the thread is about RFG, no me.

I didn't see any "trashing" of RFG on that thread, especially since the comment was that his DNA was found in the water bottle and his scent in the parking lot.

[sherrijean981]

Let me see if I understand you.

Are you saying that if someone took one of your posts or one of your friends' posts (say your buddy JJ, for instance), then 1) posted it under his/her name, 2) totally out of context, 3) on another thread, 4) under his/her name as if he/she had written it, that wouldn't make you at all curious?

I was trying to give newbie poster "Kirsten" the benefit of the doubt by asking whether there was some comment she had meant to attach to what I knew GS had written on another thread. Short of some newbie problem with using the quote feature combined with forgetting to add a comment, it's plagiarism just to take someone else's words, SJ. I doubt you would want someone else to take your words and pass them off as his/her own, and I imagine you might be a bit upset if someone did that. As I say, I was giving "Kirsten" the benefit of the doubt.

It is a minor thing to me. The person hasn't posted before, obviously she isn't aware of the rights or wrong of quotes and maybe that is just how she feels. I amnot sure JJ would even get mad, maybe "amazed" that a newbie would quote him. Why not just pass over it and continue with the investigation. A wast of time and energy, and isn't there a saying about "picking your fights"?

[sherrijean981]

Thanks SJ, but, despite some folks efforts, the thread is about RFG, no me.

I didn't see any "trashing" of RFG on that thread, especially since the comment was that his DNA was found in the water bottle and his scent in the parking lot.


I wasn't saying anyone trashed RFG on the thread. I was saying maybe it was meant about the trashing of you again. The constant bickering about something things minor that make no difference on who said what, did what, thought what. The time taken to constantly attack your words are taking time away from RFG. Is that the purpose?

If a newbie is reading, say the last week, she can probably pick up on that fact immediately. Others have come back on and said about it. Read the recent post of some who have been away for a while. We don't won't to hear it, we want to see what you intelligent people, who know all about investigations, have to offer, not listen to the bickering.

And if you think SPM is going to ask for help from anyone on here, after reading posts even from the last year, I think you might be disappointed. JMHO

[Politigal]

Let me see if I understand you.

Are you saying that if someone took one of your posts or one of your friends' posts (say your buddy JJ, for instance), then 1) posted it under his/her name, 2) totally out of context, 3) on another thread, 4) under his/her name as if he/she had written it, that wouldn't make you at all curious?

I was trying to give newbie poster "Kirsten" the benefit of the doubt by asking whether there was some comment she had meant to attach to what I knew GS had written on another thread. Short of some newbie problem with using the quote feature combined with forgetting to add a comment, it's plagiarism just to take someone else's words, SJ. I doubt you would want someone else to take your words and pass them off as his/her own, and I imagine you might be a bit upset if someone did that. As I say, I was giving "Kirsten" the benefit of the doubt.

It is puzzling why newbie Kristen posted GStickley's post in it's entirety without using the quote feature and without adding her own comment... But, I think on that same day there was a spammer who also posted some weird hyperlink. Who knows....may have been kids playing around with the forum. They obviously just copied and pasted.

[2-B]

It is a minor thing to me. The person hasn't posted before, obviously she isn't aware of the rights or wrong of quotes and maybe that is just how she feels. I amnot sure JJ would even get mad, maybe "amazed" that a newbie would quote him. Why not just pass over it and continue with the investigation. A wast of time and energy, and isn't there a saying about "picking your fights"?

You seem to be the one coming on this thread an assuming anyone is picking a fight, SJ. As I made abundantly clear, I opened the door for "Kirsten" to add any comment to GS's post she might have wanted to, giving her the benefit of the doubt. That's not picking a fight.

OTOH, taking someone else's post may be "minor" to you, but it sure isn't to our moderator Coldwater.

Perhaps you've forgotten that for a long while, we had a sticky at the top of this board with an warning about how everyone needed to be certain to use the quote feature. What someone writes is his/her intellectual property. No one can just take it and post it as if it were their own. There'd be anarchy and chaos on this board if anyone could just swoop in and take anyone's post, then re-post it under another name. I'm glad Coldwater had that warning up. It just happened to be GS in this case, but if any of our board posters (including you or JJ) had their posts lifted and posted under someone else's name, I would find it curious and it would bother me, because it would reduce the integrity of this board. It's also intellectual theft (which is why CW had the warning up).

Why you want to go off on some tangent about JJ being "abused" and people bickering, I have no clue. The "Kirsten" question for me is one of board integrity and not related to whatever tangent you're on.

And on a side note, it's been pointed out to me today that "Kirsten's" version has slightly different punctuation than GS's version did, so I don't think a "newbie mistake" necessarily explains what happened.

Integrity matters to me. That's worth worrying about, IMO. Heck, integrity is one thing I admired most about Ray Gricar.

[2-B]

Does that offer include the non-Yuengling posts?

[2-B]

Do you have any other (more relevant) questions for me?

Now that you mention it, I wrote a rather detailed observation in response to your "big secret" post on another thread. Perhaps you were too busy tossing sarcastic lobs to have noticed. Oh well. No matter.

[2-B]

Busy then? ... yes, I suppose. But no matter. What do you want to talk about while SPM gets up to speed ... plagiarism?

Let's see, Saunterer old fellow.

This morning I started a thread about Habit and Custom Evidence. Haven't seen you contribute anything useful to that discussion which might be helpful for your girl SPM to read about should she chance upon this board. I wanted to talk about habit and custom evidence. You wanted to lob sarcasm.

Tonight, I took the time to write a thoughtful response to one of your posts and you ignored it in favor of . . . well, lobbing sarcasm.

On this particular thread, all I did was make one post to ol' "Kirsten" asking if she had something to add to a post she'd lifted from GS, when SJ decided to turn that into a totally unrelated tangent about how poor JJ is abused here. I ignored that tangent and explained to her about CW's sticky and board integrity. If that's a problem for you, tough. You had ample opportunities today to engage in conversations I started on issues germane to the Gricar case. Who dropped the ball on that count? Not me, baby.

[Politigal]

I do agree that we tend to get bogged down in the minutiae of this case....but what else is there?

Until SPM gets into office and "tears" thru the file, we're left with what we've got.

And IMO, MM is probably squirming right about now.

[Cloudbuster]

We once had a poster named barebrick on here (long gone) who gave us a Bread Crumlet. I would be curious to see how others view this.

Okay refer to hexgram 53, line 3. of the I ching, (use the legge version) thats our bread crumblet. What does that mean?

Then barebrick started a poll titled Philly Detective Frank P Geyer
Moonlighting In Philedelphia: Frank P Geyer

You could vote on one of these
Ever hear of Frank Geyer, Philadelphia, PA?
Do you know what state he is orginally from?
Could he have traveled to whitechapel, UK?
Could he have traveled to Chicago, IL?

I still would like to know what these things mean?:confused:

[ladyheartfixer]

We once had a poster named barebrick on here (long gone) who gave us a Bread Crumlet. I would be curious to see how others view this.

Okay refer to hexgram 53, line 3. of the I ching, (use the legge version) thats our bread crumblet. What does that mean?

Then barebrick started a poll titled Philly Detective Frank P Geyer
Moonlighting In Philedelphia: Frank P Geyer

You could vote on one of these
Ever hear of Frank Geyer, Philadelphia, PA?
Do you know what state he is orginally from?
Could he have traveled to whitechapel, UK?
Could he have traveled to Chicago, IL?

I still would like to know what these things mean?:confused:


ok...I love a good puzzle...I looked up the I Ching and found what I believe to be the crumlet from that...

3. The third nine, undivided, shows them gradually advanced to the dry plains. (It suggests also the idea of) a husband who goes on an expedition from which he does not return, and of a wife who is pregnant, but will not nourish her child. There will be evil. (The case symbolized) might be advantageous in resisting plunderers.

then I looked up the detective and found a post elsewhere......

Hi, I'm new on this board, would like to start by saying I'm one who has an interest in solving crime and detective stories since I don't do this for a living. I would like to post something hopefully worth mentioning about Detective Geyer, who worked on the Mudgett case in 1890 since I am one who believes there is a link between Herman Mudgett and Jack the Ripper.

Detective Geyer is an investigator who wrote a police memoir titled "The Holmes-Pitezel Case" about the Mudgett murders, which Geyer solved. The book was written about 1896 at the turn of the century and is fascinating. I procured a copy for about three weeks from the Seattle library and reading through it I felt that Det. Geyer must be the true Sherlock Holmes.

Interestingly enough, all copies of "The Holmes-Pitezel Case" have been actually stolen from the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, as of the last time I checked and emailed one of the librarians there from here in Florida where I live. I wanted to reserve a better copy of the book. The librarian did not seem too knowledgable about Detective Geyer, surprisingly enough, but did tell me that the police memoir was gone. Unsurprisingly enough, Herman Mudgett wrote his own version of the crime which is still there at the DC library, published about the same time Detective Geyer authored "The Holmes-Pitezel Case".

What I would like to know is how to find out more about Detective Frank Geyer from Philadelphi, PA. Which police officer in the Ripper case is comparable to this American detective?

last of all White Chapel, UK was the site of the Jack the Ripper murders...am goig to work on this more...especially the DC connection...

[2-B]

LHF, thanks for resurrecting that old barebrick post.

You might find this site interesting. I remember tooling around it trying to solve the RG puzzle at one point. I came up empty. Maybe you'll fare better than I!

http://www.prairieghosts.com/holmes.html

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks ladyheartF!!! Keep working at it you definatly are understanding more than I ever will. I think I know who the DC connection is but I still don't see how RG was connected to the individual other than perhaps thru the drug cartel. Perhaps a woman brought thru some information to RG and it was dangerous.

On a side note im reading a book and the author is no longer with us. Interestingly he brings up FEMA detention centers and Allenwood Penetentary is mentioned as one. He says it easily converts to 1,200 prisioners. He also claims that Fema is not what you think it is. Anyone interested in the book can PM me if you want the title and authors name. I wish not to put it up on here.

[ladyheartfixer]

it truely is interesting...the idea that Holmes was a serial killer across many states and the story of his exploits is difficult to fathom. Still serching but the I Ching and this info gives one pause....

[puzzled]

I too was very interested in what crumbs barebrick left for us. Someon by that name ordered that book on Amazon.com....I believe he lives in Florida. I feel that this person definitely knows what happened to Ray. I wanted to order the book but it was VERY expensive. Keep digging guys. Some day this case will be solved!

[Politigal]

from the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit --

As most homicides are committed by someone known to the victim, police focus on the relationships closest to the victim.

But in this case....it doesn't appear that was the focus of police.

[Politigal]

from the Dept of Justice - FBI 2006 Crime in the United States report:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

In incidents of murder where the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 21.6 percent of victims were slain by family members, 23.1 percent were murdered by strangers, and 55.3 percent were killed by someone with whom they were acquainted (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 9.)

[J. J. in Phila]

from the Dept of Justice - FBI 2006 Crime in the United States report:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

In incidents of murder where the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 21.6 percent of victims were slain by family members, 23.1 percent were murdered by strangers, and 55.3 percent were killed by someone with whom they were acquainted (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 9.)

Which really does not tell us a lot, including if RFG was murdered.

[Politigal]

Parallels H-Sphere (http://www.raygricar.com/images/picher.jpg) maybe ... a new look (and utility) to raygricar.com? I hope so.

I think those images are just from the web hosting site

http://raygricar.com/images/

[J. J. in Phila]

I think those images are just from the web hosting site

http://raygricar.com/images/

No, those look like the graphics.

[Politigal]

No, those look like the graphics.

no, take a look at the bottom left here

http://raygricar.com/sitephotos

This page is autogenerated by Parallels® H-Sphere


http://www.parallels.com/download/hsphere/

Parallels H-Sphere delivers a multi-server hosting automation solution for Linux, BSD, and Windows platforms. H-Sphere includes its own controls panels, automated billing, and provisioning solution in a single integrated system. It is scalable to any number of boxes — more Web, mail, database, and Windows hosting servers can be added without downtime.

[J. J. in Phila]

That led to an error message.

[Politigal]

That led to an error message.

yes, you can still look at the bottom left.....

[J. J. in Phila]

yes, you can still look at the bottom left.....

I still get no photos.

[Politigal]

I still get no photos.

I was attempting to show you the link for Parallel H-sphere.....

is your keyboard in braille?

[J. J. in Phila]

I was attempting to show you the link for Parallel H-sphere.....

is your keyboard in braille?

It is the site of Parallel Optimizing Computing. I think you better check again.

[Politigal]

It is the site of Parallel Optimizing Computing. I think you better check again.

you just didn't read JJ ...or follow the links I posted.


never mind...it's not worth it

[J. J. in Phila]

you just didn't read JJ ...or follow the links I posted.


never mind...it's not worth it

I did. I clicked both: This page is autogenerated by Parallels® H-Sphere


No photos.

[Politigal]

I did. I clicked both: This page is autogenerated by Parallels® H-Sphere


No photos.

if you really followed the H-sphere link you would have found the logo

[Politigal]

It sure is taking some time to get that site back up.......wonder what the hold-up is?

[Politigal]

http://tinyurl.com/nry6qm

Theory Two: SUICIDE. The family history supports this. Tony Gricar
tracked down aerial photographs of both the site where his father's
car was found by a river in Dayton and from North Water Street where
Ray's car was parked by the Susquehanna. The similarities are
striking. The bridge, the water, the car are all in the same place in relation to each other.

JJ suggested that perhaps Gricar had made a specific diagram of the site where his brother's suicide occurred....and that's *very* possible. Steve Sloane has said that Gricar studied maps & made notes about those maps (in an email to me.) And Sloane told the CDT this:

AGood questions. I don't think I've ever said this publically before, but it has always intrigued me. Ray kept a road atlas of the United States in one of his desk drawers in his courthouse office. Ray's best friend, Assistant District Attorney Steve Sloane told me about it. Steve said he had scenic driving routes highlighted in yellow all across the country

Per the Dayton Daily News Gricar's brother's car was found abandoned at Veteran's Park in Dayton. I found a photo/map here of the general area:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14272829

And Sloane just keeps popping up on the "radar" IMO

[J. J. in Phila]

P'gal, please tell me where I have ever suggested that RFG made a diagram of Roy's suicide site?

I have suggested that there is no real resemblance between Lewisburg and the sight of Roy's suicide. And I provided a link to the map. I did so on October 22, 2009. The title is "How Similar?"

[Politigal]

P'gal, please tell me where I have ever suggested that RFG made a diagram of Roy's suicide site?

snipped

your post #32 in this thread

unless they were there or RFG made some very specific diagrams.

[J. J. in Phila]

your post #32 in this thread

unless they were there or RFG made some very specific diagrams.

P'gal, I said RFG made specific diagrams. :rolleyes:

In fact, I've made it clear that the site of Roy's suicide is not a good match with Lewisburg, using maps and/or satellite photos. The is a full blog on the differences.

[Politigal]

P'gal, I said RFG made specific diagrams. :rolleyes:

In fact, I've made it clear that the site of Roy's suicide is not a good match with Lewisburg, using maps and/or satellite photos. The is a full blog on the differences.

As has been pointed out before, Ray Gricar's family *and* colleagues disagree with you....

[Cloudbuster]

JJ suggested that perhaps Gricar had made a specific diagram of the site where his brother's suicide occurred....and that's *very* possible. Steve Sloane has said that Gricar studied maps & made notes about those maps (in an email to me.) And Sloane told the CDT this:

AGood questions. I don't think I've ever said this publically before, but it has always intrigued me. Ray kept a road atlas of the United States in one of his desk drawers in his courthouse office. Ray's best friend, Assistant District Attorney Steve Sloane told me about it. Steve said he had scenic driving routes highlighted in yellow all across the country

Per the Dayton Daily News Gricar's brother's car was found abandoned at Veteran's Park in Dayton. I found a photo/map here of the general area:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14272829

And Sloane just keeps popping up on the "radar" IMO

Pgal could you ask Steve if the routes included Route 66? Ask him if even the old route 66 was on Rays maps. This is a important question I have had for a while. On my paranormal tape is a song sung about 66. I have only come up with him meaning route 66 and i think it could mean the old route 66 its scenic I hear. The song thats sung is referencing this persons past. Please oh please ask him?

[Politigal]

Pgal could you ask Steve if the routes included Route 66? Ask him if even the old route 66 was on Rays maps. This is a important question I have had for a while. On my paranormal tape is a song sung about 66. I have only come up with him meaning route 66 and i think it could mean the old route 66 its scenic I hear. The song thats sung is referencing this persons past. Please oh please ask him?

he hasn't answered subsequent emails.....I think Tony probably told him to to steer clear of me...lol

where is route 66 in Pa ?

[Cloudbuster]

Pgal Im not sure where all the route leads. Its just referenced in a song that is sung on the tape in connection to his past. Also wherever he is at there is a church they pasted. Although he uses the word welcome to the chapel. I was told its the same as a church reference. Weirdly someone that used to be on here said there is a church in a strange spot right near that warehouse in Milton. I don't know if that would be the church but its a thought. If that was to be the church then he is not far from there. He (or whatever) said its only one house down from Sparkles you go around back near the woods. The place at the time had excess to eqiupment that sounds like a digging machine perhaps a bobcat. The other sound of equipment sounds like a possible concrete mixer (im unsure about that though). I will also say I was surprised that JKA plays piano at a church but might not mean anything. He also plays pretty music with birds singing peacefully to emphasize tha woods.

[Cloudbuster]

I also heard people walking on hard wood plank boards. That to me either exists in a warehouse or a barn. Its very specific in sound. While im thinking about it you should also know that a woman's voice enters after she walked on those hardwood plank boards. The man in my tape begins to beg her to tell those who was there , he says " I love you so much I want you to tell them". He repeats that a few times and the she gets extremely angry and is loudly mad. She would not help the man in my tape. After the sound of what sounded like a brawl the woman told those that was there "YOU LIED YOUR MURDERS". They responded to the she by saying "we're not." M..... wanted tou to know he stumled on"(I deliberitly left his name out) thats the next part I can't make heads or tails on. Its obvious the man in my tape stumbled on something. Then you hear the lady walk accross the plank boards and she left. Then thats when one man says to the other man what sounds like this "Sparkles start one". After that it takes about a minute or so and the machine is started.

Im not going to say the man in the tape is our Ray, because I know you all think Im nuts and so lol. Its okay I don't care what folks think about me. I was asked on that tape to deliver a message which I did way back on here, and I didn't take that request lightly. I was loyal and felt I had no choice but to say it, out of loyality to the request to whatever it was that asked me to do it. I can't help if no one is really listening. I was relieved after I delivered it. Also if it is not our Ray on that tape then tell me why he speaks about Lara and Patty? Honestly folks what is the odds of that????????????? I do hope Steve Sloane reads these 2 posts and maybe something will jive with what Im saying, because someone out there and you know who you are has to have some idea of what I revealed or at least a thought of something here clicking to them. The lady in tape can't point to too many IMHO. I hope someone that knows Ray and was close to him and reads this and see what clicks to him or her.

[ladyheartfixer]

there is a route 66 in western pa...runs from kane south-west to I 80. there is also route 6 that runs across the northern counties of the state from one side to the other....just fyi