Seventeen Facts

[2-B]

I guess I'm losing patience with definitive claims based on things that can't be proven. Why are we reading here and in blogland that certain theories can be eliminated/should be off the table or that certain "truths" can be accepted as "beyond a reasonable doubt" when these conclusions are based on facts not in evidence?

I mentioned on another thread that objective, hard evidence (publicly released) was in short supply in this case.

IMHO, the following list represents the major, central, objectively proven facts the public has in this case:

*********
1. Ray was seen on security camera video entering the courthouse shortly after 6 p.m. on Thursday 4/14 and leaving shortly after 9 p.m.

2. A call was made from the Brush Valley area to the courthouse using Ray's county-issued cell phone Friday morning, 11:15-ish.

3. PF called the BPD to report Ray missing at approximately 11:30 p.m. Friday night.

4. The Mini Cooper was found by police early Saturday evening in the SOS lot in Lewisburg.

5. Search dogs alerted to Ray's scent in the vicinity of where the Mini Cooper had been parked in the SOS lot.

6. Ray's wallet, sunglasses, and keys were not in the car. His cell phone was in the car, along with a water bottle which had his DNA on it.

7. Cigarette ash was found in the Mini Cooper on passenger side floor.

8. The Mini Cooper smelled of smoke when LE opened it.

9. Ray's laptop was not in the case in the closet on Sunday 4/17.

10. The laptop was recovered from the river near the SOS approximately four months after the disappearance.

11 .A hard drive, most likely but not definitively the one belonging to the laptop, was recovered from the river near the SOS approximately two months after the laptop was found.

12. Despite several attempts to read the hard drive by various experts, no data has been recovered from the hard drive.

13. One readable fingerprint identified as Ray's was found on the outside of the Mini Cooper.

14. Ray's bank accounts and credit cards have been untouched since his disappearance

15. Ray's brother's death was ruled a suicide 9 years prior to Ray's disappearance

16. Nothing in Ray's medical records indicate he had sought help for mental health issues or suffered from mental health issues or other medical conditions that might have caused him to commit suicide or walk away.

17. Computer searches were done on Ray and Patty's home computer for software related to erasing hard drives and for search terms related to destroying hard drives.

**********

I may have missed a few major, central facts, which I'll be happy to add. But I've deliberately left off minor issues and any issues which call for speculation (i.e., which in and of themselves are not objectively provable).

IMHO, any claims that "X" can be eliminated or that "Y" definitely happened--unless based on objective, hard evidence--are problematic.

For myself, any time I have to leave the objective, hard evidence list, I'm happy to stick with "most likely," "it seems to me," "I tend to believe," etc.

Just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[Politigal]

Sadly, I don't think there will be many more posts on this thread...

The facts in this case are too few & far between...that's for sure.

[gstickley]

Thank you for compiling the facts, Pgal. These are the facts as we know them; everything else is speculation or, in most cases, complete hogwash.

This is my opinion to which I am entitled.

[Politigal]

Credit for this thread goes to 2-B :)

[gstickley]

You & 2-B both think alike! Sorry 2-B!

Thank you 2-B for compiling the facts. These are the facts as we know them; everything else is speculation, or in most cases, hogwash.

[J. J. in Phila]

You obviously forgot the witness reports (which are just that), the fact that RFG was interested in destroying the data on the drive.

Since we are entitled to an opinion, that list, leaving off those key facts, seems agenda driven.

[Politigal]

You obviously forgot the witness reports (which are just that), the fact that RFG was interested in destroying the data on the drive.

Since we are entitled to an opinion, that list, leaving off those key facts, seems agenda driven.

There is no factual information that says RG was interested in "destroying" anything. There is information that says he was interested in erasing the data on the laptop in prep for retirement.

And, there is information that *someone* used the home computer and did later searches for how to destroy a hard drive.

[2-B]

You obviously forgot the witness reports (which are just that), the fact that RFG was interested in destroying the data on the drive.

Since we are entitled to an opinion, that list, leaving off those key facts, seems agenda driven.

Opening post:

But I've deliberately left off minor issues and any issues which call for speculation (i.e., which in and of themselves are not objectively provable).

1. That witnesses made reports is a fact but a minor detail since anything flowing from those reports is not confirmed or proven.

Thus, nothing about the witnesses belongs on this list. That's not agenda--it's the parameters of the list, i.e., what do we have publicly known which is proven and irrefutable?

2. We don't know that Ray was interested in destroying the data on the hard drive (or as you repeatedly keep saying, that "there was something on the drive he didn't want to see the light of day").

We are told that he asked friends and colleagues about ways to erase a hard drive. Since an inquiry about erasing a hard drive could have been a pre-retirement inquiry before returning the laptop to the county (perhaps used against him by someone who later set him up) OR the something more nefarious you insinuate, I did not include it on this list. By itself, that inquiry may mean nothing. What flows from it isn't provable.

I did, however, include the provable fact that searches were done on the home computer belonging to RG and PF.

There's no agenda in this list, JJ. It is objective and factual, both in its paramenters for selection and in its wording.

[2-B]

Logic, GS, and Pgal, thanks for the thanks. :smile:

I thought it was time we took stock of what we actually have to work with that's proven in this case.

[J. J. in Phila]

Opening post:



1. That witnesses made reports is a fact but a minor detail since anything flowing from those reports is not confirmed or proven.

Thus, nothing about the witnesses belongs on this list. That's not agenda--it's the parameters of the list, i.e., what do we have publicly known which is proven and irrefutable?

2. We don't know that Ray was interested in destroying the data on the hard drive (or as you repeatedly keep saying, that "there was something on the drive he didn't want to see the light of day").

We are told that he asked friends and colleagues about ways to erase a hard drive. Since an inquiry about erasing a hard drive could have been a pre-retirement inquiry before returning the laptop to the county (perhaps used against him by someone who later set him up) OR the something more nefarious you insinuate, I did not include it on this list. By itself, that inquiry may mean nothing. What flows from it isn't provable.

I did, however, include the provable fact that searches were done on the home computer belonging to RG and PF.

There's no agenda in this list, JJ. It is objective and factual, both in its paramenters for selection and in its wording.

Of course we do know that RFG was interested in destroying the drive. Almost a year ago, it was reported that he asked people about it. We don't what data he never wanted to see the light of day. That doesn't have anything to do with the searches.

[J. J. in Phila]

Some interesting tidbits:

1. PEF was intensely interviewed by the PSP. No flags were raised and that was reported.

2. PEF's residence was checked by LE (and nothing was found to even suggest that Lumisol be used). Nothing was amiss.

3. There is a known record of where PEF was on 4/15/05, and the police didn't find anything to cause them to focus on her.

[All within the first week]

4. PEF was polygraphed and nothing was detected. Interestingly, this didn't surprise those close to the case (TG).

5. Somebody comes onto a message board, actually within the first month, and tries to suggest PEF is somehow responsible for the disappearance of RFG. knowing these things.

6. Someone suggests, in spite of increasing evidence, that RFG was never in Lewisburg.

7. Someone suggests, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that RFG and PEF were not living together (All his things were at the house, not boxed up, he'd made no arrangements to stay someplace, he's driving a car that is legally hers, they are a "perfect couple" on 4/14/05.)

It sound like someone is trying to focus all the attention on someone who could not be even charged with a crime. Out of all the Inner Circle, all those close to RFG, it sounds like someone was making a concerted effort on an impossible option, to the exclusion of the others.

I wonder why? I also wonder if that might be the right question?.

[Politigal]

Of course we do know that RFG was interested in destroying the drive. Almost a year ago, it was reported that he asked people about it. We don't what data he never wanted to see the light of day. That doesn't have anything to do with the searches.

This is supposed to be a thread dedicated to the *facts* of the case, and what you have posted is fallacy.

Copying my post from the Computer Searches thread:

JJ - Please stop *twisting* the truth. You have repeatedly done that over the past couple of years.

Ray Gricar *at no time* talked to other folks about destroying the laptop hard drive. He may have spoken to others about erasing the data on the drive.

THESE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ACTIONS

1) destroy definition

to tear down; demolish


2) erase definition

Computers. to remove (data) from computer storage.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, we can be hyper technical and say destroy the data; destroying the drive is but one method of doing so. But we also know that destroying the data was something RFG was interested in doing. We also know that the data was destroyed.

[Politigal]

Well, we can be hyper technical and say destroy the data; destroying the drive is but one method of doing so. But we also know that destroying the data was something RFG was interested in doing. We also know that the data was destroyed.

No one is being hyper-technical.

But what you're pushing just isn't true.

Ray Gricar discussed the means of erasing data....not destroying a piece of equipment.

[J. J. in Phila]

And destroying the drive would destroy the data, as it obviously did. It is but a method to do so; it turned out to be a very successful method of doing so.

[Politigal]

And destroying the drive would destroy the data, as it obviously did. It is but a method to do so; it turned out to be a very successful method of doing so.

Why can't you just acknowledge that you were wrong?

Ray Gricar did not discuss destroying a hard drive with anyone.

Ray Gricar discussed erasing data.

[2-B]

Why can't you just acknowledge that you were wrong?

Ray Gricar did not discuss destroying a hard drive with anyone.

Ray Gricar discussed erasing data.

As we've both pointed out on the other thread, Pgal, these are two different things.

It is not "hypertechnical" to point out the difference.

For one thing, erasing a hard drive will still allow for data recovery in most cases. Destroying a hard drive will not.

We have no objective, proven evidence that Ray Gricar himself wanted to destroy a hard drive.

That's what this thread is supposed to focus on--objective, proven, irrefutable evidence.

Ray Gricar wanting to destroy a hard drive is not objectively proven evidence in this case.

[Politigal]

bumping this thread to keep the *facts* in focus.

[2-B]

Bumping once again for Pgal.

[ladyheartfixer]

Y'all know it's a shame that everytime someone starts a thread (thanks 2_B...great thread) it gets hijacked by some know it all, who, for all he says and tries to twist, makes me wonder if he was not part of the disappearance itself...g'day to all

[gstickley]

Y'all know it's a shame that everytime someone starts a thread (thanks 2_B...great thread) it gets hijacked by some know it all, who, for all he says and tries to twist, makes me wonder if he was not part of the disappearance itself...g'day to all

Where ya been, LHF??? Sure wish you'd hang around . . .

[2-B]

Where ya been, LHF??? Sure wish you'd hang around . . .

Agreed!! LHF, your voice is needed here!

[ladyheartfixer]

oh..trust me...I have been here... I read almost every day and have been on a few "field trips" of my own...I think most of the regulars here check in at various times...the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Ray Gricar continues and I think most of us will be here until the very end...

I can't say I believe everything I read and I really hate "know it alls"...LOL...one of my saying is..."Those who think they know everything...really annoy us who really do"

some here think they know it all...enough to have the audacity to tell everyone else they are wrong...makes one wonder what their agenda is...if they know it all.....are they somehow involved in the crime? or the coverup?

[J. J. in Phila]

Y'all know it's a shame that everytime someone starts a thread (thanks 2_B...great thread) it gets hijacked by some know it all, who, for all he says and tries to twist, makes me wonder if he was not part of the disappearance itself...g'day to all

I have a reasonably good alibi, that has been forwarded to both a member of LE and a member of the press. Keeeeeeeep spinnnnnning :lol:

I also would have claimed the reward.

Oh, and my health would pretty much prevent me doing anything, unless you are suggesting that I've been plotting this 1977 (when I had surgery on my back).

Ah, as for "know it alls," the best post on this board in the last fortnight was not from me.

[2-B]

Some people here are forever pointing out what other posters have "missed."

It appears someone has missed LHF's reference to "cover up."

My opinion, to which I am entitled.

[2-B]

Now, back to the point of this thread. Pgal has rightfully suggested that we concentrate efforts on what has been confirmed in this case.

I was thinking about Fact #1, video capture of RG from Thursday night, and along with it, the absence of any further video capture thereafter.

I saw on the TV news crawl yesterday that in the UK, CCTV cameras are so widespread that the average person can expect to be caught on film at least 300 times daily.

I remember reading some time back what the average figure for the U.S. citizen is, and I can't remember now what that figure is. Not as high as in the UK, but fairly significant.

Bearing in mind that neither Bellefonte nor Lewisburg is New York or Chicago, it still seems odd that there are NO video captures of Ray Gricar in more than a 100 hours of videotape reviewed, especially since he was supposedly "seen" popping up all over the place around Lewisburg.

[J. J. in Phila]

Some people here are forever pointing out what other posters have "missed."

It appears someone has missed LHF's reference to "cover up."

My opinion, to which I am entitled.

No cover up, just a post I found quite surprising. 'Twasn't one of mine.

But yes, I don't reveal everything either.

[Politigal]

wasn't sure which thread to post this tidbit in but.....

found a statement online that is very important to remember in this case IMO ---

What is possible is not always probable (or likely)

IMO, this strongly applies to many facets of RG's disappearance.

[Politigal]

Now, back to the point of this thread. Pgal has rightfully suggested that we concentrate efforts on what has been confirmed in this case.

I was thinking about Fact #1, video capture of RG from Thursday night, and along with it, the absence of any further video capture thereafter.

I saw on the TV news crawl yesterday that in the UK, CCTV cameras are so widespread that the average person can expect to be caught on film at least 300 times daily.

I remember reading some time back what the average figure for the U.S. citizen is, and I can't remember now what that figure is. Not as high as in the UK, but fairly significant.

Bearing in mind that neither Bellefonte nor Lewisburg is New York or Chicago, it still seems odd that there are NO video captures of Ray Gricar in more than a 100 hours of videotape reviewed, especially since he was supposedly "seen" popping up all over the place around Lewisburg.

That's always puzzled me too....there are surveillance cameras up at all sorts of businesses - gas stations/convenience stores/bank atm's/etc...and Gricar wasn't seen on any of them.

[2-B]

That's always puzzled me too....there are surveillance cameras up at all sorts of businesses - gas stations/convenience stores/bank atm's/etc...and Gricar wasn't seen on any of them.

Re-reading some old articles this week, I saw that the video reviewed came specifically from places ranging from Centre Hall to Lewisburg. That raises the "Where did he eat?" question again for me. And to put it tactfully, "Where did he use the 'facilities'?" If RG called from 192 somewhere around 11:15-11:30-ish and the Mini Cooper arrived in the SOS lot between 5 and 6 p.m., surely he must have eaten and used the rest room in that time period. Why no video capture anywhere?

[Politigal]

Re-reading some old articles this week, I saw that the video reviewed came specifically from places ranging from Centre Hall to Lewisburg. That raises the "Where did he eat?" question again for me. And to put it tactfully, "Where did he use the 'facilities'?" If RG called from 192 somewhere around 11:15-11:30-ish and the Mini Cooper arrived in the SOS lot between 5 and 6 p.m., surely he must have eaten and used the rest room in that time period. Why no video capture anywhere?

weird isn't it...

not only is he flitting all around ...moving his car here & there....reading something....talking to a woman....changing into a suit....smoking a cigarette...yucking it up about sports...

he's also decided spur of the moment to fast, wear depends *and* make himself invisible.

:tongueside:

of course I'm being facetious

[2-B]

If he ate breakfast before he left home, and used the at home facilities before he left, he might not have had a need before the call. IF the call was a marker and an event occurred shortly thereafter, he may have never made it anywhere to eat or use the facilities.

Agreed

IF he traveled to Lewisburg, where are the witnesses at restaurants who saw him? We seem to have witnesses all over the country seeing him in eating establishments or watering holes, but no witnesses anywhere in Lewisburg or Mifflinburg, or Millheim, or Rebersburg or even in Bellefonte, nowhere but near the location of where the car was found.

Not only are we missing witnesses in eating establishments and watering holes; we are missing video capture. Surely it's possible RG could have driven from Bellefonte to Lewisburg without a stop, but once in Lewisburg, he would have eaten and used facilities somewhere. There should be video if he made it to Lewisburg. It's a university town, not some backwater place that has yet to enter the 21st century.

[J. J. in Phila]

If he ate breakfast before he left home, and used the at home facilities before he left, he might not have had a need before the call. IF the call was a marker and an event occurred shortly thereafter, he may have never made it anywhere to eat or use the facilities.

IF he traveled to Lewisburg, where are the witnesses at restaurants who saw him? We seem to have witnesses all over the country seeing him in eating establishments or watering holes, but no witnesses anywhere in Lewisburg or Mifflinburg, or Millheim, or Rebersburg or even in Bellefonte, nowhere but near the location of where the car was found.

If he was around all afternoon and even into the next day as is being implied, there should be witnesses in other areas as well as video tapes somewhere along the route. Campgrounds opening that day, fishermen out scouting around for next day's opening of trout season, last minute taxpayers, Friday shoppers, and NO one saw him enroute? Impossible, I say.....
JMO

Two possibilities:

1. No body remembered him. Lewisburg was busy that day, and later interviews with the waiting staff indicated that they didn't remember. TG mentioned that in regard to the restaurant RFG liked on the other side of the river.

2. He didn't eat lunch. Remember, he had not been eating lunch; he had been napping.

Oh, and you forgot McKnight's witness, who did see him in route to the SoS.

[2-B]

Two possibilities:

1. No body remembered him. Lewisburg was busy that day, and later interviews with the waiting staff indicated that they didn't remember. TG mentioned that in regard to the restaurant RFG liked on the other side of the river.

All these other 10-14 (possibly more!) busy people in Lewisburg remember Gricar as they're going about their busy lives, but someone who waits on him in a restaurant, has face-to-face conversation with him at several points during a meal, takes his order, brings him food, refills his drink, brings his check, etc., does not? The better explanation is no wait staff remembers him because he likely didn't eat anywhere in Lewisburg.

Why no video capture in any restaurants or gas stations or any other places RG might have used the rest room facilities? The likely explanation is that he wasn't in any restaurants or gas stations or rest room facilities to be captured on video.

2. He didn't eat lunch. Remember, he had not been eating lunch; he had been napping.

I don't recall it being said RG was not eating lunch. I recall it being said he was napping at lunch time. If he took an hour for lunch, he could probably eat a sandwich in five minutes at home, then nap for the rest of the time.

[puzzled]

I went to the SOS last year. One of the waitresses at the restaurant inside the SOS told me that Ray ate lunch there on April 15th 2005. Someone later disputed that but if ray had paid cash for his lunch how can it be proven that he did not when the waitress said that he did?

[Politigal]

I thought the restaurant was closed for renovations on April 15th?
JMO

It was. News reports even say that's why Bennett was at the SOS that Saturday around noon so he could check on the construction.

[Politigal]

I know it's been discussed before, but was just reading older articles again ---

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-21-05tdc/04-21-05dnews-10.asp

Market surveillance tapes showed no sign of Gricar, Bennett said.

So if Gricar was in the Street of Shops, how exactly did he escape being taped on the Street of Shops surveillance?

[2-B]

Simple, Logic and Pgal. He wore an invisibility cloak to escape the video capture. And of course he had already catapulted himself from the parking lot to inside the SOS, where he slipped into some "Gricar Scent Be Gone" purchased from Cabelas, thus allowing him to avoid detection by the dogs except in the immediate vicinity of his car.

[Politigal]

Simple, Logic and Pgal. He wore an invisibility cloak to escape the video capture. And of course he had already catapulted himself from the parking lot to inside the SOS, where he slipped into some "Gricar Scent Be Gone" purchased from Cabelas, thus allowing him to avoid detection by the dogs except in the immediate vicinity of his car.

Well of course...and even tho' his bladder was full, his body was lighter since he wasn't eating any more.....which afforded easy catapulting.

lol

[Politigal]

just want to say...that even tho' I sometimes write some goofy posts in jest, I mean no disrespect toward Ray Gricar or his memory or his family.

[2-B]

just want to say...that even tho' I sometimes write some goofy posts in jest, I mean no disrespect toward Ray Gricar or his memory or his family.

Absolutely, Pgal. I should have put that disclaimer on my post. The jesting/jousting in mine was not directed at Ray Gricar nor at his family in any way--on my part, intended to poke holes in arguments I've seen in a lighthearted way rather than in my usual analytical approach. Thanks for the reminder.

[Politigal]

about the only real physical evidence in this case is --

the surveillance video of Gricar leaving the courthouse Thurs night

his scent in the Street of Shops Parking lot where the car was opened

his DNA on the water bottle found inside the car

his partial print on the outside of the vehicle

and unknown DNA on some cigarette butts found in the lot

[2-B]

^^^ I agree with your list but would add the ashes found in the Mini Cooper and the accompanying odor of smoke found in the vehicle, neither of which jibe with Gricar's own personal habits nor with what he permitted in the vehicle.


The video surveillance tape is conclusive, but only in proving that Gricar was alive Thursday evening as late as 9:07 p.m.

The scent is conclusive, but only in proving that Gricar's car was in the lot minus objective evidence to corroborate or intersection of scent and sighting somewhere absent the vehicle.

Both the finger print and DNA on the water bottle appear to be inconclusive. The fingerprint cannot be dated. We have no public confirmation that the water bottle was purchased on 4/15 or placed in the car on 4/15. Police have said they have no video of Gricar on 4/15, so if that is true, it would rule out any evidence that RG purchased the water bottle that Friday. That would likely leave only PF's word that the water bottle had not been in the Mini on Thursday as evidence that it had not been there previously, and she could easily have been mistaken about that if she didn't ride in the car on Thursday night. We've been told, after all, that RG drove to Huntingdon on Thursday afternoon. If that is true, the water bottle could have been left over from that trip and PF would not necessarily know about it.

The unknown DNA on the cigarette butts could be completely unrelated to the Mini Cooper or it could be significant--call it inconclusive unless or until the DNA can be linked to someone linked in some way to RG.

The ashes and odor: :confused: I cannot logically accept many of the explanations I've read on the board for how these came to be in the Mini Cooper. I can't call these things either conclusive or inconclusive. But I would call them significant until proven otherwise. My opinion only.

[Politigal]

^^^ I agree with your list but would add the ashes found in the Mini Cooper and the accompanying odor of smoke found in the vehicle, neither of which jibe with Gricar's own personal habits nor with what he permitted in the vehicle.


The video surveillance tape is conclusive, but only in proving that Gricar was alive Thursday evening as late as 9:07 p.m.

The scent is conclusive, but only in proving that Gricar's car was in the lot minus objective evidence to corroborate or intersection of scent and sighting somewhere absent the vehicle.

Both the finger print and DNA on the water bottle appear to be inconclusive. The fingerprint cannot be dated. We have no public confirmation that the water bottle was purchased on 4/15 or placed in the car on 4/15. Police have said they have no video of Gricar on 4/15, so if that is true, it would rule out any evidence that RG purchased the water bottle that Friday. That would likely leave only PF's word that the water bottle had not been in the Mini on Thursday as evidence that it had not been there previously, and she could easily have been mistaken about that if she didn't ride in the car on Thursday night. We've been told, after all, that RG drove to Huntingdon on Thursday afternoon. If that is true, the water bottle could have been left over from that trip and PF would not necessarily know about it.

The unknown DNA on the cigarette butts could be completely unrelated to the Mini Cooper or it could be significant--call it inconclusive unless or until the DNA can be linked to someone linked in some way to RG.

The ashes and odor: :confused: I cannot logically accept many of the explanations I've read on the board for how these came to be in the Mini Cooper. I can't call these things either conclusive or inconclusive. But I would call them significant until proven otherwise. My opinion only.


well all right then... :)

Great post, as usual 2-B

[2-B]

well all right then... :)

Great post, as usual 2-B

Duh, we both forgot to put the laptop and the hard drive on the list.

Inconclusive and inconclusive, as far as I'm concerned. Agree?

[Politigal]

Duh, we both forgot to put the laptop and the hard drive on the list.

Inconclusive and inconclusive, as far as I'm concerned. Agree?

IIRC, the laptop was confirmed as belonging to Gricar (but they can't prove who disposed of it,) but the hard drive was not. And the computer searches.....yep, we both know there's no way to determine who actually conducted them.

[gstickley]

We need to add to the "Fact List" that Bellefonte PD, as of their July 2009 update, lists RG as missing from Bellefonte, the last time he was seen was April 15, 2005, and that there have been sightings of RG but they are unconfirmed.

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

[2-B]

We need to add to the "Fact List" that Bellefonte PD, as of their July 2009 update, lists RG as missing from Bellefonte, the last time he was seen was April 15, 2005, and that there have been sightings of RG but they are unconfirmed.


[respectfully snipped]

You're right, GS, especially in light of a recent observation in Blogland that one of the "bad things" to come out of internet discussion is "the attempts to explain away the evidence."

I agree that we've seen many attempts to "explain away the evidence." The attempt to explain away the official BPD position on PLS and Gricar sightings is one such area.

It involves not only ignoring the official BDP position but also four decades of research from the most credible authorities on eyewitness identification and memory in the United States.

There's a fairly significant list of other such attempts to explain away the evidence. In fact, we saw one such attempt just the other night, yet another effort to "explain" that the Bloodhound might not have trailed Gricar from the lot to the SOS because he took only the freshest scent. That topic has been dealt with before, but there it was, raised again as attempt to "explain away" the evidence as we know it: the dogs did not find Gricar's scent anywhere except the immediate vicinity of where RG's car had been parked.

[gstickley]

It's the old "Smoke & Mirrors", 2-B; the attempt by the blobber to shove "walkaway, walkaway, walkaway" down everyone's throat. Even the official BPD Missing Person Flier doesn't mean anything to the "Lord High Gricar Guy".

[sherrijean981]

If he ate breakfast before he left home, and used the at home facilities before he left, he might not have had a need before the call. IF the call was a marker and an event occurred shortly thereafter, he may have never made it anywhere to eat or use the facilities.

IF he traveled to Lewisburg, where are the witnesses at restaurants who saw him? We seem to have witnesses all over the country seeing him in eating establishments or watering holes, but no witnesses anywhere in Lewisburg or Mifflinburg, or Millheim, or Rebersburg or even in Bellefonte, nowhere but near the location of where the car was found.

If he was around all afternoon and even into the next day as is being implied, there should be witnesses in other areas as well as video tapes somewhere along the route. Campgrounds opening that day, fishermen out scouting around for next day's opening of trout season, last minute taxpayers, Friday shoppers, and NO one saw him enroute? Impossible, I say.....
JMO


If RG stayed on Rt 192 east to Lewisburg, he could have stopped at the RB Winter State Park for a rest stop. If he made a detour at Rt 445 to Rt 45, east, he could have stopped at Hairy John State Park for a rest stop. Have not stopped at Winter park but Hairy John's is very private.

If he had a water bottle in the car, he might not have had to make the stop. No one has said, but did their pantry and or fridge include bottles of water? With both liking to walk and PF work out I would think it would be a staple in their home.

[2-B]

It's the old "Smoke & Mirrors", 2-B; the attempt by the blobber to shove "walkaway, walkaway, walkaway" down everyone's throat. Even the official BPD Missing Person Flier doesn't mean anything to the "Lord High Gricar Guy".

Unfortunately, official statements and expert testimony seem to mean little to LHGG, GS.

Not that long ago, there was yet another attempt to explain away the failure of the dogs to trail from the parking to the SOS by asserting for the umpteenth time that exhaust fumes had "masked" the scent. William Tolhurst's (leading Bloodhound and scenting expert) experiments on this issue were put in front of LHGG, and the only response was a repetition of the idea that fumes might have masked the scent--as if Tolhurst's evidence meant nothing, and as if the FBI experiments previously put in front of LHGG meant nothing.

It's the old brick wall problem.

Any attempt we make to analyze evidence, complete with documentation from well-respected, credible authorities, is deemed "explaining away the evidence."

But if someone wonders why there were no witness reports of the Mini Cooper in Bellefonte or along the route to Lewisburg--only in Lewisburg--we're told (no accompanying documentation from any credible authority) that Mini-Coopers cannot be seen while in motion.

Now that's what I call an attempt to explain away the evidence. :rolleyes:

[Politigal]

Unfortunately, official statements and expert testimony seem to mean little to LHGG, GS.

Not that long ago, there was yet another attempt to explain away the failure of the dogs to trail from the parking to the SOS by asserting for the umpteenth time that exhaust fumes had "masked" the scent. William Tolhurst's (leading Bloodhound and scenting expert) experiments on this issue were put in front of LHGG, and the only response was a repetition of the idea that fumes might have masked the scent--as if Tolhurst's evidence meant nothing, and as if the FBI experiments previously put in front of LHGG meant nothing.

It's the old brick wall problem.

Any attempt we make to analyze evidence, complete with documentation from well-respected, credible authorities, is deemed "explaining away the evidence."

But if someone wonders why there were no witness reports of the Mini Cooper in Bellefonte or along the route to Lewisburg--only in Lewisburg--we're told (no accompanying documentation from any credible authority) that Mini-Coopers cannot be seen while in motion.

Now that's what I call an attempt to explain away the evidence. :rolleyes:

I think it's possible the Mini Cooper was taken to Lewisburg at night....

[juror1]

Politigal,

You aren't the only one talking about that possibility. Until there is a credible, emphasis on credible, sighting in Lewisburg, one has to wonder. Others have mentioned this, but it bears repeating: WHY haven't the cell phone records been released? After all this time, with the official investigation apparently going nowhere, what's the problem? It would be helpful to know the length of the calls made, from where, and when they were made (there's even been debate about that). If investigators really want to quash "speculation," here's one way of doing it.

I've been reading this thread with interest; there are some great posts. Living in Bellefonte and having known Gricar (very slightly), I (and many others) grow increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress in the case. This is the top law enforcement official in the county, for cryin' out loud, not to mention an excellent trial attorney. I was a juror in a murder case he tried, and I can attest to the latter. Here's hoping a new DA (a much hoped-for outcome of Tuesday's election) can start the investigation anew.

[J. J. in Phila]

Juror1, nearly everyone is calling for an at least redacted version of the cell records to be released.

[juror1]

So what are the reasons given for not releasing them? Have local media attempted to get them? I don't know the legalities involved, but surely investigators can't sit on them forever.

[J. J. in Phila]

So what are the reasons given for not releasing them? Have local media attempted to get them? I don't know the legalities involved, but surely investigators can't sit on them forever.

No reasons, and I've encouraged it publicly. Yes, the former reporter tried, and called for it as well.

I asked TG once, who said it wasn't his decision.

[2-B]

Politigal,

You aren't the only one talking about that possibility. Until there is a credible, emphasis on credible, sighting in Lewisburg, one has to wonder. Others have mentioned this, but it bears repeating: WHY haven't the cell phone records been released? After all this time, with the official investigation apparently going nowhere, what's the problem? It would be helpful to know the length of the calls made, from where, and when they were made (there's even been debate about that). If investigators really want to quash "speculation," here's one way of doing it.

I've been reading this thread with interest; there are some great posts. Living in Bellefonte and having known Gricar (very slightly), I (and many others) grow increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress in the case. This is the top law enforcement official in the county, for cryin' out loud, not to mention an excellent trial attorney. I was a juror in a murder case he tried, and I can attest to the latter. Here's hoping a new DA (a much hoped-for outcome of Tuesday's election) can start the investigation anew.

Welcome to the boards, juror1. Your input will be appreciated. It's most interesting to hear your view that others around you are increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress in the case, as we've been peddled the idea that most Centre Countians don't care any longer what happened to Ray Gricar.

I agree with you both on the need for credible (read: confirmed) sightings in this case and with the idea that releasing the phone logs in some redacted form would be helpful.

[Politigal]

Politigal,

You aren't the only one talking about that possibility. respectfully snipped

interesting....

wish the whispers were more of a roar though...

[juror1]

Thanks, B-2. I can't speak for all Centre Countians, but can assure folks on this board that those who worked with or knew Ray Gricar have most definitely NOT lost interest. There are still blogs on-line, reasonably current websites, etc. If such activity has ebbed somewhat over the last year or so, I think it's not due to lack of interest, but rather frustration over the "investigation."

Several cases in point: 1.) Someone who had supposedly threatened Gricar and then committed suicide was "ruled out as a suspect" in RG's disappearance. Fine, there may have been very legitimate reasons for doing so. However, no investigator ever bothered to explain what they were. 2.) The supposed sighting of Gricar outside the courthouse the day after his disappearance. That was ruled out because investigators said he had to have been in Lewisburg. However, this is working backward from what might be a false assumption, i.e. that he WAS in Lewisburg, despite the lack of video which would conclusively prove this. 3.) What would appear to be the assumption by some investigators that looking up information about how to clean a hard drive means that he purposely disappeared. Nowadays, anyone on the point of retirement who has access to an office computer who DOESN'T want to do this is an idiot. 4.) Failure to release the phone records. Why? Because it might jeopardize the investigation? After four years, what investigation? Sorry, at this point, I'm afraid MY frustration is showing through.

I think the fact that both DA candidates have been specifically asked what they would do about the Gricar investigation is an indication that local folk still want to know what happened to him.

[J. J. in Phila]

Juror1, from everything I've hear, there was an extensive investigation of BJL, the suicide, by numerous sources. He didn't do it. Some of it was time line, i.e. he was accounted for. There were other factors.

There is a gap in the known Lewisburg witnesses that would have allowed RFG to get back to Bellefonte and drive back to Lewisburg. It's possible that CF, the witness, saw him, and so did the others.

There is reason even a stronger to believe that RFG took the computer to Lewisburg; but it has not been released.

You have my opinion on the phone records.

You might want to look at the July "Sporadic comments on the Gricar Case." A lot of the information is indexed there. The index for "What more can be done," lists the advantages of releasing more information.

I've been calling for it, the former reporter covering the case has called for it, JKA has called for it (well, I don't know her current position).

Also, the blog on the Media Coverage notes how the case is still in the public eye, and made some of the points you did.

[juror1]

JJ, my point about the guy who committed suicide was not whether he might or might not have had anything to do with RG's disappearance, rather that it's one more indication of investigators' refusal to be more open about evidence or lack of it. Same goes for your comment that there's "reason to believe" RG took the computer to Lewisburg, but that it hasn't been released. Why not? At what point WILL investigators be forthcoming? That's been part of the problem since Day 1.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, my point about the guy who committed suicide was not whether he might or might not have had anything to do with RG's disappearance, rather that it's one more indication of investigators' refusal to be more open about evidence or lack of it. Same goes for your comment that there's "reason to believe" RG took the computer to Lewisburg, but that it hasn't been released. Why not? At what point WILL investigators be forthcoming? That's been part of the problem since Day 1.

I won't say it because they have not released it. :) Personally, I see no reason why this couldn't be released. Further, it doesn't explain what happened (and didn't move my odd on what happened any).

LE, I think the PSP, did announce that they did a time line on BJL, and his movements were accounted for. I might add that there other aspects of his life looked at, and they yielded exculpatory information.

Why they have not might have something to do with the DA. I just made the point that nearly everything in the investigation, what is released, if the case should be turned over to the AG's Office, if a grand jury should be called, is under the control of just one person, Michael T. Madeira. Not the BPD, PSP, AG, the press, but him.

MTM is in charge until the voters say otherwise (and hopefully they will on Tuesday).

[gstickley]

JJ, my point about the guy who committed suicide was not whether he might or might not have had anything to do with RG's disappearance, rather that it's one more indication of investigators' refusal to be more open about evidence or lack of it. Same goes for your comment that there's "reason to believe" RG took the computer to Lewisburg, but that it hasn't been released. Why not? At what point WILL investigators be forthcoming? That's been part of the problem since Day 1.

juror1, where have you been all my life . . . well, the past 4 years anyway??? You have the same questions I have.

For 8 months after RG disappeared, MS was the acting District Attorney. It was during his watch that the investigation into the guy- who-committed-suicide occurred. It was during his watch the supposed MW & man-in-the-brown-car supposedly occurred. It was during his watch the loptop was located. It was during his watch the couple-week-long investigation occurred, then fizzled to not much. The first 8 months were the most crucial in the investigation, all under the watch of MS. After MM was elected DA, he just rubber stamped everything that had been done. And then there was nothing. Four years later, there is still nothing. IMO, MS is as much to blame for this fiasco as MM. This entire investigation should have been turned over to the PSP or a special task force, not left with the BPD, four years ago.

I don't understand why BPD is holding everything "so close to the vest". (Gawd, how I hate that phrase!) Are they still waiting for someone to come in? Are they still reading the report? Are they still trying to shield the family from embarrassment?

I'm glad you're here, juror1. We need a few new bodies on this forum.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[J. J. in Phila]

SM, did more behind the scenes that is credited, notably that meeting of the DA's. What he did was basically what RFG did, wait for the police. The problem was after MTM took over.

[sherrijean981]

Thanks, B-2. I can't speak for all Centre Countians, but can assure folks on this board that those who worked with or knew Ray Gricar have most definitely NOT lost interest. There are still blogs on-line, reasonably current websites, etc. If such activity has ebbed somewhat over the last year or so, I think it's not due to lack of interest, but rather frustration over the "investigation."

Several cases in point: 1.) Someone who had supposedly threatened Gricar and then committed suicide was "ruled out as a suspect" in RG's disappearance. Fine, there may have been very legitimate reasons for doing so. However, no investigator ever bothered to explain what they were. 2.) The supposed sighting of Gricar outside the courthouse the day after his disappearance. That was ruled out because investigators said he had to have been in Lewisburg. However, this is working backward from what might be a false assumption, i.e. that he WAS in Lewisburg, despite the lack of video which would conclusively prove this. 3.) What would appear to be the assumption by some investigators that looking up information about how to clean a hard drive means that he purposely disappeared. Nowadays, anyone on the point of retirement who has access to an office computer who DOESN'T want to do this is an idiot. 4.) Failure to release the phone records. Why? Because it might jeopardize the investigation? After four years, what investigation? Sorry, at this point, I'm afraid MY frustration is showing through.

I think the fact that both DA candidates have been specifically asked what they would do about the Gricar investigation is an indication that local folk still want to know what happened to him.


I know numerous families in Centre County who have not stopped wondering about this investigation and what has or has not been done to find RG. There were many names put in front of and behind the DA, due to his lack of interest. Many wondering why he would keep it (investigation) quiet, who would it hurt politically if things came out, how he could turn his back on the man who thought MM would be qualified for the job (until he found out from a reporter that JKA was running too). No, Centre Countians are not happy with the present DA. Changes are coming and it is his own lack of actions. Not only with RG's case but other things they are bothered about.

I will just sit on the other side of the mountain and pray for justice to happen on Tues. JMO

[2-B]

2.) The supposed sighting of Gricar outside the courthouse the day after his disappearance. That was ruled out because investigators said he had to have been in Lewisburg. However, this is working backward from what might be a false assumption, i.e. that he WAS in Lewisburg, despite the lack of video which would conclusively prove this.

3.) What would appear to be the assumption by some investigators that looking up information about how to clean a hard drive means that he purposely disappeared. Nowadays, anyone on the point of retirement who has access to an office computer who DOESN'T want to do this is an idiot.

You are singing my song on these two points, juror1.

2). Chief Dixon always made it abundantly clear the BPD were proceeding on the assumption, not certainty, RG had been in Lewisburg, and that assumption made sense early on from certain investigative angles (i.e., the river searches for potential signs of suicide). But ruling out an unconfirmed sighting in Bellefonte (by a person known to RG) on the basis of unconfirmed sightings in Lewisburg (by persons unknown to RG)--that's taking the assumption to a different level. If you've poked around this board enough, you've probably run into my musings on the Lewisburg witnesses, accompanied by a significant amount of information from the scientific community on witness identification reliability, all of which you might find interesting or useful.

3). I cannot agree more: anyone retiring without doing a complete hard drive wipe would be an idiot. Unfortunately, we've seen that innocent possibility morphed into a desire to hide information that "RG never wanted to see the light of day." Huge difference, and IMO no evidence to prove the latter.

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, they made at least one search along 192 after the Mini was found.

Well, obviously, RFG didn't what whatever was on there to see the light of day. Several factors you left out:

1. He inquired two before he was to retire.

2. At least one person he spoke two about it wasn't on staff, wasn't his nephew, and wasn't the IT guy for the county.

[2-B]

Well, obviously, RFG didn't what whatever was on there to see the light of day. Several factors you left out:

1. He inquired two before he was to retire.

2. At least one person he spoke two about it wasn't on staff, wasn't his nephew, and wasn't the IT guy for the county.

[bolding mine]

Gosh, JJ. This board has been over your incendiary wording on this many times before. There's a huge leap between wanting to wipe a hard drive clean of personal material and work product before returning a laptop to an employer and your version of things.

You've never offered any evidence to support the slanted version.

[J. J. in Phila]

[bolding mine]

Gosh, JJ. This board has been over your incendiary wording on this many times before. There's a huge leap between wanting to wipe a hard drive clean of personal material and work product before returning a laptop to an employer and your version of things.

You've never offered any evidence to support the slanted version.

Not "incendiary" but "illuminating."

Something was on there, possibly innocuous, that RFG didn't want to see the light of day. I've suggested several things, e.g., personnel records, credit card numbers, LG's birth parent information.

And what have said about the searches? They are not really indicative of anything.

The interesting thing is that the person he asked, one of them, at least, wasn't the staff, TG, or the county IT person.

[2-B]

Not "incendiary" but "illuminating."

Something was on there, possibly innocuous, that RFG didn't want to see the light of day. I've suggested several things, e.g., personnel records, credit card numbers, LG's birth parent information.



What an effort an spin, JJ. Give me a break.

If I say, "Ray Gricar wanted to wipe his hard drive clean of personal material and work product," that is neutral language.

When you say, "Well, obviously, RFG didn't what whatever was on there to see the light of day," that is slanted language. And it is incendiary, not illuminating.

You're trying now to spin slanted, incendiary language back to "possibly innocuous," and that's a conflict that simply won't fly.

[J. J. in Phila]

What an effort an spin, JJ. Give me a break.

If I say, "Ray Gricar wanted to wipe his hard drive clean of personal material and work product," that is neutral language.



That is a statement that isn't supported by fact, unless you can read RFG's mind.


When you say, "Well, obviously, RFG didn't what whatever was on there to see the light of day," that is slanted language. And it is incendiary, not illuminating.

You're trying now to spin slanted, incendiary language back to "possibly innocuous," and that's a conflict that simply won't fly.

No, there was something on the laptop that RFG did not want to see the light of day (and I'm choosing my words very carefully). That is the prima facia evidence (I do like Latin terms).

I make no claim what was the thing or things that he didn't want to see the light of day, except to say that it might not be related to his disappearance and may have been innocuous.

[2-B]

That is a statement that isn't supported by fact, unless you can read RFG's mind.

The example I gave was not offered for truth, JJ. It was offered for examination of language use. I stand by what I said. It is an example of neutral language, as opposed to your use of slanted language.


No, there was something on the laptop that RFG did not want to see the light of day (and I'm choosing my words very carefully). That is the prima facia evidence (I do like Latin terms).


And you continue to use slanted language without any evidence to support your claim.

As for your love of Latinate terms and terms such as "fortnight" (an archaic term used virtually nowhere in modern day America and only in the UK and perhaps Australia today), that tells us only that you like to call attention to yourself and that you like to hold yourself out as some kind of superior being compared to the rest of us poor downtrodden in the chattering class, something we were already long aware of. Funny how the rest of us are so much more competent at reading and writing in our own native language, however.

[juror1]

Just finished reading most of the threads and posts (rubs eyes) and will eventually comment on some. However, for now, can we introduce some clarity into the hard drive wipe debate? (I'm looking at you, JJ)

I just recently retired. Before doing so, I asked several people I knew, some techs, some not (why you're making that distinction, I don't know), about how to wipe my hard drive. I have also known friends and acquaintances to do the same. Why? If you are in any sort of administrative position, whether it be in law enforcement or academics, there is always the potential for something you have written, or kept, or been e-mailed to be open to misinterpretation. Or your own work, to which you are entitled, is on it. This does not imply criminal activity, malfeasance, or deep dark secrets; it is simply prudent. In my case, there was nothing that I was deeply concerned about, except maybe my cached blow-up of the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza that clearly shows someone with a rifle. But I digress. I just thought wiping it was a good idea, for all the reasons mentioned above.

You seem to be inferring that simply because RG asked about wiping a hard drive, he had something to hide (and I don't see any difference between "didn't want to see the light of day" and "hide). You then back-track and say whatever he "didn't want to see the light of day" might have been innocuous. Your implication of hiding something does indeed slant things. Unless and until you or anyone can definitively say what was on the laptop, it's all speculation. That many people wipe their hard drives before they retire is fact. As the title of this thread indicates, let's stick to what we know and can prove.

[2-B]

Just finished reading most of the threads and posts (rubs eyes) and will eventually comment on some. However, for now, can we introduce some clarity into the hard drive wipe debate? (I'm looking at you, JJ)

I just recently retired. Before doing so, I asked several people I knew, some techs, some not (why you're making that distinction, I don't know), about how to wipe my hard drive. I have also known friends and acquaintances to do the same. Why? If you are in any sort of administrative position, whether it be in law enforcement or academics, there is always the potential for something you have written, or kept, or been e-mailed to be open to misinterpretation. Or your own work, to which you are entitled, is on it. This does not imply criminal activity, malfeasance, or deep dark secrets; it is simply prudent. In my case, there was nothing that I was deeply concerned about, except maybe my cached blow-up of the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza that clearly shows someone with a rifle. But I digress. I just thought wiping it was a good idea, for all the reasons mentioned above.

You seem to be inferring that simply because RG asked about wiping a hard drive, he had something to hide (and I don't see any difference between "didn't want to see the light of day" and "hide). You then back-track and say whatever he "didn't want to see the light of day" might have been innocuous. Your implication of hiding something does indeed slant things. Unless and until you or anyone can definitively say what was on the laptop, it's all speculation. That many people wipe their hard drives before they retire is fact. As the title of this thread indicates, let's stick to what we know and can prove.

[bolding mine]

Thank you, juror1. (I think I love you already.) This is exactly what I have been saying.

[J. J. in Phila]

No, Juror1, it is your inference. You don't get it, unfortunately.

There are things on my computer that I wouldn't want to see the light of day, like my credit card number. Nothing "wrong" in that.

In RFG's case, we know that he made the inquiries to someone who was not the IT guy, not the staff and not his nephew, actually, not one of the "inner circle," though someone he's known for years. I can't shed any more light on that than I already have.

He made the inquiries about 18-24 months, before he was to retire. He made the computer searches 9-10 months prior to retirement. That timing does not look like part of a plan to retire, because he'd be conceivably using the laptop after that.

That does not imply that that he was doing wrong putting the data on his computer in the first place, or that his desire to get rid of it has anything to do with his disappearance. It's only that he didn't want something on that drive to see the light of day.

[Saunterer]

Don't be discouraged juror1. Our resident parliamentarian threw out Robert's Rules long ago. But he's been overruled many times anyway.

I really wish that new people ... people who've not traveled so far out a particular branch that they can't, or won't, come back to the tree proper ... would speak up.

[J. J. in Phila]

Don't be discouraged juror1. Our resident parliamentarian threw out Robert's Rules long ago. But he's been overruled many times anyway.

I really wish that new people ... people who've not traveled so far out a particular branch that they can't, or won't, come back to the tree proper ... would speak up.


In this case, I'm not engineering anything.

I thought you, of all people, might see the light.

[J. J. in Phila]

I have trick or treaters tonight, so I won't be posting.

You might puzzle it out yourself, did I give a trick or a treat?

:biggrinjester:

[gstickley]

I hope there are lots of kids with soap in the old neighborhood . . . :biggrinjester:

[J. J. in Phila]

I hope there are lots of kids with soap in the old neighborhood . . . :biggrinjester:

No, just about 40 trick or treaters. They know when they are getting treats, unlike some folks I could mention.

[Politigal]

I hope there are lots of kids with soap in the old neighborhood . . . :biggrinjester:

that must be the brazen hussy in you tonight...lol :thumbsup:

[J. J. in Phila]

that must be the brazen hussy in you tonight...lol :thumbsup:


Tonight? :rolleyes:

[Cloudbuster]

I been studying the luna case in bits and pieces. I thought about something I read about where porn showed up on his puter. Now Im wondering if they also planted porn on RG's laptop?
Perhaps the need to get rid of it came sooner than the retirement time frame. Okay it's halloween and the thoughts are a flowing lol. Seriously though could that be possible and also be something LE won't release?

Just a thought.:w00t:

[2-B]

I really wish that new people ... people who've not traveled so far out a particular branch that they can't, or won't, come back to the tree proper ... would speak up.

Why would new people jump into this viper pit? Here we have juror1, who appears to be both very intelligent and articulate, exactly the kind of poster I would welcome with open arms to this discussion. He/she is on the board for only a day or two and already is told in no uncertain terms

You don't get it.

Posters old and new alike are given what GS always called the Red Ink Man treatment if they dare to have a thought that doesn't bow down and worship what's been promulgated in blogland (or previous to the takeover of blogland, what was dictated from the first week of someone's entrance to the board).

Only the tough and the masochistic survive here. The brilliant and irrepressible OOB had to put HWMBI on "ignore" to survive. I personally know a number of posters who survive by doing "ignore" without actually using the "ignore" button, simply refusing to engage to avoid the RIM treatment. I keep at it, painful as it is, only because I believe so strongly in the importance of truth over truthiness, of fact over spin. I refuse to let illogic and inaccuracies go out into the "Gricar universe" unchallenged, and it has cost me a lot to keep at it.

Not many are willing to take up that mantle, as you can see from the dwindling number of posters here. Many are going to give up in the face of


You don't get it.

especially when that's their welcome to the board.

I for one hope that juror1 has the intestinal fortitude to stick around.

[2-B]

By the way, S, this thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about above.

The design of the thread was an attempt to collect publicly known facts in the Gricar case.

One would think that design would create a thread with little room for the typical fussing and fighting that goes on here, facts being what they are. Facts themselves can be proven and therefore are non-arguable. I envisioned this thread as a repository of those things, something we could all refer to as needed.

It didn't take long for a collection of non-arguable items to disintegrate into argumentation.

[juror1]

Oh yeah, over 20 years in academe (which, contrary to belief, is no ivory tower; sometimes a snakepit would be a better metaphor) has given me not only intestinal fortitude, but a very thick skin. I appreciate your comments, S and 2B, and will continue to post! This is by far the best Gricar discussion I have found, and I think the "facts" approach is the only way to go. I just wish the investigators would give us more of them. IF SPM wins on Tuesday, I don't know that things will change suddenly, but MM gives very little hope on that score. I know I will immediately write her a letter, urging, in the strongest terms that the investigation be handed over to either the PSP or the FBI. If enough people do this, maybe, just maybe, we can get a response. Of course, I also tend to be overly optimistic, but it's worth a shot. I think that much is owed to the Gricar family.

[2-B]

Oh yeah, over 20 years in academe (which, contrary to belief, is no ivory tower; sometimes a snakepit would be a better metaphor) has given me not only intestinal fortitude, but a very thick skin. I appreciate your comments, S and 2B, and will continue to post! This is by far the best Gricar discussion I have found, and I think the "facts" approach is the only way to go. I just wish the investigators would give us more of them. IF SPM wins on Tuesday, I don't know that things will change suddenly, but MM gives very little hope on that score. I know I will immediately write her a letter, urging, in the strongest terms that the investigation be handed over to either the PSP or the FBI. If enough people do this, maybe, just maybe, we can get a response. Of course, I also tend to be overly optimistic, but it's worth a shot. I think that much is owed to the Gricar family.

Glad to hear you plan on sticking around, juror1. We had another very promising poster, Nittany90, who showed up, posted in a flurry, and then POOF, disappeared. I think Red Ink Man wore her down. :biggrin:

I, too, wish we could add more items to the "known facts" list. I've often thought that if investigators would turn some of the determined minds here loose with just a fraction of what's in that confidential file, we might be able to add something new and fresh in terms of perspective.

I'd trade a ham sandwich just to look at that dog handlers' log myself.

[J. J. in Phila]

I been studying the luna case in bits and pieces. I thought about something I read about where porn showed up on his puter. Now Im wondering if they also planted porn on RG's laptop?
Perhaps the need to get rid of it came sooner than the retirement time frame. Okay it's halloween and the thoughts are a flowing lol. Seriously though could that be possible and also be something LE won't release?

Just a thought.:w00t:

The term light of day has nothing to do what was on the laptop. I don't know what was on the laptop and think that it could have been quite innocent and unrelated to his disappearance.

Now, I wish that I shed more light on the issue, but for now, it will have to be sub rosa. It might eventually dawn on someone.

And, actually, 2-B, I had a perfectly good relationship with Nittany90, and thought she was a good poster.

[2-B]

And, actually, 2-B, I had a perfectly good relationship with Nittany90, and thought she was a good poster.

She was a great poster. Do you know what a smiley emoticon means?? :biggrin:

[J. J. in Phila]

She was a great poster. Do you know what a smiley emoticon means?? :biggrin:

I never can tell with you.

You might however pay very close attention to the answer I gave CB. It was:

The term light of day has nothing to do what was on the laptop. I don't know what was on the laptop and think that it could have been quite innocent and unrelated to his disappearance.

Now, I wish that I shed more light on the issue, but for now, it will have to be sub rosa. It might eventually dawn on someone.

I would call you clueless, but actually you are not. :chicken:

[2-B]

Okay, JJ, in the spirit of the Halloween season, I'll play.

The laptop was really a vampire, and as we all know, the light of day is deadly to vampires. Ray could not bear to have his beloved laptop forced into daylight, so he needed to destroy it before nightfall rather than see it destroyed by the light of day.

[2-B]

More seriously though, JJ, here's just a small sampling of the times you've clearly connected the phrase "never wanted to see the light of day" with the laptop, collected from just the last five or six months:


We don't what data he never wanted to see the light of day.

He wanted to make sure the data would never see the light of day.

RFG clearly never wanted the data to see the light of day.

If he wanted to make sure that what was on that drive would never see the light of day, even after a forensic examination, his best bet would be to toss the drive.

Because he wanted to make sure that whatever was on the hard drive would never see the light of day, and didn't want to take a chance on it.


Now you're telling us, "The term light of day has nothing to do what was on the laptop"???

Uh, you've kind of been using it in that connection pretty much non-stop for some time. You're the one who created the connection, so you're going to have to create the disconnect.

[Politigal]

is JJ now trying to intimate that someone saw RG with the laptop at night or early dawn?

you never can tell what's up with the secret squirrel....:cursing:

[2-B]

is JJ now trying to intimate that someone saw RG with the laptop at night or early dawn?

you never can tell what's up with the secret squirrel....:cursing:

Aw, Pgal, now you've done it! You've done gone and fallen for his sneaky little game! :sneaky: You know the one. "I know something you don't know!" [Insert sing-songy little voice here.]

[Cloudbuster]

Correct me JJ if Im way off but maybe there was something very unimportant on it that does not lead for the need to get rid of it but that maybe to RG he wanted it off? I guess Im a bit confused lol.

[J. J. in Phila]

Aw, Pgal, now you've done it! You've done gone and fallen for his sneaky little game! :sneaky: You know the one. "I know something you don't know!" [Insert sing-songy little voice here.]

No, I know something I can't say, or shed any more light on at the present time.

[J. J. in Phila]

Correct me JJ if Im way off but maybe there was something very unimportant on it that does not lead for the need to get rid of it but that maybe to RG he wanted it off? I guess Im a bit confused lol.


Okay, I have no idea what was on the drive.

I think that might have been something completely innocent, but something RFG was worried about getting out, like his credit card number.

I could very easily see him deciding that, since he was going to be Lewisburg anyhow, it might be a good place to toss the drive. There may be nothing sinister in tossing the drive. There may be nothing sinister that was on the drive.

Both you and I are clueless about what was on the drive.

[2-B]

No, I know something I can't say, or shed any more light on at the present time.

It's not a "No," JJ.

It's exactly what I said. You're playing the "I know something you don't know" game.

You do this with disturbing regularity and you love it, because it allows you to a) taunt others on the board and b) hold yourself out as someone "in the know" while we, the great unwashed masses of the chattering class, must of necessity remain in the dark.

I know you do this with regularity because I've brought this to your attention before, saying that you should either a) bring things to the board you can share or b) keep your mouth shut about them.

Otherwise, it's just the taunting game as I described above.

You do realize, don't you, that others here surely "know" things they can't share? And that they don't try to bolster their own egos by planting tidbits on the board and then saying, "Oops, so sorry. Can't share!"

In this particular instance, you've been saying forever that Gricar had something on the laptop he didn't want to "see the light of day."

Now you're playing "switch it up" and saying that the phrase "light of day" has nothing to do with what's on the laptop.

If you're going to make that claim here, on the board, be prepared to spill what you know.

[J. J. in Phila]

No, 2-B, I do know something that I can't say. Now, I cannot shed any more light on it that than I already have, except to say that you are not clueless, and if CB quotes this this post, she will not be either.

[juror1]

gstickley, if you're out there, I noticed your post to the Centre Daily Times (aka the Centre Dreadful, to many of us locals). Do not be dismayed by Smith6079w. He is a professional curmudgeon, his posts are among the nastiest I've seen, and he rarely represents any rational, majority opinion. I, for one, can't wait to vote tomorrow. I'm also going to be off-line for at least a day. Thanks to Microsoftzilla, I have to switch to Windows 7 and get my data transferred (I hope). I look forward to rejoining you guys on Wednesday (crosses self).

[gstickley]

gstickley, if you're out there, I noticed your post to the Centre Daily Times (aka the Centre Dreadful, to many of us locals). Do not be dismayed by Smith6079w. He is a professional curmudgeon, his posts are among the nastiest I've seen, and he rarely represents any rational, majority opinion. I, for one, can't wait to vote tomorrow. I'm also going to be off-line for at least a day. Thanks to Microsoftzilla, I have to switch to Windows 7 and get my data transferred (I hope). I look forward to rejoining you guys on Wednesday (crosses self).

I'm still here, juror1. And I'm not dismayed. Please hurry back Wed.

[J. J. in Phila]

gstickley, if you're out there, I noticed your post to the Centre Daily Times (aka the Centre Dreadful, to many of us locals). Do not be dismayed by Smith6079w. He is a professional curmudgeon, his posts are among the nastiest I've seen, and he rarely represents any rational, majority opinion. I, for one, can't wait to vote tomorrow. I'm also going to be off-line for at least a day. Thanks to Microsoftzilla, I have to switch to Windows 7 and get my data transferred (I hope). I look forward to rejoining you guys on Wednesday (crosses self).

Yet he/she represents a segment of the community. It is one of the problems with focusing on just one aspect of MTM's record.

Note what I've said, MTM failed in the Gricar case, but that is only one reason to vote against him. There are others.

[juror1]

The mishandling of the Gricar case isn't the only reason I'm voting against him, JJ. Let me count the ways ....

[J. J. in Phila]

The mishandling of the Gricar case isn't the only reason I'm voting against him, JJ. Let me count the ways ....

Agreed. The problem is that some people in Centre County:

1. Want to write off the Gricar case as unsolvable, like Smith. I doubt if it is a large percentage.

2. Feel that the Gricar case is one of many issues involving MTM, and these other issues are collectively more important.

That's why the campaign cannot be "All Gricar all the time."

[2-B]

No, 2-B, I do know something that I can't say.

You are still, as usual, missing the point, JJ. It is not a "No, I do know something that I can't say." I fully understand you believe you know something you can't say.

Do you understand that other posters on this board likely have things they "can't say" but they do not play the "taunt other posters with Super Secret Squirrel Inside Information" game?

That is what is objectionable: a favorite game of yours, taunting the great unwashed masses with your Super Secret Squirrel Superior Knowledge.

And yet you continue to play it. :rolleyes:

[2-B]

Thanks to Microsoftzilla, I have to switch to Windows 7 and get my data transferred (I hope). I look forward to rejoining you guys on Wednesday (crosses self).

Good luck with the transition. I understand the upgrade to Windows 7 can be a beast, especially if going from Windows XP. Hopefully you'll be around for the aftermath of the election and not stuck in some cyber worm hole.

[J. J. in Phila]

You are still, as usual, missing the point, JJ. It is not a "No, I do know something that I can't say." I fully understand you believe you know something you can't say.

Do you understand that other posters on this board likely have things they "can't say" but they do not play the "taunt other posters with Super Secret Squirrel Inside Information" game?

That is what is objectionable: a favorite game of yours, taunting the great unwashed masses with your Super Secret Squirrel Superior Knowledge.

And yet you continue to play it. :rolleyes:

I'm not "taunting," just not saying. Information is information. What you decide to do with it is totally up to you.

[2-B]

I'm not "taunting," just not saying. Information is information. What you decide to do with it is totally up to you.

Oh, c'mon, JJ. You've applied the term "disingenuous" to MM, and you're being disingenuous here.

For ages, you've been saying Ray Gricar clearly never wanted the data to see the light of day and variations thereof.

Suddenly you start saying No, there was something on the laptop that RFG did not want to see the light of day (and I'm choosing my words very carefully) and we're supposed to key into the parenthetical and respond.

When nobody bites, you drop a more blatant taunt, this time making it clear you're now disconnecting the phrase "light of day" from the laptop, two things you've had joined at the hip for months:


You might however pay very close attention to the answer I gave CB. It was:

The term light of day has nothing to do what was on the laptop. I don't know what was on the laptop and think that it could have been quite innocent and unrelated to his disappearance.

Now, I wish that I shed more light on the issue, but for now, it will have to be sub rosa. It might eventually dawn on someone.

Obviously you've got one of your Great Reveals hidden up your sleeve, and yes, you're taunting the board with it when you say you know it but you can't/won't share.

Didn't your mama ever teach you not to eat a cupcake in front of your friends unless you brought cupcakes for everyone?

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks JJ!! I think I got it. That is something that can happen to anyone with a puter. I think they know what we don't know and that is did he or did someone else lol. It probably means nothing at this moment.:blushing:

[juror1]

Back from upgrade, with relatively little problem. Oh, brave new Windows world. Well, SPM did it--convincingly. She took all but 4 of 8 precincts, and got almost 2/3 of the vote. Interestingly, on the Centre Daily Times boards, several people (besides JJ) mentioned RG and the need to meaningfully pursue the case. I'm composing my letter urging her to do that. Anyone else?

[2-B]

Back from upgrade, with relatively little problem. Oh, brave new Windows world. Well, SPM did it--convincingly. She took all but 4 of 8 precincts, and got almost 2/3 of the vote. Interestingly, on the Centre Daily Times boards, several people (besides JJ) mentioned RG and the need to meaningfully pursue the case. I'm composing my letter urging her to do that. Anyone else?

Glad you made it through the upgrade without any difficulties.

Pgal started a thread here last night to collect ideas for SPM, but I also think you have a good idea, juror1. Individual letters sent to her urging a laser-like focus on Ray's disappearance once she takes office may well help show her that public interest in this case has not waned and that the public is now looking with all eyes focused on her to do something, anything to move this case forward.

[J. J. in Phila]

Back from upgrade, with relatively little problem. Oh, brave new Windows world. Well, SPM did it--convincingly. She took all but 4 of 8 precincts, and got almost 2/3 of the vote. Interestingly, on the Centre Daily Times boards, several people (besides JJ) mentioned RG and the need to meaningfully pursue the case. I'm composing my letter urging her to do that. Anyone else?

I was planning a blog on it, but from what is trickling in, SPM does not need need too much pushing.