The Laptop

[Politigal]

I don't recall there being a thread specifically about the laptop in this case, so thought I'd start one.

RG reportedly was not a big computer user - and was not a "technophile" per Tony.

PF said the laptop hadn't been used in a while, but that prior to the new home computer being bought, that both she and RG used it to do internet searches.

Saturday 4/16/05 police went to PF's home and asked to retrieve the laptop, which is when she went upstairs to find it missing from the case. The power cord, etc were still there.

If RG took the laptop - why didn't he take it complete with the carrying case and power? Can we assume that the laptop was not going to be used on 4/15/05 since the battery power would only last a couple of hours?

And, can we assume since the laptop had not been used since the home computer was purchased, that it didn't hold some crucual case evidence?

If PF was responsible for the disappearance -- what if when police came to get it - that it was simply something she had forgotten about, since it hadn't been used in awhile, maybe even an "oh shi%!" moment, knowing that police would then have access to *her* computer searches by looking at the hard drive, so she just told them it wasn't there?

I think that's an entirely possible scenario.

[Politigal]

Also, if the laptop had *not* been used in awhile per PF, that means it also had not been charged in awhile and the battery would already have been dead.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal

Saturday 4/16/05 police went to PF's home and asked to retrieve the laptop, which is when she went upstairs to find it missing from the case. The power cord, etc were still there.

Sunday 4/17/05. Evening, IIRC.

If RG took the laptop - why didn't he take it complete with the carrying case and power? Can we assume that the laptop was not going to be used on 4/15/05 since the battery power would only last a couple of hours?

4 hours.

And, can we assume since the laptop had not been used since the home computer was purchased, that it didn't hold some crucual case evidence?

"Case Evidence" is the key. In all probability anything on the drive would have a paper copy in a file. I habitually print out things for a file copy.

If PF was responsible for the disappearance -- what if when police came to get it - that it was simply something she had forgotten about, since it hadn't been used in awhile, maybe even an "oh shi%!" moment, knowing that police would then have access to *her* computer searches by looking at the hard drive, so she just told them it wasn't there?

First, LE didn't come to get it. They ask if there were any other computers. PEF volunteered that there was a laptop.

Now, if she wanted to hide it, she could just say, **no that's the only one.** If it was not used, even if LE looks for for it, she could just say **oh, I forgot; we have not used it for a while.** I could understand that she was under stress and may have forgotten about it. Instead, it's her who calls the attention to the existence of the laptop.

If she didn't use it for a while, how is it tied to the disappearance? If it isn't why hide it.

Also LE searched the house during that week and may have found it, if it was still there.

(I could understand, if she were involved, using the laptop for research and then tossing it, but before she called LE.)

[Politigal]

maybe she was looking at wedding sites

or maybe she was on match.com meeting other men

?

[Politigal]

JJ - you said the laptop battery would hold a charge for 4 hours --

wouldn't it need to be charged first if it had not been used in a while?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Also, if the laptop had *not* been used in awhile per PF, that means it also had not been charged in awhile and the battery would already have been dead.

Not necessarily. There was enough time during the week to charge it up, by either PEF or RFG

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Not necessarily. There was enough time during the week to charge it up, by either PEF or RFG

but PF said it had not been used recently

So you think Gricar secretly charged it - put it back in the closet and then took it out on 4/15?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
maybe she was looking at wedding sites

or maybe she was on match.com meeting other men

?

The first isn't particularly incriminating.

The second just doesn't make too much sense, doing it weeks in advance.

I was thinking of something incriminating, like looking up drugs.

In RFG's case, very private data that he wants destroyed (suicide), offshore banking, travel plans (walkaway).

The problem with PEF and the laptop is that:

1. She could not tell LE and claim she forgot.

2. She has no idea if LE is going to say, **can we look around and try to find it.**

3. She has no idea if LE will search the house. (They did later). If she says no, that automatically puts suspicion on her, and LE is in the street for the first few days.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


but PF said it had not been used recently

So you think Gricar secretly charged it - put it back in the closet and then took it out on 4/15?

If he took it and it was his intent to use it, yes.

I think he took it, but not necessarily planned to use it; he may have taken it to dump it.

[day2day]

Originally posted by gstickley
No one knows when the laptop was removed or by whom.

Exactly..
I have a hard time believing Mr. Gricar removed the laptop, and an even harder timre believing that he TOSSED it in the river on 4/15/2005.

jmo

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
No one knows when the laptop was removed or by whom.

P'gal asked me an honest question about what I thought. I think the odds are exceptionally good that RFG removed it.

Why? Only two people should have known where it was, PEF and RFG.

If PEF removed it, why call it to LE's attention? "Forget" that it exists and let it lay in the Susquehanna. Maybe in few days or weeks LE will find out that the laptop exists. Then they'll ask PEF, who says, **I forgot about that; we didn't use it.** She takes them to the bedroom where they find an empty case. In the meantime, a few days have passed, and it becomes more likely that the data cannot be recovered.

"I forgot about that; we didn't use it" wouldn't pass the smell test when it was clear that the desk top computer had just been purchased a few months prior.

JMO.

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


P'gal asked me an honest question about what I thought. I think the odds are exceptionally good that RFG removed it.

Why? Only two people should have known where it was, PEF and RFG.

If PEF removed it, why call it to LE's attention? "Forget" that it exists and let it lay in the Susquehanna. Maybe in few days or weeks LE will find out that the laptop exists. Then they'll ask PEF, who says, **I forgot about that; we didn't use it.** She takes them to the bedroom where they find an empty case. In the meantime, a few days have passed, and it becomes more likely that the data cannot be recovered.

1) doesn't want to look stupid
2) appearance of concern & cooperation
3) substantiation that she didn't know of Ray Gricar's movements - right I'll buy that along with the Brooklyn Bridge

Exactly, UTR. JJ doesn't get it as he doesn't want to get it. Why? We'll never know.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Laws
[b]

1) doesn't want to look stupid

Laws, I've said very early that, if this was murder, the killer was brilliant. If you are the murderer, you want to look stupid.

2) appearance of concern & cooperation

She **forgets,** or tells that to LE. On 4/17/05, PEF is obviously under a lot of stress. There is a disused computer tucked away in a closet. She could legitimately forget. How is LE going to know what she is thinking? Even Carla Baron doesn't claim to read minds.

3) substantiation that she didn't know of Ray Gricar's movements - right I'll buy that along with the Brooklyn Bridge

How is this "substantiation" of RFG's movements. Remember that according to JKA, LE is putting out requests to see if the laptop was in the office someplace.

It looks like you are attempting to sell the Brooklyn bridge and claiming that it's in the Texas Panhandle!

[J. J. in Phila]

I remembered reading this in JKA's "
"Paramour Pages."

First:

I recall last year at the one-year mark reading a news conference statement which contended as fact that the laptop was absolutely in Ray's home at all times prior to April 15, 2005 and wondering why, if that were the case, staff were being asked to search their work areas for it in the DA Office a week or two later.

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepa...ecorequestions

Then:

I have a very limited recall of specific events during the first several weeks of the investigation and the order in which they occurred, as there was a great deal going on with both my cases and the approaching primary election in mid-May, 2005.

And then JKA goes on to say:

I can recall all of the office staff being asked to search their individual offices/work areas for Ray's laptop, because it could not be found at his house.

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepa...rdisappearance

Now, even factoring out an admittedly poor memory of the events (more CPV, but understandable), it looks like LE didn't give the search for the laptop a hugely high priority in April 2005. They were checking the office 1-2 weeks later.

It, at the time, looked like a detail and doubt that any "smell test" (which I've found on other sites is usually a poster's way of saying, **Since I don't like it, it must be wrong.**) would detect it. It would be simply a question of strain and PEF **forgetting** that RFG had a laptop that he hadn't used for several months.

Ironically, if PEF hadn't said anything, the existence of the laptop may have been unknown until the staff was interviewed, about two weeks later, and possibly not even then.

If PEF was trying destroy the laptop, she was doing a very poor job of it.

No, JJ. The phrase "doesn't pass the smell test" means essentially that we're dealing with something so fishy or hinky that one whiff of it gives it away, as in this example:

Apparently, the only way anyone knew about the gambling was through the election fraud case. Just makes me wonder who was gambling then? Also, didn't somebody at the bank notice a ne-er do well with a balance unbecoming them?

This excuse just doesn't pass the smell test.

http://perseverando.blogspot.com/200...y-updated.html

PF would NEVER get LE to believe she "forgot" there was a laptop when the desktop computer had only been purchased mere months before. Had it been years, maybe.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I am not talking about the definition, I am talking the usage. Almost always when someone says, "X doesn't past the smell test" what they are saying is "I don't like what X is, in spite of no evidence to the contrary, or nothing definitely wrong with it." It is the connotation, and I've seen it used again and again in that context, like right here.

In other words, it is a false standard, much like "verifiable evidence."

And, of course, in a stressful situation, like her SO going missing, PEF conceivably could forget (even legitimately) that there was a laptop that she hasn't seen used in months.

At worst, it could eventually raise LE's suspicions, in a few weeks when they realize RFG actually had a laptop. By that time, the laptop has been in the water for a few weeks; the data is destroyed. But it still becomes plausible that PEF would have legitimately forgotten.

There is no way to get into her mind to determine if she had legitimately forgotten or not.

Of course, none of that happened, since PEF volunteered the information.

So, I must repeat my answer to P'gal's question. I think the odds are exceptionally good that RFG removed it.

Now, that isn't, yes, absolutely RFG removed it. It is that, knowing what we know now, he is the most likely person to have removed it. I'd say above 70% likely.

First, JJ, I know exactly what I meant, both denotatively and connotatively, when I used the phrase, and it was as I described it, not as you did. You want to claim there's no way to "get inside" PF's mind. But you have a rather strange habit of frequently acting as if you can "get inside" various posters' minds, twisting what they have posted into something else entirely.

That said, I simply disagree with you, as clearly Laws does also, and believe that LE would find PF forgetting RG had a laptop which had been replaced by a desktop computer only a few short months prior to raise a red flag.

Where you come up with your 70% figure that RG is the one to have removed the computer is beyond all comprehension, an unknowable statistic pulled out of thin air. PF had every bit as much access to that computer as RG did, and the fact that she volunteered its existence to LE tells us nothing about whether or not she might have been the one to remove it.

In fact, hypothetically speaking, it would be the smartest thing to do if she WERE the one to have removed the laptop--volunteer its existence and then act surprised when it is not where she has told LE it was stored. Then she would have people like you arguing, "But she voluntarily told LE about the laptop . . ."

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, first, I don't go into posters mids, I observe what they post. I'm sure that annoys you. And I can assure you, I have not posted what I actually think posters are up, well some of them.

But as a matter of evidence, they can't. Would be suspicious if PEF said she forgot about? Would it be suspicious if JKA said she didn't remember who told her the car was in Lewisburg? The answer to both is yes.

Would that implicate either of them in a murder? No.

Yes actually her action do tell us some things. First, that there is a gigantic likelihood that the laptop was not in the house. The next line out of LE's mouth can very easily be, "Mind if we look?"

LE also did search within the week and may have come across it. Attempting to sneak the laptop out, with LE on the street (not to mention family being there) would be difficult.

A few months prior is the key along with an exceptionally stress filled weekend. TG forgot where he was when he had the call that the Mini was found, for example.

It's not that PEF told LE, it's that she voluntarily told them on 4/17/05. She could have easily **remembered** the laptop a few days into the investigation, like while LE was in the office looking at the office computer. There had to be some contact between her and the investigating officers that week.

About a 70% chance he took it, far from definite, however.

[Politigal]

The laptop would be extremely easy to hide, transport, and dispose of.

PF could have stashed it under her mattress til LE left.

She could simply have then walked it to the car (parked in the garage.)

She could then have taken it to Lewisburg at some point - maybe when she went to Milton to meet with the profiler or when she picked up the Mini.

She could have given it to an accomplice to dispose of.

101 Ways

[Politigal]

Where the hard drive was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=465816&rfi=6

It was found two weeks ago by a woman and her son who were skipping stones by the river near a railroad bridge. The drive was sitting in shallow water about 10 to 15 feet from shore, Zaccagni said.


Where the lap top was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=465812&rfi=6

The fishermen snagged the computer with a net after noticing it at the bottom of the Susquehanna River under a car bridge into Lewisburg, about 45 miles east of Gricar's home in Bellefonte.

Have the names of the woman & her son, and the fishermen, ever been published?

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal
Where the hard drive was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=465816&rfi=6

It was found two weeks ago by a woman and her son who were skipping stones by the river near a railroad bridge. The drive was sitting in shallow water about 10 to 15 feet from shore, Zaccagni said.


Where the lap top was found
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=465812&rfi=6

The fishermen snagged the computer with a net after noticing it at the bottom of the Susquehanna River under a car bridge into Lewisburg, about 45 miles east of Gricar's home in Bellefonte.

Have the names of the woman & her son, and the fishermen, ever been published?

Nope..Never..that my friend is top secret

[Politigal]

Originally posted by day2day


Nope..Never..that my friend is top secret

The lap top was reportedly found up against the bridge support and this article says it was found in 4 feet of water.

http://tinyurl.com/2nh4np


The article I posted in my previous post above said that the fishermen saw it and scooped it up with a net.

So, I'm assuming the water must have been extremely clear for the fishermen to have seen it.

[Politigal]

In this video, photos of the laptop are shown, and you'll note at 1:18 into the video, it shows the white plastic barcode label on the laptop that reflects:

Property of Centre County Commissioners
10345

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...rosecutor.affl

I'm a little bit surprised that the label didn't come unglued, if it was truly in the water 3+ months.

I wonder if law enforcement have done any tests with another laptop and label, in water, to see if it does indeed adhere for that long.

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal


The lap top was reportedly found up against the bridge support and this article says it was found in 4 feet of water.

http://tinyurl.com/2nh4np


The article I posted in my previous post above said that the fishermen saw it and scooped it up with a net.

So, I'm assuming the water must have been extremely clear for the fishermen to have seen it.

Umm they have 20/20 vision?

I personally love this...

At most, the water in the search area was about 6 feet deep, in contrast to the swift, 8-foot-deep river that was searched in April, Lytle said. Also, when divers were in the river in the spring, they were on the Lewisburg side. Over the weekend, divers searched the Milton side of the river.

a fav of mine..:santa:

[Politigal]

Originally posted by day2day


Umm they have 20/20 vision?

I personally love this...



a fav of mine..:santa:

You'd be surprised though, even in shallow depths, what a strong current can be like.

I used to go canoeing on the Guadalupe River. The river has changed a lot over the years, but back in the 80's there was some serious white water there. It was a blast.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by gstickley


You'd have thought LE would have checked out the home computer on 04/16 like they did the office computer.

And, between the "worry" time of approx. 8:00 PM on 04/15 & the "remembering" on 04/17, you'd have thought she'd have checked the both computers herself.

Didn't they get the home computer the same day PF voluntarily offered up the laptop (which was found to be missing)?

[Cloudbuster]

My question is what made PF even think to offer up the laptop in the beginning when so much other things would be running in ones mind? I wouldn't have thought about the laptop so soon but thats me. I would have a hard time focusing from panic of where is he and my legs would be shaking like jelly. But perhaps she was already planning ahead on what to do about the situation at hand.

JMOO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by gstickley


According to JJ, it was on 04/17.

I would have ask the same thing though, knowing we had the county owned one and had used it before we got our own. And it might have been used more than the new one for office work. I also think if it had been me I would have wanted it back in the office since we didn't use it anymore, just so nothing did happen to it. But RG must have been using it at times to still keep it in the home and not in the office. Unless he didn't want anyone having access to anything he had on it and felt it was safer there for thay reason.

Other than PF, I wonder who else knew RG still used it? Did he take it to court with him? Did he have info coming in to his email, on cases he was working on that he didn't want going to the court house computer or fax machine? Something he didn't want others in the office to know about?

If the computer was missing could he have taken it with him on Thursday when he went to Huntingdon? It would really be nice to know who told DZ he was in Huntingdon, where exactly he was seen and was he alone?

[Politigal]

PF said they didn't use it any more.

And Tony previously posted this about it:

tonyGricar
Member
Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 350 quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Hbgchick
Anyplace I have worked, when they provide a laptop for business use they also provide you with a docking station in the office so that your laptop is also your desktop. In other words, you do not have two separate computers, a laptop and a desktop, you have one laptop that is used all of the time. Was this the case at the DA's office? Seems weird that he'd have a desktop and work and a laptop for home use, when he also had a home computer.

So if RG took JUST the laptop and not power cords, etc....could he have been planning to either a) go to the office or b) go somewhere that only the laptop would fit?
________________________________________


Ray had a desktop and a laptop. The desktop was his primary work computer. We've always been told that the laptop was primarlily for use at conferences, court, etc. The "Why?" of having two work computers might either be a phase-in issue or one of security, with my guess being a combination. Just about any government office I've ever seen has often been behind the times in terms of technology, with ramp-ups usually occurring when there's year-end budget left.

Your last question is one where I would have to go into some serious supposition with my thought that anything's possible. The fundamental thing that I can only really rely on is that his usage of the laptop was apparently a rare occurrence. Sure, he could have been taking it in to the office, but nothing seems to point to that, and if he's off that day, why go in? This is where all of the very loose details that we have to work with are quite frustrating to my family and investigators. We wish this were a case that is so easily wrapped up on shows such as C.S.I., Law & Order, and the like, but it seems to be a case where truth is stranger than fiction.

Tony
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-27-2006 11:05 AM

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


You'd have thought LE would have checked out the home computer on 04/16 like they did the office computer.

And, between the "worry" time of approx. 8:00 PM on 04/15 & the "remembering" on 04/17, you'd have thought she'd have checked the both computers herself.

According to JKA, they spent the first week looking at the office computer. My guess is that on 4/16, they were looking at e-mail, maybe a calendar.

I would assume that PEF would have access to the home computer and could do that.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
PF said they didn't use it any more.

And Tony previously posted this about it:

Actually, she said that he used it for conferences (I would take that to be like the DA association conferences).

My impression was that they didn't use it in the home for several months.

IITC, it was TG that gave the time that the laptop was requested and found to be missing.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
My question is what made PF even think to offer up the laptop in the beginning when so much other things would be running in ones mind? I wouldn't have thought about the laptop so soon but thats me. I would have a hard time focusing from panic of where is he and my legs would be shaking like jelly. But perhaps she was already planning ahead on what to do about the situation at hand.

JMOO

IIRC, TG said that LE was at the house to look at the desk top and asked if RFG had another computer; that's when PEF mentioned the laptop.

I'll let TG confirm my recall.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Actually, she said that he used it for conferences (I would take that to be like the DA association conferences).

Do you have the link for where she (PF) said that RG used it for conferences?

JJ, when you say, "I would assume that PEF would have access to the home computer and could do that," are you suggesting that LE would allow PF to go through the home computer looking for evidence?

Good grief. That would be on a par with Boulder Police letting John Ramsey search the home for JonBenet's body.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Do you have the link for where she (PF) said that RG used it for conferences?

It's in one of the articles, if not more than one, and possible on the CDT Forum as well. (It's been out there for a while and mentioned on the board.)

UTR, if the desktop is in the house, PEF obviously had access to it when she came back from work, when came back from the gym, all night and in the morning prior to LE showing up.

Provided that PEF can get into his account (which both might use), she, an LE can check to see if there in an undeleted message that says:

***Hi Ray,

Meet me at 2:00 PM in Lewisburg, XXX***

or that RFG sent out a message (that wasn't deleted from sent messages) that said:

***Hi XXX,

Meet me in Lewisburg at 2:00 PM, Ray***

Assuming that nothing was password protected, this would have been discovered without too much trouble, by both LE and PEF. That would have an important clue, in the morning of 4/16/05, to where RFG was.

Deleted copies would be recorded in the Internet provider's computer, which would take LE to access.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


It's in one of the articles, if not more than one, and possible on the CDT Forum as well. (It's been out there for a while and mentioned on the board.)

.

I'd still like to see a link to an archive or whatever. thx

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


I'd still like to see a link to an archive or whatever. thx

tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 350





Ray had a desktop and a laptop. The desktop was his primary work computer. We've always been told that the laptop was primarlily for use at conferences, court, etc. The "Why?" of having two work computers might either be a phase-in issue or one of security, with my guess being a combination. Just about any government office I've ever seen has often been behind the times in terms of technology, with ramp-ups usually occurring when there's year-end budget left.

Tony

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Old Post 07-27-2006 12:05 PM

You posted this yesterday on this thread, though I've edited it down.

[day2day]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
JJ, when you say, "I would assume that PEF would have access to the home computer and could do that," are you suggesting that LE would allow PF to go through the home computer looking for evidence?

Good grief. That would be on a par with Boulder Police letting John Ramsey search the home for JonBenet's body.

Has to be post of the day, UTR!! Why wouldn't they allow her to search the computer? They allowed her to search the house?

And yep ..this is JUST like the Ramsey case, only MUCH worse -imo!