~The Dogs~

[Politigal]

Contrary to some creative writing on the board....when Gricar's disappearance was initially investigated (if you can call it that...)....

The search dogs did *not* find his scent at the Street of Shops - not in front of it, not beside it, not inside it ...and they didn't find his scent at or near the river. The only place the dogs alerted to his scent was where his car had been. His scent would naturally have been on a vehicle he drove daily.

That's all folks.

Wonder why they didn't scent the dogs for Patty....because she *also* drove the Mini per Tony Gricar in previous posts.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

Contrary to some creative writing on the board....when Gricar's disappearance was initially investigated (if you can call it that...)....

The search dogs did *not* find his scent at the Street of Shops - not in front of it, not beside it, not inside it ...and they didn't find his scent at or near the river. The only place the dogs alerted to his scent was where his car had been. His scent would naturally have been on a vehicle he drove daily.

Wonder why they didn't scent the dogs for Patty....because she *also* drove the Mini per Tony Gricar in previous posts.

[/quote]

The scent was found away from the car in the parking lot. We also don't know the last time PEF rode in it, but it was likely more than 60 hours prior to dog being used.

That's all folks.

No, you will attempt to warp time and space again to would out your scenario.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by logicworks

JJ's quote:

The scent was found away from the car in the parking lot. We also don't know the last time PEF rode in it, but it was likely more than 60 hours prior to dog being used.

No, you will attempt to warp time and space again to would out your scenario.

How would you possibly know that, particularly if the dog was not scented to a personal item of hers? PGal is correct. It should have been done.

There should have been scent pockets near shrubs, concrete blocks, edge of buildings, considering the car may have been parked there for over 24 hours. If the dog didn't pick up on scent pockets, I would be very surprised.

If the dog acted the same regarding PF's scent from the car, it might have aided to answer the question of 'beeline' or 'pocket' situation, considering her scent would have also been there as long as his, if from the car alone.
JMO[/quote]

REF was in the area on 4/17 (possibly 4/16) prior to the dogs. They would have made a "beeline" to where she was or to her standing there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by logicworks

Are you saying not only was PF's scent not introduced, but that she was permitted near the car or the lot prior to the dog scenting?

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

Source for Patty being at the site when the dogs were there....

I think you're rewriting history...once again.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

Source for Patty being at the site when the dogs were there....

I think you're rewriting history...once again.

JKA. Gee P'gal, you really do like rewriting history.

She said that she was there (4/17) she was told that PEF had arrived. We've covered this before. Now, I don't know if PEF was there on 4/16 as well (because JKA wasn't there).

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

JKA. Gee P'gal, you really do like rewriting history.

She said that she was there (4/17) she was told that PEF had arrived. We've covered this before. Now, I don't know if PEF was there on 4/16 as well (because JKA wasn't there).

JKA did *not* write that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there. She was discussing being at the *BARRACKS.*

I left to return to Bellefonte around 11:00-11:15 AM. At that point the only activity was the anticipated arrival of a helicopter and dogs. As I was leaving, Chief Dixon had just arrived at the barracks and I asked him if he needed anything prior to the time that Mr. Smith could be located, and he indicated that he did not. I was told that Ray's paramour had arrived with a friend but I did not see her before I left.

Try again...sheesh

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

JKA did *not* write that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there. She was discussing being at the *BARRACKS.*

I left to return to Bellefonte around 11:00-11:15 AM. At that point the only activity was the anticipated arrival of a helicopter and dogs. As I was leaving, Chief Dixon had just arrived at the barracks and I asked him if he needed anything prior to the time that Mr. Smith could be located, and he indicated that he did not. I was told that Ray's paramour had arrived with a friend but I did not see her before I left.

Try again...sheesh

You'll note that she said PEF had arrived, but she hadn't seen her. PSP barracks are not big. Whey do think she was. There is also the possibility that she went up on 4/16 when the car was found.

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

You'll note that she said PEF had arrived, but she hadn't seen her. PSP barracks are not big. Whey do think she was. There is also the possibility that she went up on 4/16 when the car was found.

When will you ever acknowledge that you are wrong or that you made a mistake?

You have *assumed* that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there... And you have provided nothing to corroborate that she was.

Face it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

When will you ever acknowledge that you are wrong or that you made a mistake?

You have *assumed* that Patty was at the lot when the dogs were there... And you have provided nothing to corroborate that she was.

Face it.

No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. You'll note she arrived before the searches. She may have been there on 4/16.

TG can answer that one, as per 4/16.

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. snipped

NO

Here's what you stated:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there.

Now you're changing your statement and saying Patty was there prior to the dogs being there.

JJ - get your stories straight.

Once again, you're twisting better than Chubby.

[Chump#7]

So much for accuracy.

Sucks, because I have an legitimate important question to ask, but I know I won't get an accurate answer.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

NO

Here's what you stated:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there.

Now you're changing your statement and saying Patty was there prior to the dogs being there.

JJ - get your stories straight.

Once again, you're twisting better than Chubby.

P'Gal, I'll try to explain this two you slowly.

The dogs arrives sometime after 11:15 AM on 4/17/05.

PEF was there before 11:15 AM on 4/17/05. She may have been there on 4/16/05, but that I don't know.

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by Chump#7

So much for accuracy.

Sucks, because I have an legitimate important question to ask, but I know I won't get an accurate answer.

Ask away Chump. I'd like to see *both* of JJ's answers... lol

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

NO

Here's what you stated:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there.

Now you're changing your statement and saying Patty was there prior to the dogs being there.

JJ - get your stories straight.

Once again, you're twisting better than Chubby.

No P'gal, I'll quote it again:

"No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. You'll note she arrived before the searches. She may have been there on 4/16."

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

No P'gal, I'll quote it again:

"No. I've stated that PEF was there prior to the dogs being there. You'll note she arrived before the searches. She may have been there on 4/16."

JJ - are you drinking or short on memory.....

Here's what you initially posted

"I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there."

Now you're saying she was there *prior* to the dogs being there.

Make up your freaking mind.

[Politigal]

JJ - you were initially implying that Patty was at the parking lot when the dogs were there...because you wrote this:

If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

P'gal, "was" is past tense. "Was standing" means where she had been standing but wasn't at the point the dogs came running to the spot; if she was there at the time, they would have come running to her.

You must be disparate.

LOL, JJ. Your explanation of tenses is as accurate as your explanation of scent theory. "Was standing" and "had been standing" have two entirely different meanings. But carry on.

[Chump#7]

Originally Posted by UndertheRadar

LOL, JJ. Your explanation of tenses is as accurate as your explanation of scent theory. "Was standing" and "had been standing" have two entirely different meanings. But carry on.

Not to mention that "was standing" is not even part of J.J.'s quote that he refuses to acknowledge. Even Houdini is rolling his eyes at this.

For the 6th time on this page:

J.J.: "I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there."


I fail to see the ambiguity in that statement. I means Patty was there, in the lot, on 4/17/05, at the same time the dogs were there. I don't see the relevance, yet, but this would be news to those following the case closer than myself. So a simple 'Yes, she was', or 'No, sorry, that's not what I meant.' would have saved some bandwidth.

If it was a misstatement, J.J., there is no shame in admitting it.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, here is the quote:

I'm saying she was at the site on 4/17/05, when the dogs were there. If it had PEF's scent, the would have started running to her or where she was standing. The car was moved on 4/16, so obviously her scent on 4/17 would be fresher. The thing is, the dogs didn't run to her or where she had been.

Now, except for an occasional conspiracy theory that involves PEF flying on a magic carpet, she either would have been there when the dogs were there, standing, or she had been their, standing. If the dogs are going to run to her, then she is standing there. If she was there prior to the dogs being there, and left, the dogs would then run to where she was standing.

I'm sorry and poster can't comprehend that PEF hovering over the parking lot is not an option.

[Politigal]

I think what we were all trying to convey.....is that Patty Fornicola was *not* at the parking lot when the search dogs were being used there.

She may have been in Lewisburg or Milton at the police barracks....but she was not in the Street of Shops parking lot when the dogs were being used.

IMO

[Politigal]

Patty reportedly *did* provide the article to police that was used to scent the dogs though....

And that still bugs me, because we really don't know if the item truly belonged to Gricar and/or we don't know if it was a t-shirt of his that perhaps she wore on occasion.

Originally Posted by Politigal

I think what we were all trying to convey.....is that Patty Fornicola was *not* at the parking lot when the search dogs were being used there.

She may have been in Lewisburg or Milton at the police barracks....but she was not in the Street of Shops parking lot when the dogs were being used.

IMO

It's clear from KA's manuscript that she arrived at the barracks at the same time LE were awaiting the arrival of the dogs at the SOS. My understanding is that she underwent questioning by the profiler at the barracks that Sunday, IIRC.

Originally Posted by Politigal

Patty reportedly *did* provide the article to police that was used to scent the dogs though....

And that still bugs me, because we really don't know if the item truly belonged to Gricar and/or we don't know if it was a t-shirt of his that perhaps she wore on occasion.

Or someone else's underwear...perhaps someone who resembles RG, mucking up the 'witness evidence'. Look, I think I understand every nuance in the hypothetical theory that casts PF as villain rather than victim. From a stand-offish perspective, that theory lacks the same 'smoking gun' as do all other scenarios. But it has received zero support from anyone who was even tangentially related to RG....or PF.

[gstickley]

Centre Daily Times ^ | 4/20/05 | Mike Joseph

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:08:46 PM by TheBigB

LEWISBURG -- Detectives investigating the disappearance of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar concentrated their search Tuesday around an antiques mall near the Susquehanna River where they believe he was seen about noon Saturday.

Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time.

The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

According to LE, the dogs did not track away from the car, to the river, or to the SOS.
Witness Bennett reportedly saw someone fitting Gricar's description INSIDE the SOS.
Bennett is the witness most have relied upon as to Gricar being in Lewisburg.

IMO, "witnesses" of Gricar being in Lewisburg were looking for a moment of fame.
IMO, there is NO proof Gricar was in Lewisburg.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, their "moment of fame" is such that they are not even releasing their names to the press. There is no publicity in basically remaining anonymous to everyone except some out of town police and the family of a guy they've never met. I believe that of the 8-10 we know about, at best only four of them have been publicly identified.

For the witnesses, in general, there would have to be someone who resembled RFG. It isn't PEF or her brother (who had a very thick mustache on 4/18/05). Sloan, not even close. JKA, same problem as PEF. Any of the Gricars? No, from the pictures on-line they couldn't pass for RFG.

Then multiple witnesses put him in the Mini, at least 3. The likelihood that someone who resemble RFG, be dressed as RFG, and be driving a Red Mini is exceptionally low.

That's without the scent. As soon as you add that, it becomes even more problematic.

[Politigal]

It was reported numerous times that police could not corroborate any of the witness sightings with any other evidence...period. No 2 people saw him in the same place at the same time, there was no forensic evidence he was there, there was no evidence on any surveillance video, there were no receipts in his name at any establishment, and the dogs didn't go anywhere but that danged parking lot where the car had been.

Pretty slim chance Gricar was anywhere near there that weekend IMO.

[gstickley]

[quote=gstickley;12295118]Centre Daily Times ^ | 4/20/05 | Mike Joseph

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:08:46 PM by TheBigB

(snip)
Mall owner Craig Bennett, 48, said he has told Bellefonte and state police investigators in repeated conversations that he saw a man "very close" to Gricar's description standing in a passageway inside the mall about that time.

The man, wearing a blue vest or a fleece jacket, stood for a time in front of a storefront that is closed and under construction, Bennett told the Centre Daily Times Tuesday. Gricar was wearing a blue fleece jacket when last seen.

"It appeared as though he was waiting for someone," Bennett said. "It had all the look as if he was waiting for someone."

Bennett described the man "wearing a blue vest or fleece jacket"
IMO, RG was NOT the only man "wearing a blue vest or fleece jacket" in Lewisburg on that day; in fact, has it not been said that such outerwear is quite common in the area?
Has it also not been said that there were other red/white Mini Coopers in Lewisburg on that day?

And . . . if the "man" was seen INSIDE the mall, it apparently WAS NOT RG, as the dogs failed to track the scent away from the car.

And . . . if the scent given to the dogs was not that of RG, there is no proof RG was the last person in the car.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

It was reported numerous times that police could not corroborate any of the witness sightings with any other evidence...period. No 2 people saw him in the same place at the same time, there was no forensic evidence he was there, there was no evidence on any surveillance video, there were no receipts in his name at any establishment, and the dogs didn't go anywhere but that danged parking lot where the car had been.

Pretty slim chance Gricar was anywhere near there that weekend IMO.

Since there were witnesses, plural that saw RFG moving the Mini in the parking lot, and there was forensic evidence that he was in the lot, your statement is false.

The area, like much of the country, is not covered by video, and if RFG didn't buy anything using a credit card, there would be no receipts.

GS, Bennett isn't one of the people that saw RFG in the parking lot or in the Mini, or both, on 4/15/05. He's one of a series of witnesses.

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

Since there were witnesses, plural that saw RFG moving the Mini in the parking lot, and there was forensic evidence that he was in the lot, your statement is false.

The area, like much of the country, is not covered by video, and if RFG didn't buy anything using a credit card, there would be no receipts.

GS, Bennett isn't one of the people that saw RFG in the parking lot or in the Mini, or both, on 4/15/05. He's one of a series of witnesses.

Wrong again JJ....there was no forensic evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg...period.

There was forensic evidence that his scent was detected at the area where his car had been (and his car certainly contained his scent.)

I imagine if the dogs had been scented to Patty's scent, that her scent would also have been detected there, since she also drove the car.

[gstickley]

This is JJ's list of "witnesses" who put RG in Lewisburg. Note that Bennett is listed, even though he "witnessed" RG INSIDE the mall, when the dogs did not track the scent away from the car. Also note that no other "witnesses" names are given. Also note there were other red/white Mini's in the area at the time and that blue fleece jackets were common outwear in the area. Also note that NO ONE has ever said, "I know Ray Gricar & I saw Ray Gricar".

Once again, there were NO WITNESSES who ever said he/she actually saw Ray Gricar in Lewisburg on 04/15-16. IMO, that's because Ray Gricar was not in Lewisburg on those dates!

One who saw RFG there just after noon.

One who saw him from the museum, in the early afternoon

McKnight's witness (5:00 Pm in Mini heading toward Lewisburg)

Businessman who saw him late on either 4/15 or 4/16

Two women who saw him on 4/16

Bennett, saw him around noon on 4/15

Multiple witnesses who saw RFG moving the car in the parking lot between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM on 4/15.

There may have been others reported.

[Politigal]

Agreed! GStickley....

And I know it's been asked before....but since Patty handled the item & provided the item given to police to scent the dogs....How do we truly know that the dogs weren't trailing *her* scent?

[gstickley]

We don't know, Pgal.

Just like we don't truly know quite a bit
(like why so much time was spent searching the river when the dogs didn't scent there; like why the house wasn't searched; like why the neighbors, co-workers, etc., weren't interviewed; like why the described MW & suspicious car weren't made public for a year; like why 5 fingerprints/5 sets of fingerprints/3 fingerprints turned into NO fingerprints; like why the Chief didn't oversee the chief inv. officer (or did he?); & on & on & on. Actually, we truly don't know much, only what we've been spoon-fed since day 1. But . . . some of us do have common sense & the desire to find out what actually did happen to RG.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

Wrong again JJ....there was no forensic evidence that Gricar was in Lewisburg...period.

There was forensic evidence that his scent was detected at the area where his car had been (and his car certainly contained his scent.)

I imagine if the dogs had been scented to Patty's scent, that her scent would also have been detected there, since she also drove the car.

The scent was detected in the parking lot and enough away from the car to give the handler the impression that RFG got into another car.

Actually, Patty had not driven the car, from what has been reported, from 4/14 onward, possibly some time before that. The dogs were brought in on 4/17 and detected the scent in the parking lot not in the car.

So we are back to eyewitness evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 and was driving car. We also have RFG's scent being detected in the parking lot where the car was found.

Scent doesn't last indefinitely and RFG's scent was in the parking lot.

Your theory seems to be, all the witnesses were wrong or lying and the scent evidence in the parking lot was faked or is wrong.

[gstickley]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

(snip)
Actually, Patty had not driven the car, from what has been reported, from 4/14 onward, possibly some time before that.

Where has this been reported & when?

So we are back to eyewitness evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 and was driving car.

What credible eyewitnesses? Which LE reported this & when?

We also have RFG's scent being detected in the parking lot where the car was found.

How do we know it was actually RG's scent?

Scent doesn't last indefinitely and RFG's scent was in the parking lot.

Your theory seems to be, all the witnesses were wrong or lying and the scent evidence in the parking lot was faked or is wrong.

No one has proven RG was ever in Lewisburg.

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, PEF was at work all day Friday; she wasn't driveing the car around the office.

McKnight's witness, the plural witnesses.

As for the scent, how do we know it was Laci Peterson's scent; using your argument, we could never ever trust dog scent evidence. Further, we don't have anyone who matches the description of the car driver, except RFG.

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by gstickley

No one has proven RG was ever in Lewisburg.

Exactly. No one can prove he was alive or dead on Friday. That Thursday night surveillance is the only thing "in concrete."

[gstickley]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

GS, PEF was at work all day Friday; she wasn't driveing the car around the office.

McKnight's witness, the plural witnesses.

As for the scent, how do we know it was Laci Peterson's scent; using your argument, we could never ever trust dog scent evidence. Further, we don't have anyone who matches the description of the car driver, except RFG.

No one knows what PF did Thu. night after the walk in the park until whatever time she arrived at work Fri. AM. No concrete evidence of RG after he left the courthouse Thu. night.

Plural witnesses??? I think not. Not even the only named "witness", Bennett. (I guess if I said I saw RG in Lewisburg at 12:00 Sat., 04/15/05, I'd be considered a "witness" also?????)

I do trust dog scent evidence. I just don't trust what may have been used to scent the dogs . . . because how can you trust what this LE says; how do you know it isn't like the "fingerprints" - here today, gone tomorrow; the "missed leads" as referred to by DZ himself; the apparent lack of supervision by DZ's superior.

JMO

[Chump#7]

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

GS, PEF was at work all day Friday; she wasn't driveing the car around the office.

McKnight's witness, the plural witnesses.

As for the scent, how do we know it was Laci Peterson's scent; using your argument, we could never ever trust dog scent evidence. Further, we don't have anyone who matches the description of the car driver, except RFG.

GS made no such statements/arguments - just asked questions.

GS is also not presenting speculation as facts, which seems to be the resurgent trend with the 'walkaway theory' (unconfirmed details of witness accounts, the conclusion of the dogs attempts to track RG) amongst a certain blogger & poster. The theories are sound and plausible for sure, but when those who know better start presenting speculation as facts, it makes me question their motivations.

- Back to the dogs

RG's scent was in the parking lot because the car he used (I almost said 'his car' and set myself up for a hair splitting side track bickerfest. Whew) was in the parking lot, doors opened. I'd like to hear from real experts on the subject as to how a bloodhound would act in this scenario: Politgal takes gstickley's car for a ride and parks it at the local Sheetz. gstickley hasn't been to the Sheetz in quite awhile. The doors are open, etc, etc. gstickley's car is then removed from the premise. Bloodhounds are then brought to the Sheetz and scented to track gstickley. What would they do? Stick around where gstickley's car had been parked, doors open, au de gstickley wofting about? Not pick up anything at all? Wander around about 20 yards (Heh)? I'm sure this has been discussed. Feel free to retrieve links, etc. I'm curious.

At the time the dogs were brought in, LE and the handlers were working on the assumption that RG had been there. Why wouldn't they? So, of course it makes sense to conclude that not being able to track his scent very far meant he possibly could have gotten into another vehicle. I just wonder if it wasn't the residual scent of RG from the car he drove that was in the parking lot.