The Crockpot (miscellaneous topics)

[Politigal]

On the upstairs closet...........

Patty said that the laptop wasn't being used any more. And, Gricar wasn't seen carrying the laptop on the Thurs night surveillance video.

Reportedly when police went to Patty's house to look at the desktop computer Patty went upstairs to fetch Gricar's county issued laptop for them, only to find an empty case with peripherals in her upstairs closet.

It was also reported that police did not fingerprint that case.

I'm curious though about that closet. Was it Gricar's personal closet? Or was it just a storage closet? And who besides Patty or Gricar had access to it? Did they frequently have guests who stayed overnight in an upstairs bedroom? Did they have a housekeeper who could have had access? Who else had keys to Patty's home?

If Gricar didn't take that laptop out of that closet....wouldn't it make sense that Patty was the most likely person to have access to it?

Or, do you think the laptop had been removed from the closet some time prior? After all, there were probably other compatible peripherals at the courthouse that could have been used to recharge or whatever.

Or, if some one else removed it from the closet, why wouldn't they take the peripherals? If there was something incriminating on the laptop, it seems to me that it would have been easier for someone to erase the harddrive or work on the laptop, with the cables handy, etc....unless that someone also worked at the courthouse & knew they had access to compatibles.

[J. J. in Phila]

1. It was removed, on 4/15/05, in order to be used in the field. RFG wanted to use it and took it out of the case to check the power.

2. It was removed by someone, inclusive of RFG, for the purpose of having the data destroyed.

[gstickley]

Originally Posted by Politigal

On the upstairs closet...........

(snip)
It was also reported that police did not fingerprint that case.

I'm curious though about that closet. Was it Gricar's personal closet? Or was it just a storage closet? And who besides Patty or Gricar had access to it? Did they frequently have guests who stayed overnight in an upstairs bedroom? Did they have a housekeeper who could have had access? Who else had keys to Patty's home?

If Gricar didn't take that laptop out of that closet....wouldn't it make sense that Patty was the most likely person to have access to it?

(snip)

Here's where I get to loudly say, "IF LE HAD INVESTIGATED, AS IN 'SEARCHED' THE HOUSE---AND FINGERPRINTED---THE ANSWERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE."

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by gstickley

Here's where I get to loudly say, "IF LE HAD INVESTIGATED, AS IN 'SEARCHED' THE HOUSE---AND FINGERPRINTED---THE ANSWERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE."

Probably not.

If someone, as you've suggested, could have driven the Mini for more than an hour, and not leave any evidence, walking into a house will leave zero evidence as well. A five minute trip into the house is even less likely to leave evidence.

If RFG removed the laptop, which is the most likely situation, finding his prints on it wouldn't prove anything, because he'd obviously handled the case prior to 4/15/05. Likewise, if PEF removed it, she could have easily claimed that she moved the case weeks ago.

If a "porn buddy" removed the case, it would not prove too much, in all probability. The "buddy" would have to be someone who knew, and possibly worked with, RFG, and could claim to have handled the case previously. There is actually a good argument against a "buddy." He would have walked in, grabbed the case, and walked out, not carefully removed the laptop from the case and put the case back.

Somebody not only removed the laptop, but took it out of the case and put the case back. The person most likely to do that is RFG.

[Tree_of_Life]

We don't even know the last reported sighting of the laptop prior to it turning up in the river, do we?

There is another possibility as to why the laptop was found sans case: perhaps Gricar had it out downstairs in the living room using it on the morning of 4/15. He is just looking something up and didn't need to drag out all the accessories. He then decides for whatever reason to take the laptop with him. Perhaps he is in a hurry and doesn't have time or care about going back upstairs to retrieve the case. Perhaps he doesn't intend to use it for an extended period of time as to need the power supply.

Just trying to think of these possibilities by comparing how I use my laptop. I usually always take the case and power supply when I know I am going out and might need it for an extended period of time. But if I was already using it in an area of the house that was away from its normal "plugged-in" location -- then say I had to leave. I might just grab it because I was in a hurry or even if I wasn't hurried but I thought I probably wouldn't need it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Good to see you Tree.

There would be two possibilities regarding why the laptop was out of the case:

1. He was planning to destroy the data by destroying the hard drive. The case would add more bulk. He may have even removed the drive there.

2. He was planning to use it in the field, as it were. He removed it to check the battery. It worked and he could turn it on there. There would be no need to take the accessories.

Both are posible and both point to different things.

[Politigal]

I've posted before about the John Glasgow case in Little Rock, AR and how similar his disappearance is to Gricar's....his car was found several miles away from his home abandoned, with his cellphone, etc..no fingerprints inside and no real evidence or proof as to who actually drove his car there. His family now believes he is most likely dead.

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article.aspx?aID=111575

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

I've posted before about the John Glasgow case in Little Rock, AR and how similar his disappearance is to Gricar's....his car was found several miles away from his home abandoned, with his cellphone, etc..no fingerprints inside and no real evidence or proof as to who actually drove his car there. His family now believes he is most likely dead.

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article.aspx?aID=111575

And in this case, how many witnesses saw him in the area of the car?

[Politigal]

There were several "credible" sightings of Glasgow....(just like in Gricar's case, Caylee Anthony's case, Lori Hacking's case, Laci Peterson's case, etc.)

Glasgow was supposedly seen at a nearby tobacco store, at a waffle house, and at a motel. None of those sightings could be corroborated. (again, just like in Gricar's case, Caylee Anthony's case, Lori Hacking's case, Laci Peterson's case, etc.)

Period. And as reported, his family believes that he's dead.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

There were several "credible" sightings of Glasgow....(just like in Gricar's case, Caylee Anthony's case, Lori Hacking's case, Laci Peterson's case, etc.)

Glasgow was supposedly seen at a nearby tobacco store, at a waffle house, and at a motel. None of those sightings could be corroborated. (again, just like in Gricar's case, Caylee Anthony's case, Lori Hacking's case, Laci Peterson's case, etc.)

Period. And as reported, his family believes that he's dead.

Did any of those sightings see him at the same place at the same time? Did any see him driving his car?

Lest this whole idea of multiple witnesses at the same time and place driving the car thing (and that whole scenario is questionable) get too much love, it's worth considering a few things about oversimplifying how much weight to give that phenomenon.

A couple of recent studies have shown that witnesses do talk to each other, as frequently as nearly 90% of the time. When they do talk to each other, there's more chance their reporting is going to be similar than dissimilar. Based on that alone, multiple witness reports can be problematic.

Even if it can be absolutely proven that witnesses had no conversations, there's no guarantee information isn't indirectly passing from witness to witness because of small and often subtle flaws in LE questioning techniques. It's possible no one is even aware of this when it occurs, but the net effect is the same, a greater chance witness reports are more similar than dissimilar.

Other studies have found that saying someone isn't the person in question actually carries more weight than multiple witnesses saying someone is the person in question.

Applied to the RG, case, for instance, we know that multiple reports of RG and the LMW were taken. But do we know whether LE interviewed others who saw the same man and woman, witnesses who might have said, "No, it didn't look like Ray Gricar to me"? That kind of witness is apparently often "discarded," but according to these studies, means more than the multiple witnesses saying it was.

[gstickley]

This is the first statement made by the "credible witness" whose statement has been used over & over to "prove" RG was with a MW inside the mall:

Local district attorney missing
04/18/05
By Josh Kowalkowski
Collegian Staff Writer

"The car was parked out here [Saturday]," said Brad Alvey, who owns Remember When Café, located in the Street of Shops. "Nobody that I'm aware of saw him."

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the witnesses for Friday have not been identified publicly, with two exceptions; one of those was a report in the early afternoon. The reports of the details were not reported until more than six months later, and then in an out of town paper. LE got their statements early in the case.

This is just more spin to try (and fail miserably) to explain away the witnesses.

And guess what else, there are no material conflicts in what they say.

Immaterial whether witnesses were publicly identified or not. The science stands, and I will go with empirical data over guess work any day of the week.

Multiple witnesses can in some cases add credibility to an identification, but it's an oversimplification to assume that they do so.

Furthermore, it's a valid question to ask in any of the supposed multiple witness situations in the RG case (in Lewisburg or Wilkes-Barre, for instance) whether a) LE interviewed for/found any witnesses who negated the identification and b) discarded those negated identifications as is so frequently the case.

[gstickley]

How many "witnesses" said, "I know Ray Gricar and that was Ray Gricar I saw?"

Originally Posted by logicworks

I fail to understand why, after 3.8 years, no timeline of verified sightings has been released by LE. We still have only 'bits and pieces' to go on. We are told of the witness at the museum, parklet area, but then we are told the dog picked up no scent other than in the SOS lot. Guess we'll see that timeline of VERIFIED witnesses same time we see the tracking report, the cell phone activity report, etc. In the meantime, I will hold with TG's opinion of the number of verified witnesses.
JMO
JMO

I, too, doubt we'll see that list of verified witnesses. But it would certainly cut down on the Miraculously Morphing Witness sightings I keep finding as I research the issue.

Originally Posted by gstickley

How many "witnesses" said, "I know Ray Gricar and that was Ray Gricar I saw?"

To my knowledge, one vague report of a doctor who supposedly knew RG and supposedly saw him in Huntingdon the day before he went missing, but no released reports of anyone who personally knew RG seeing him after the alleged Friday morning phone call.

[gstickley]

That's the only one I remember.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, how can the witnesses possibly be talking to each other if there don't know who the other witnesses are? The don't wear a sash across their chest that reads "WITNESS."

Right not, this is what we have reported for Lewisburg:

4/15/05 in or near Lewisburg

Woman at Museum, around lunch time, reported Centre Daily Times (CDT)

McKnight’s witness, c. 5:00 PM, includes Mini, CDT

Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (at least three), CDT, Cleveland Scene (CS)

Alvey, Remember When owner, in SoS, in the evening (after 6:00 PM), possibly 4/16/05, reported Daily Collegian (DC), unidentified, but alluded to in CDT, CS. Second witness in SoS. (CS)

4/16/05 in Lewisburg

1. Bennett, lunchtime, CDT

2. Workers, 2, saw RFG at the SoS, just after lunch, CDT

Now the 4/16/05 witnesses were identified and all work in the area, so yes, it is possible they had contact. The museum woman was identified, but that was earlier in the day; Alvey was identified. The other five or more never were. Yet putting them together, they lead to the SoS. We're up to six witnesses that saw RFG in close proximity to his car over a two hour period. Even a mistaken witness should report mid afternoon sightings.

[gstickley]

Originally Posted by gstickley

This is the first statement made by the "credible witness" whose statement has been used over & over to "prove" RG was with a MW inside the mall:

Local district attorney missing
04/18/05
By Josh Kowalkowski
Collegian Staff Writer

"The car was parked out here [Saturday]," said Brad Alvey, who owns Remember When Café, located in the Street of Shops. "Nobody that I'm aware of saw him."

Amazin' Grace . . . how quickly we forget . . .

I'd like to see the links for the witnesses who supposedly saw the Mini being moved in the lot between 5:30 and 6:30.

I didn't do the studies on multiple witnesses. I just report on what I've read over the past few years. But it would certainly make sense in a town as small as Lewisburg where clearly an important person supposedly went missing from a little parking lot. Hot excitement for small town life, all those police gathered in one small spot--draws a crowd, creates conversation and gossip. Guess the big city life doesn't have that kind of thing.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by gstickley

[/b]

Amazin' Grace . . . how quickly we forget . . .

Alvey saw him on Friday, 4/15/05. The quote you just posted refers to Saturday, 4/16/05. Bennett saw him Saturday. But thanks for demonstrating that the witnesses didn't talk to each other.

UTR, the links have been posted repeatedly; the papers are cited. It was also mentioned by Buehner in his press conference and that was linked, twice, IIRC. Feel free to look them up.

Bear with me folks. I'm just trying to get as close to an accurate read as possible on these claims of multiple witnesses placing Ray Gricar in the SOS parking lot between 5:30 and 6:30.

Pgal asked for links back in October and was told the reports were "all published."

I've asked for links and get the same response.

I've spent a couple weeks as time has allowed digging around the 'net for any references to said supposed multiple witnesses, and I guess you will all have to forgive my thick-headedness and inability to google properly, but I am just not finding any such thing.

Here's what I have found though, and it all leads me to wonder about Magically Morphing Witnesses:

• Mike Joseph describes one witness who reports a man "who may have fit Gricar's description" standing beside a Mini-Cooper around noon on Friday along the Susquehanna River. (Witness focus was on the car; she remembered the make of car from a movie.)
  
• Bob Buehner, in the text of his letter, says, "As you may recall, Ray was clearly seen by several witnesses in Lewisburg, PA on Friday, April 15, 2005, standing by his Mini Cooper by the park near the Lewisburg River Bridge. Those witnesses indicated that it appeared he was waiting for someone and even moved his car." (This location is a block from the SOS. Is this sighting the same as the one Mike Joseph refers to? Has one witness become more than one? Has "may have fit Gricar's description become "Ray was clearly seen by several witnesses"? Is this a different sighting entirely?)
  
• A blogger reports that witnesses told LE they saw RG moving the Mini-Cooper several times in the SOS parking lot. No reference to time frame, and no documentation or reference to where this report may have come from (news article, discussion with LE, etc.)
  
• A message board poster on another board, but known to this board, posts that Buehner reported multiple witnesses ID'ing Gricar moving his vehicle in the SOS lot. (Is this in addition to the Buehner claim of witnesses who allegedly saw RG moving his car a full block away from the SOS lot? Or is this a "mistakement"?)
  
• The CS reference for the multiple witnesses between 5:30 and 6:30 moving car I can only assume is the Cleveland Scene/Free Times article by Renner, unless some other article can be provided to show otherwise. That article contains no reference to Mini being moved in the SOS lot, and it contains no reference to the car being moved between 5:30 and 6:30. There are references to the car being moved by the park, which would seem to correspond with the text of Buehner's letter.

Can anyone provide links and/or text from a fact-checked source showing multiple witnesses that put RG or someone resembling RG moving the Mini-Cooper in the SOS lot between 5:30 and 6:30 on Friday, 4/15? I would appreciate seeing any documentation for this claim, as I have found nothing whatsoever to verify it.

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by UndertheRadar

Bear with me folks. I'm just trying to get as close to an accurate read as possible on these claims of multiple witnesses placing Ray Gricar in the SOS parking lot between 5:30 and 6:30.

Pgal asked for links back in October and was told the reports were "all published."

I've asked for links and get the same response.

I've spent a couple weeks as time has allowed digging around the 'net for any references to said supposed multiple witnesses, and I guess you will all have to forgive my thick-headedness and inability to google properly, but I am just not finding any such thing.

Here's what I have found though, and it all leads me to wonder about Magically Morphing Witnesses:

• Mike Joseph describes one witness who reports a man "who may have fit Gricar's description" standing beside a Mini-Cooper around noon on Friday along the Susquehanna River. (Witness focus was on the car; she remembered the make of car from a movie.)
  
• Bob Buehner, in the text of his letter, says, "As you may recall, Ray was clearly seen by several witnesses in Lewisburg, PA on Friday, April 15, 2005, standing by his Mini Cooper by the park near the Lewisburg River Bridge. Those witnesses indicated that it appeared he was waiting for someone and even moved his car." (This location is a block from the SOS. Is this sighting the same as the one Mike Joseph refers to? Has one witness become more than one? Has "may have fit Gricar's description become "Ray was clearly seen by several witnesses"? Is this a different sighting entirely?)
  
• A blogger reports that witnesses told LE they saw RG moving the Mini-Cooper several times in the SOS parking lot. No reference to time frame, and no documentation or reference to where this report may have come from (news article, discussion with LE, etc.)
  
• A message board poster on another board, but known to this board, posts that Buehner reported multiple witnesses ID'ing Gricar moving his vehicle in the SOS lot. (Is this in addition to the Buehner claim of witnesses who allegedly saw RG moving his car a full block away from the SOS lot? Or is this a "mistakement"?)
  
• The CS reference for the multiple witnesses between 5:30 and 6:30 moving car I can only assume is the Cleveland Scene/Free Times article by Renner, unless some other article can be provided to show otherwise. That article contains no reference to Mini being moved in the SOS lot, and it contains no reference to the car being moved between 5:30 and 6:30. There are references to the car being moved by the park, which would seem to correspond with the text of Buehner's letter.

Can anyone provide links and/or text from a fact-checked source showing multiple witnesses that put RG or someone resembling RG moving the Mini-Cooper in the SOS lot between 5:30 and 6:30 on Friday, 4/15? I would appreciate seeing any documentation for this claim, as I have found nothing whatsoever to verify it.

I have a feeling we'll all be looking like smurfs shortly.....

blue in the face

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

I have a feeling we'll all be looking like smurfs shortly.....

blue in the face

The blue facial color might indicate a lack of oxygen to the brain.

J. J. in Phila
12-08-2008, 10:45 PM
The number of witnesses that saw RFG moving the car in the parking lot on 4/15/05 is now listed at "three or four good wintesses." I'll list it as three, possibly more. That brings it up to four witnesses that saw RFG in the Mini on 4/15/05 in or around Lewisburg.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/...he-rivers-edge[/i]

And from Buehner's letter to MM:

As you may recall, Ray was clearly seen by several witnesses in Lewisburg, PA on Friday, April 15, 2005, standing by his Mini Cooper by the park near the Lewisburg River Bridge. Those witnesses indicated that it appeared he was waiting for someone and even moved his car.

And mention at the press conference:

12-14-2008, 02:27 PM
J. J. in Phila J. J. in Phila is invisible
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstickley View Post
Aaaahhhh, yes. By DZ himself, one who speaks the truth, to Renner, a writer, who, according to several, plays fast & furious with the truth. Wonderful proof.
Interestingly, Buehner said something quite similar:

Witnesses also said Gricar, for some reason, moved his car from one spot to another in the fairly small Street of Shops parking lot, according to Buehner.

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

Are you saying Buehner "plays fast & furious with the truth?" Did you just forget that little tidbit?

Note what Buehner asked for. He wanted motel records checked in a 30 mile radius of Lewisburg. Why would he want that, if he thought the witnesses were wrong?
__________________

P'gal, at one point you claimed that there was no such statement from Buehner, even after the posts were made with links. You only want statements about what you want to have happened, not what really happened.

You better have your Surf condition checked.

[J. J. in Phila]

BTW, here is the link to Buehner's letter:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/691532.html

It might be well to reread it; he very plainly thinks it was murder and that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

Originally Posted by Politigal

I have a feeling we'll all be looking like smurfs shortly.....

blue in the face

Azure blue, navy blue, powder blue, baby blue, soldier blue, colonial blue, take your pick.

Because the links show exactly what I envisioned, no real evidence of multiple witnesses seeing RG or someone resembling RG moving the Mini around the SOS lot between 5:30 and 6:30.

Nothing in the Free Times article does; DZ talks about alleged witness sightings in the park and museum areas who allegedly "watched him driving his Mini Cooper back and forth on Friday" and allegedly saw him "park it two or three different times across the street" near the museum on Saturday.

These are apparently the same witnesses BB refers to in his letter.

The blogger who referenced witnesses in the SOS lot wrote the article referenced in the invisionfree link. That article, however, contains content almost entirely devoted to the contents of BB's letter. In context:

Buehner, who repeatedly spoke of his respect for his friend Gricar, released a letter he sent to Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira and Union County District Attorney Peter Johnson. The letter — which Buehner said Madeira never answered and did not acknowledge until he learned of the news conference — tells of a sighting of Gricar, not previously made public, in Lewisburg on April 15, 2005, the day he vanished.

It also lists the name, address and telephone number of a company that Buehner said might have the expertise to recover data from a computer hard drive believed to have come from Gricar’s laptop computer. The drive was found in the Susquehanna River about six months after Gricar’s disappearance. A federal government lab determined it was too badly damaged for data to be recovered, but Buehner said the company he referenced was able to retrieve data even from hard drives damaged in the 2003 disintegration and fiery reentry of Space Shuttle Columbia.

Buehner said he mailed the letter to Madeira on June 3.

Madeira “did nothing” in response, Buehner said. “He did absolutely nothing for four weeks. This is the state that the investigation (is in) and it is shameful, it is reprehensible, and, frankly, it’s intolerable. The investigation that should have been done has not been done in this case.”

Gricar took April 15, 2005, off from work, and called his girlfriend that morning to tell her he was taking a drive on state Route 192. His Mini Cooper was found the next day in a parking lot across from the Street of Shops, an antiques mall in Lewisburg.

Some witnesses reported seeing Gricar at the antiques mall with a woman who police have not been able to identify. Witnesses also said Gricar, for some reason, moved his car from one spot to another in the fairly small Street of Shops parking lot, according to Buehner.

The article is primarily about the letter BB wrote. In the letter, BB cites witnesses who place someone resembling RG, moving a Mini, a block away from the SOS.

That's all I really wanted to know. I like to be sure we're dealing with premises that are as close to accurate as we can get them. That's difficult in a case where so little has been released and where reports aren't always clear, as is true with the witness reporting. I'm satisfied now we don't have a "cluster" of witnesses putting someone resembling RG moving his car in the SOS lot between 5:30 and 6:30 on Friday.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, he said "parking lot," at the press conference. In his letter, he does not specify where. I do not recall multiple witnesses seeing RFG moving his car someplace else.

DZ said:

“Friday night, people remember the car sitting in the parking lot. It’s a very distinct car. Two people in the antique mall are positive they saw him in there.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/...he-rivers-edge

Do you think his was moving his car in the Street of Shops? All these witnesses, six (possibly seven) so far, are saying that they saw RFG between 5:00 PM an 6:30 PM on Friday. We know of one witness, who worked at the museum, saw him earlier. Are you suggesting that even more witnesses that saw him earlier?

[J. J. in Phila]

I found this line in Buehner's letter to be very interesting:

It is my understanding that there is a pretty clear description of the female seen in Ray's presence on Saturday, April 16, 2005.

Note the day.

DZ had that as Friday night.

[Cloudbuster]

IMOO there is only ONE person who knew Ray that saw him and that's CFenton. She saw him right behind the courthouse in his local area. I don't care what car he was driving, she knew him and what he looked like. That leads me to believe that friday at 3 pm RG was still alive. Question is what happened to him afer that? and why did he have another car? There are other reasons a person might be using another car. One possibility is he was doing undercover survalience. A red mini with vanity plates is not a good idea if that be the case. He may have even been watching someone from the Chouse and perhaps pulled into the CH lot to see if that person was still there??? Otherwise I would think he was putting something in PF's car OR putting the mini keys in her car. If she found the keys with no note perhaps hours later she assumed he left? I really don't think the public got every detail. That may be something LE with held.
JAO

Buehner's letter specifies exactly where the witnesses allegedly saw someone resembling RG moving the car:

by the park near the Lewisburg River Bridge. Those witnesses indicated that it appeared he was waiting for someone and even moved his car.

This location, of course, is a block away from the SOS lot.

Verification that Buehner added additional witnesses specifying the SOS at lot when speaking at the press conference? Not the invisionfree link about Buehner's letter, but a transcript of the press conference?

Friday night, people remember the car sitting in the parking lot.

DZ's quote here is what Bennett has said--that the car was seen in the SOS lot. Not RG or someone resembling RG. Not a car being moved, but a car sitting in the lot.

No change in what I see. Still no evidence of a "cluster" of witnesses to RG or someone resembling RG in the SOS lot between 5:30 and 6:30 on Friday.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you have it from the press conference and PB, who was there, noted it and not just in the story. DZ notes the people seeing him in the Mini in the evening in Renner's piece.

Now, that raises the question about how many more witnesses saw RFG. I'm up to 7, but it's starting to look like it might be 10 on Friday alone.

Now, according to Buehner, another witness saw RFG with a woman on Saturday.

The notation at the invisionfree link is about the contents of the letter. Without a transcript of the press conference, it appears BB's actual reference (in the letter) to a moving Mini one block from the SOS may have been mistakenly referenced as a moving Mini in the SOS lot. Since no other source anywhere appears to mention moving Mini-Coopers in the SOS lot, I would like to see BB's actual words indicating additional witnesses to RG moving the car at a second location.

As for DZ, there is no reference in the Free Times article to people seeing RG or someone resembling RG in the Mini Friday evening. To the car in the lot, yes. To RG being there, no.

[Politigal]

This thread sort of reminds me of "Point/Counterpoint" with Dan Akroyd & Jane Curtin.....

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, PB also mentioned it in his blog, and before the tragedy that struck the Buehner family, the two did communicate and Buehner was even with PB. PB mentioned the Mini being moved in the parking lot to me, after that story and they did talk about it as well.

Now, we have Buehner saying the Mystery Woman was seen with RFG on Saturday. That sounds like more than casual contact.

Verification from any other fact checked source?

Because none seems to appear anywhere mentioning RG or someone resembling RG moving the Mini in the SOS lot Friday evening.

Because the search for the truth should rely as much as possible on verified information.

Because there are simply too many ways for this "information" to be a "mistakement" based on BB's written claim about the Mini being moved a full block away from the SOS lot. That full-block-away moving of the Mini was at least reported elsewhere.

Though ultimately, of course, none of it may matter, given the poor rate of return on witness sightings in missing persons' cases. Keeping tally would seem a waste of time in light of what we know of other cases.

Seven named plus various unnamed witnesses to LP walking her Golden Retriever in her own neighborhood in a narrow window of time did not produce a live LP.

Dozens of witnesses to Jennifer Kesse in the same area did not produce a live Jennifer.

Three hundred fifty sightings of Brooke Wilberger did not produce a live Brooke.

One would be hard pressed, in fact, to come up with anything resembling a substantial list of missing persons' cases where witness sightings of the missing person were accurate ID's. A few abducted child cases (Elizabeth, Shasta) where the child was kept alive come to mind where eventually a single witness sighting was an accurate ID.

The vast majority of witness sightings in missing persons' cases, though? Well-intentioned, but inaccurate and ultimately worthless.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, your verification is in the article previously cited and in PB's blog.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by logicworks

If there was any car movement at all in a one or two block area that day, I wonder why it wasn't immediately viewed as suspicious activity, after it was determined the vehicle was being driven by a disappeared DA, under suspicious circumstances. Nothing about him in the decades prior to, leading up to the day of disappearance when he took nothing with him, nor has he used any money or credit cards since, points toward any planned or unplanned walk away, IMO.

It is not necessary to have evidence of foul play in order to move an investigation to foul play. All that is required is 'suspicious activity'.

I recall early reports of the car being moved, which I did not take to mean in ONE lot, but rather from one lot to another. If we were to create a map from what we know of sightings, we would have him at
----the museum/park at noon,
----at Shickellemy Park near Sunbury,
----somewhere on the Interstate being tailed,
----parked somewhere, likely close, while walking inside SOS with MW,
----coming out of a quarry sometime close to their closing time, IIRC,
----on route 15 at 5 pm-ish,
----pulling into the lot 5 pm-ish,
----in the lot, 5 pm-ish, construction worker leaning in car,
----in the lot 5:30-6:30 pm-ish, parking
----car parked somewhere while he's in the SOS, noon-ish Saturday,
----car in front position around 2 on Saturday,
----car found in another position at 6:30-ish, Saturday.

Now that's a lot of movement for a man hexx-bent on walking away.
We're talking about a man, in a committed relationship, SO waiting at home for his return, called SO earlier to report in on dog care, and he's just mosey-ing around a town 60 miles from home, cell phone shut off, as if he isn't committed to anyone or anything, without a care in the world, while driving her car. This takes 'relaxing' to a whole new level from what appeared to have been his 'norm'. Work three hours on Thursday evening in order to play all day Friday and Saturday, without even a call home? I don't buy it.

No reason whatsoever, if he met someone, for him to be bouncing all around the area. Why wouldn't he have just park his car and leave with her early on?

I've never read anything that states at anytime during all of this car movement that there was a woman with him other than Z's version of the 'stroll in the SOS'. Are we to suppose that during the other sightings she was on the sidelines 'ew--ing and ah---ing' over his parking abilities, and once proven he could park a car, he could then hop into her car with her and take off somewhere?

If he was going there to meet someone, he could have parked the car, got out, got into another car with the person and left. If he had to wait for the other person to get done work to come pick him up, the car should have been left there on Friday, no more movement. Why stay in the area overnight if leaving, knowing full well the SO will call LE concerned?

Frankly, it sounds to me like someone took the entire list of witness sightings, likely after they were all shown photos of both subject and clothes, which by the way, we have no proof he even had on that day, and called all of the sightings legit. What kind of investigator would do that? Never mind----I think I already know......one with an overactive fantasy about MW.
JMO

Okay, let's examine this:

----the museum/park at noon, . Museum woman possibly others, "around lunchtime."

----at Shickellemy Park near Sunbury,
----somewhere on the Interstate being tailed,
---coming out of a quarry sometime close to their closing time, IIRC,

Not verified, both were a car, not RFG.

----parked somewhere, likely close, while walking inside SOS with MW,
----on route 15 at 5 pm-ish,
----pulling into the lot 5 pm-ish,
----in the lot, 5 pm-ish, construction worker leaning in car,
----in the lot 5:30-6:30 pm-ish, parking

I know of no claim that the construction worker was around 5:00 PM or that he was seen "pulling in."

We have this sequence:

RFG in Mini, seen heading toward parking lot at 5:00 PM. Seen w/Mini in lot between 5:30-6:30 PM. Seen out of the Mini, in SoS between 5:30-6:30 PM.

----car parked somewhere while he's in the SOS, noon-ish Saturday,
----car in front position around 2 on Saturday,
----car found in another position at 6:30-ish, Saturday. Never been established that it was moved. It was observed in the lot at various times during 4/16/05.

I accept each and every supposed sighting of a red-n-white Mini Cooper and/or a man resembling RG, as being informational...but I reject each and every supposed sighting of RG's red-n-white Mini Cooper and/or RG as being definitive. That is to say...in regard to the "sightings", I bristle against statements that this was RG or was his Mini Cooper, without objective proof...of which there is none, at least publicly disseminated (to include the interpretation of bloodhound proclivities, etc.).

The only exception, made public, seems to be (as Cloudbuster pointed out) CF's sighting. Her sighting was supposedly confirmed by a judge. These are two people who knew RG. But when that sighting became publicly known, the judge apparently wimped out, publicly, leaving CF (and SPM) to "twist slowly in the wind"...would not want to compromise "the case", ya know.

But what "case" would that be...murder, without a body? "We" cannot have all these sightings if "we" want to prosecute without a body. "We" cannot have all these missed leads floating around if "we" want to prosecute, without a body. But there they are...the supposed sightings and missed leads...so deal with it. After all, this is still just a missing-person case...right?

Originally Posted by logicworks

I know how many times I have been certain I had seen someone and it turned out to be someone else so until there is confirmation that RG is who was seen that day in another car, I do not see it as having been proven beyond a doubt that it was him. SPM was not there to witness it was RG. The judge was. If they already know it was Friday, that it was RG, then likely they also know a great deal that we don't, and they aren't telling.

I wonder what the family believes about this sighting. Have they ever commented on it?

Last weekend we were at a public event, and going in, I was absolutely positive a woman several people in front of us was someone I know fairly well and whom I see and talk to at least every two weeks. When we got up next to her, I realized I was mistaken, but she certainly could have been a body double for the woman I know.

That, of course, got me thinking about RG and witness sightings, and during the event I found my eyes drifting around to people I could see in our immediate section. Amazing how many middle-aged men were within sight and wearing blue fleece and blue jeans. (I couldn't see their feet, but sneakers aren't exactly a rarity with jeans.) Out of those, I counted at least five who could have been mistaken for RG. I don't mean "mistaken" if photos of each were laid side-by-side with RG's, but certainly "confused with RG" if one were just going about life and then asked later to recall seeing anyone matching that description and wearing that kind of clothing. Later we went to dinner, and within easy line of sight, yet another person would have fit the bill.

All that got me thinking about Central PA and its largely Germanic/Eastern European heritage. If RG had gone missing in a wide variety of other cities or states or neighborhoods, his particular "ordinariness" would have stood out as something not so ordinary. In Central PA, his coloring, bone structure, etc. are all pretty much part of the typical heritage of the area (which might explain why I can also think of at least 3 family members who could, in the right circumstances, be "confused" with RG by an eyewitness.) I don't know what that's worth, but it's a thought I hadn't really considered before.

As for the CF sighting, I do remember asking TG about his thoughts on that sometime back in the summer of 2006. I can't replicate his exact response, but I do know it amounted pretty much to, "Don't know what to make of it."