What Keeps Us Stuck In Lewisburg? Empathy Witnesses and Staging in the RG Case

Friday. April 22, 5:34 p.m.
By Norm Jones
Search Continues for Missing D.A.

"Being the last place he was observed, we're going to continue to search down in this area until we get leads that tell us otherwise, to go another direction," Dixon said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1388886/posts

One week after Ray Gricar disappeared, this was a reasonable and perhaps necessary position to take.

Nearly four years after the disappearance, we seem still hopelessly mired in the "RG disappeared from Lewisburg" scenario. Should the investigation still be focused on a disappearance from Lewisburg, as if it were written in stone?

Some of us on the boards have questioned this scenario. We've been met with criticism in the press--incredulity that anyone could believe RG might never have been in Lewisburg on 4/15/05. We've been met with two and a half years of board discussion repeating the mantra that proof beyond a reasonable doubt puts RG there.

At first, it was the phone call made in the Brush Valley area, the water bottle with RG's DNA, the Mini Cooper parked in the lot, and the traces of RG's scent found in the parking lot offered as proof. One by one, these have all fallen as proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that RG was in Lewisburg, with reasonable questions and reasonable alternative possibilities being raised about each.

More recently, the last 6-8 months, a growing and morphing list of witnesses to RG's presence in Lewisburg has been offered as "proof." And this "proof" has been extended: since none of the witnesses saw RG in any kind of distress, the reasoning goes, perhaps that points to a walkaway. With no signs of a struggle and no witnesses to an abduction, perhaps RG just up and walked away from his life.

But how useful are witness sightings in missing persons cases? This topic has already been debated extensively on the board, with dueling lists: one, cases where mistaken identifications ultimately proved not to be the missing person; the other, lists of witnesses who "saw" RG in Lewisburg.

Just how far astray can a case go if witnesses are believed without "documentation and corroboration"? And why does the FBI require those conditions be met before confirming witness sightings as accurate?

Consider the case of missing/murdered tourists Carole Sund, her daughter Juli, and family friend from Argentina, Silvina Pelosso. While clearly not a point-by-point parallel to the RG case, much is instructive.

Throughout the case, the FBI maintained that the last confirmed, reliable sighting of the three missing women occurred February 15, 1999 at El Portal, where they had been staying

The three women were reported missing on February 17, 1999, after they failed to show up in San Francisco from a trip to Yosemite the previous day.

On March 18, 1999, their burned out rental car was found more than 100 miles and nearly a three hour drive from the lodge where they had been staying during their trip. Two badly burned bodies were in the trunk, later identified as Carole Sund and Silvina Pelosso. Complicating the case, Carole Sund's wallet had been found in Modesto, CA.

When the women disappeared, hundreds of sightings of the three were reported to authorities. Dozens of these were reports of the three that came a) along the only route from their lodge to where the car was located; b) specifying live sightings after February 15; and c) before the car was located, eliminating the possibility that witnesses were "remembering" sightings to fit the facts of the case once the car was found.

The credibility of the witnesses and the specificity of the reports would seem persuasive. A few of them are described below:

• A postmistress said she sold stamps after February 15 to a woman and two teenage girls who asked for enough postage to get a postcard to Argentina.
  
• A visitors' center worker said she spoke to a woman and two teenage girls for about five minutes on February 16, and was 100% certain she could identify them as Sund and the two missing girls. The worker says she complimented the woman on the appearance of her daughters, and the woman said the girls weren't both her daughters, that one girl was a friend visiting from Argentina.
  
• A county employee at the visitors' center identified the 1999 red Pontiac rental car, something he said he noticed because he had just purchased a Pontiac.
  
• A motel owner along the route the car would have taken said he was certain the two teenagers came into his motel to ask about room availability on February 16.
  
• The motel owner's wife said one of their employees saw the two girls get into a car with a woman about 8:30 or so on February 16.
  
• A restaurant/gift shop owner along the route said the three visited her business on February 16.
  
• A gas station owner along the route said the three stopped at her station on February 16.

When these witnesses are placed along the route the women would have taken from El Portal to where the car was located, they form an apparently convincing pattern of travel for the women, a "pattern" being something we've been told to look for in the witness sightings in the RG case. But even after interviewing these witnesses, the FBI held fast to their belief that the last reliable, confirmed sighting of the women was in El Portal on February 15.

Had they not done so, the slayings of these women might never have been solved. When Cary Stayner was arrested in July 1999, after murdering yet a fourth woman, he eventually confessed to murdering Carole Sund and Silvina--in their room in El Portal on the night of February 15--then driving Juli with the dead bodies of her mother and friend in the trunk of the rental car to another location and murdering her.

Not a single one of the sightings above had any merit, nor did any of dozens along the route from El Portal to the burned out car, nor did any of the hundreds reported to authorities. Yet we've been told again and again in the RG case that while some of the witnesses might be wrong, there is serious doubt that all could be wrong.

Gil Alba, a 28-year veteran of the NYCPD with expertise in missing persons' cases involving unusual circumstances, was speaking today on the news about one of the latest sightings in the Haleigh Cummings case. He noted that all reports of sightings have to be investigated but called valid identifications by witnesses--such as Elizabeth Smart's--RARE.

What about the RG case would lead us to believe the witness sightings fit the rare Elizabeth Smart model (actually, more rare, if we are to believe the many witnesses DZ cites as "definitely ID'ing" RG in Lewisburg)? Is it not more likely that the RG sightings fit the Sund/Pelosso model--convincing on the surface but ultimately not accurate? Perhaps it's time to get "unstuck" from the "RG was in Lewisburg" scenario and start looking more seriously at alternative scenarios, including the possibility that the whole Lewisburg scene was staged to appear that RG was there.

[gstickley]

Radar, in 3+ years of reading this miserable board, your last post is, without a doubt, one of the best ones I've ever read. Your research, your intelligent posts, & your dedication to RG are always exceptional; your last post was fantastic. I salue you.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, first, there was a new Lewisburg witness, brought forward about 8 months ago by Mr. McKnight.

Second, there have been additional disclosures about the Lewisburg witnesses.

Third, the call does not point to Lewisburg. A future blog will describe the effect of the call.

Fourth, the latest major revelation was about Wilkes-Barre.

The problem, for you at least, is that there are now a minimum of 6 witnesses that said, **I saw RFG with his Mini on 4/15/05.** And there is physical evidence of his being in Lewisburg in support of those witnesses.

Now, #1, #2, and #3 point to RFG being in Lewisburg after noon on 4/15/05. And yes, it's probably beyond a reasonable doubt.

The key questions are:

1. What was RFG doing in Lewisburg?

2., How did he get out of Lewisburg? It's a cinch that he hasn't been wondering around the SoS or the corner St. John and Water Streets for nearly four years.

[Politigal]

The issue with Lewisburg in my opinion is the total lack of evidence. There's no physical evidence ....period...that RG was there. There's no physical evidence that he drove there. There's no receipts, nothing on 100's of hours of surveillance videos from surrounding businesses, there's no absolute ID of him there, no fingerprints in the car, nothing. There's no evidence that he actually made the call that day. There's no one in the neighborhood who saw him leaving, who saw the car.

And some will say there's no evidence in Bellefonte either....but the problem with that argument, is that police didn't thoroughly look for evidence in Bellefonte. They didn't do a forensic investigation of the home, they didn't use luminol, they didn't fingerprint the laptop case, they didn't question friends & co-workers when they should have.....just a myriad of mistakes IMO.

And I still say that the John Glasgow case in Little Rock was a copycat of this one.....*someone* saw how well it worked, to place his vehicle some distance away, and that's where the investigation centered...and stayed. There's been no resolution in his case either.

IMO - Lewisburg was a wild goose chase.

[Cloudbuster]

Pgal I agree John Glasgow case in Little Rock was a copycat and remains as such. We do have someone in Bellefonte that Id RG, as per C Fenton. She should be a crediable witness because she knew RG even in a different colored car. To me that's evidence in Bellefonte. As for why LE keeps insisting Lewisburg is remote. Okay many witnesses think they saw RG but did they? Only CFenton could possibly identify RG and that takes us right back to Bellefonte to the back of the courthouse where Ray actually spent many years at that place and makes more sense he was there. The colored metallic car is what they should be looking at such as why the unknown car? Like was he doing undercover work for starters.
JAHO

Originally Posted by Politigal

And I still say that the John Glasgow case in Little Rock was a copycat of this one.....*someone* saw how well it worked, to place his vehicle some distance away, and that's where the investigation centered...and stayed. There's been no resolution in his case either.

This is also exactly what Stayner hoped to achieve in the Sund/Pelosso case, Pgal. He admitted that dumping Carole Sund's wallet in Modesto and driving the car 100 some miles from the murder site were efforts to throw LE off the trail. If the FBI had believed the witness sightings, they would have been looking for someone who abducted the women along the route between El Portal and where the car was discovered a month later.

Originally Posted by logicworks

It's backwards, IMO. A murderer in the Aardsma case has been free all of these years to live a 'life', while Betsy was not permitted to live even one of those days. How just is waiting for a 'fortuitous stroke of luck'? Not any more just than this case is as it now heads toward the fourth anniversary of disappearance and NO move off the Lewisburg lot where the car was found.

Thanks, GS and Logic. Logic, I completely agree with the sentiments in your above post. I am hoping if any part of the investigation is still active that someone is considering a scenario where RG runs up against foul play before arriving in Lewisburg. I have more thoughts on that which I'll post later.

Other random observations: I think the primary lesson of the Sund/Pelosso witnesses is being missed by some {ahemcoughahem} on this thread. Many of these witnesses were furious that their reports weren't being taken as seriously by the FBI as the witnesses believed they should be taken. Look at the specificity of the sightings: the exact route between El Portal and where the burned out car was found; the description of the 1999 red Pontiac; the reported mentioning that one girl was a daughter, the other a visitor from Argentina; stamps for postage to Argentina; etc, etc.

I can imagine whatever message boards might have been devoted to the case in 1999 all abuzz with talk: the women must have delayed their return trip! They must have driven that route! The FBI must be wrong about the last reliable sighting!

I mean . . . witness sightings are so . . . concrete, right? Wonder then why Alba, with all his experience, would call valid sightings in missing persons' cases rare.

As for the McKnight witness, FWIW, our current DA says that one had already been checked out: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...onference.aspx

And as for the phone call on the way to Lewisburg, it seems perhaps someone {ahemcoughahem} has forgotten his own argument of two+ years ago claiming that the call on the way to Lewisburg was part of the evidence that RG was in Lewisburg, an argument other posters quickly dismissed as not logical.

[J. J. in Phila]

You cannot honestly claim that there was no evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg. You are even to the point where Buehner and McKnight are saying this, at exactly the same time they are saying that RFG was murdered (and that remains a good probability).

Now, if the evidence does not fit a theory, I toss the theory. We have a few people on this thread who think that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, they should toss the evidence.

The evidence has sunk more than one of my theories. It keeps torpedoing the "he wasn't in Lewisburg" one.

There is no concrete evidence Ray Gricar was ever in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

No videotape images.

No signed credit card receipts with RG's handwriting.

No one who personally knew RG as a witness to his presence.

No concrete evidence whatsoever.

The scent in the vicinity of the car's parking spot is not hard evidence. See the FBI, ease of scent transferability and cautions regarding use of scent presence as evidence without corroboration. See Seitz, testimony that scent can be transferred from a vehicle's interior to the surrounding area when the vehicle doors are opened.

The witnesses are not hard evidence. See Alba's observation: valid sightings rare. See invalid sightings above. Add this:

Two women - one a gas station owner, the other a gift shop owner - said they are certain the tourists paid their businesses a visit on Feb. 16. They both told The Examiner they had made attempts to contact authorities and report the sightings, but never got calls back.

The three female tourists appeared to be alone and under no apparent stress, the women told The Examiner.

Louise Guthmiller, the owner of a Chevron gas station in Sierra Village, a few miles from where the car was found, said Thursday she was convinced she pumped gas into the trio's car and talked briefly with Pelosso while the girl purchased snacks.

"They were in my station," said Guthmiller, 71. "I asked (Pelosso) if she was heading home, and she said, "No, I live in Argentina.' "

Guthmiller said the three drove off after buying $5 or $6 worth of gas.

Penny Mann, owner of the Cottage Cafe and Gift Shop in nearby Twain Harte, said the three entered her shop the same day. She said she talked to Carole Sund while they browsed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9/NEWS3327.dtl

There is no evidence to "toss" in the "RG was in Lewisburg" theory. His car was there. His laptop and its hard drive were found in the river. Period. How those things got there--that's an open question.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, your statement that there is "no concrete evidence" is false. In most cases, you don't have handwriting samples. In cases that are not in the home area, you don't someone "personally known." I could drive five miles from my house and no person that "personally knows" me would see me.

For example, unless you claim that the Mini was "mass hypnosis" there are no videotapes it in Lewisburg, yet we know it was there.

This is no longer a question of if RFG was in Lewisburg, but when RFG was in Lewisburg (and that one is debatable). If is also a question of if RFG was in Wilkes-Barre.

As to MM checking out the witness, the witness was never reported in the press before. I'd never heard of it prior to 7/1/08; did you?

The reason we, in your mis-characterization, that we are " Stuck In Lewisburg," is because we keep getting more evidence that RFG was there. We now are finding out that the evidence that RFG was in Wilkes-Barre was stronger than we thought. Now, I'd love to see LE establish a full list, but they have not. I would have loved to have seen this list in the summer of 2005 or at the first anniversary, but we didn't.

All this does not mean that we can say, **Okay, RFG wasn't murdered,** but it mean that more than a few theories here get tossed. If you don't like it, okay, find some evidence that RFG was someplace else on 4/15/05 where, if correct, he couldn't be in Lewisburg. Not theory, but evidence.

In July 2005, Chief Dixon said, "We haven't really gotten anywhere other than the fact the car was found in Lewisburg."

LE knew all about the witnesses then; they had the dog handlers' reports.

Fast forward a couple months, and we can add the laptop and the hard drive to the car. Those are the three things we have in Lewisburg. But no concrete evidence RG himself was there on 4/15/05.

Is it possible that he was? Yes.

Is it possible that he never made it there? Absolutely. All empirical evidence from studies done by the FBI and the country's leading experts in memory and witness testimony tells us this.

To clarify, I did not start this thread to re-litigate the question of whether RG was in Lewisburg on 4/15 or not. It's a given that he may or may not have been. It's also a given that we (the board and the investigation) have been largely "stuck" in Lewisburg, spinning wheels for nearly four years.

My purpose here was first, to use Sund/Pelosso as a glaring example of how witness sightings could seriously mislead a case if investigators weren't as careful as the FBI about requiring documentation and corroboration and second, to move past the "RG was Lewisburg" scenario and look more closely at Lewisburg as a potentially staged scene.

One reason I want to do so is that no theory of the case we've been working with makes sense IMO without varying amounts of willing suspension of disbelief.

Suicide: A man "tied to the future," as one psychiatrist/talking head put it, a man looking forward to retirement, traveling, spending time with his daughter, etc. No documented history of depression. No body anywhere in the vicinity of Lewisburg or in the river that's turned up in almost four years. Where suicide was a viable option to consider early in the case, it's a stretch at this point.

Foul play after arrival in Lewisburg: Unlikely RG would arrange a meeting with someone he didn't know well enough to trust an hour away from home and unlikely he could have been abducted in broad daylight in Lewisburg. Unlikely he'd be meeting someone regarding a case he was working on without some kind of record, electronic or paper trail, regarding such. Unlikely he'd tell PF he was playing hooky if he was going to a work-related meeting.

Walkaway: Unlikely a man looking forward to retirement, no alarm clocks, time to travel with PF, visit with his daughter, etc., is secretly plotting to throw all that away for a life of looking over his shoulder, scrambling for money, and being unable to visit with his beloved daughter when there's no classic motive for doing so.

In short, I find scenarios where RG has to act out of character or where porn buddies slip in to pilfer laptops difficult to swallow.

Yet there's a scenario that's been percolating for a long time which makes a great deal more sense. GS first brought a variation of it to the board early in her tenure here, in her VCF/R scenario.

Very close friend, relative, and let's add the possibility of a professional association--any one of a number of people who would know RG well enough to know certain facts about him, such as his penchant for traipsing through antique shops and perhaps some of the facts of his late brother's passing.

Let's call this person "X" and assume that there's some kind of problem between X and RG. It might be a financial issue, such as GS suggested in her theory, or it might be something else entirely. But let's imagine that this problem, whatever it might be, has been dragging on for some time, and that RG is the one beyond whom the buck does not pass. He is the one who has to deal with it. It's not a threat (something he would have channels and protocols in place to deal with). But it's causing him enough distress that by the week that ends with Friday, 4/15, he is "distraught" enough that some close to him are beginning to notice something is bothering him.

He decides he needs to "deal with" the problem and meet with X. Because X is someone known to him, close to him, the meeting may have been set up in a face-to-face conversation, or if set up by telephone, the call may have looked like a "routine call" by LE standards. No red flags and no obvious trail.

Because the issue under discussion may be a delicate one, perhaps the meeting is best not held in RG's office or in any other obvious public place (restaurant in Bellefonte, or whatever). Perhaps it's set up as a drive in the country on a beautiful spring day, with RG's habit of enjoying such rides as cover. Maybe the two ride together in the Mini. Maybe X takes his own vehicle. Maybe it's a tan car, maybe not. This is a VCF/R/Prof. Assoc.; RG has no reason to be suspicious of setting up such a meeting.

Perhaps sometime after the call to PF, RG and X stop somewhere along route 192, maybe at one of the state parks. In this scenario, RG would have the laptop with collected material/data he wants to place in front of X. Perhaps RG makes an ultimatum regarding such.

Now, perhaps X has sensed this ultimatum coming and has come prepared for this. Or conversely, perhaps X is taken completely by surprise by the ultimatum. One way or the other, perhaps the meeting quickly turns sour, spins out of control, and somewhere between where the call was placed to PF and Lewisburg, RG is overpowered and winds up dead as a result.

X disposes of RG's body somewhere it has yet to be discovered. He then drives the Mini Cooper to Lewisburg, parking it across from an antique mall RG has been known to frequent. X finds a way out of Lewisburg himself (various options exist). Maybe he deposits laptop and hard drive that day; maybe he waits a while and does so to refocus attention on Lewisburg later on. Maybe he's already erased data from the drive before depositing it in the river. Maybe since then he's been hiding in plain sight.

If RG was murdered, I believe it could have happened this way. Most people who are murdered are killed by someone they know. This scenario accounts for RG having the laptop with him. It doesn't require him to agree to let someone he might not trust download information onto his computer (that was always a leap for me). It accounts for him being distraught. It explains why he might not tell PF about where he was going or what he was doing that day. In my own humble opinion, and thanks to GS and also S1 who explored similar territory, I believe it could potentially explain a lot about RG's disappearance.

It requires only letting go of the "RG was definitely in Lewisburg" position.

[sherrijean981]

Everyone keeps talking about the witnesses at the SOS but what about the witness who placed a red and white Mini Cooper at the quarry on Rt 192 just leaving Lewisburg? What was that car doing at the quarry and did LE drag the ponds that can be seen around that quarry? Did they take the dogs and searchers up in that area, or to the quarry just east of the Susquehanna Bridge on Rt 45?

Did they search the parks off Rt 192 and Rt 45 where the vista's and walking paths are? The camping area's? With the dogs?

[J. J. in Phila]

So basically, UTR, you are saying that there is absolutely no evidence that RFG was anyplace else on the entire planet.

The question is not, is it possible that RFG was there but is it probable that RFG was there? Yes. What evidence do we have?

A. The car that he was known to drive was there, with no evidence it it that anyone else drove it (and no evidence that anyone tried to remove that evidence).

B. People saw RFG driving the car there. They didn't just see RFG there, but they saw him in or by the car.

C. People saw RFG there, apart from the car, but after witnesses saw him driving it.

D. RFG's scent was detected there, apart from the car.

If this was case where you had to prove in court that Joe was in Lewisburg, and you had these things:

A. The car Joe drove found in Lewisburg, with no evidence of anyone else driving it,

B. People saw Joe driving it, in Lewisburg (I have 4 confirmed, with possibly two or more others).

C. People saw Joe there, apart from the car, but after witnesses saw him driving it.

D. Joe's scent was detected there, apart from the car.

Would you have any reasonable doubt that Joe was in Lewisburg. If Joe took the stand and said, "I wasn't in Lewisburg that day," would you honestly believe him? I'd say, "Joe, you're lying; you were in Lewisburg that day."

Now, I wouldn't say that if there was evidence that Joe wasn't, or couldn't be, there; I wouldn't say that if there was evidence that RFG wasn't, or couldn't be, there either. So, where is that evidence?

Why do you believe that Buehner and McKnight, both of whom had to deal with witness reliability professionally, that strongly believe that RFG was murdered, are asking LE to check motels is the Lewisburg area?

Let's be blunt, Dixon did not release everything, case in point the police officer. I would have like to have known that in the summer of 2005.

Using the logic in post #15, the FBI would have concluded that Carole and Julie Sund and Silvina Pelosso drove from El Portal to Long Barn, where the car was found, on February 16. If fact, an article published shortly after the car's discovery looked at the so-called sightings and concluded that the women must have driven on two specific highways to reach the area where the car was found, a completely erroneous conclusion.

It has long since been established that the scent in the SOS parking lot has a very high probability of resulting from the car doors being opened in the lot--at least twice. Whoever drove the car there had to exit. Then LE opened the doors Saturday evening upon discovery of the vehicle, only 18 hours or less before the dogs' arrival on the scene. It's inaccurate to claim that the scent was detected "apart from the car." In truth, the scent was detected only in proximity to the car, according to what's been released publicly. If we were to find out that the dogs picked up RG's scent inside the SOS where witnesses claimed to see him, that would change the complexion of things. But we do not have that.

What would happen with the "Joe was in Lewisburg" scenario in a courtroom would depend in large part on whether the jurisdiction allowed experts on eyewitness testimony. Courts frequently limit or block the use of such experts, keeping jurors from understanding the complexity of eyewitness testimony and the current research in the field. As a result, jurors tend to over-believe eyewitness accounts. It would also depend on whether a good dog handling expert testified and explained how Joe's scent could have been there without Joe ever having been there. With an eyewitness expert and a dog handling expert both testifying, there would indeed be reasonable doubt that "Joe" was in Lewisburg.

More importantly, the question of whether RG ever actually made it to Lewisburg has to be put into context with the question "What happened to RG?" That is what I am trying to do with this thread, i.e., not to re-litigate the question of whether RG was in Lewisburg or not.

In my humble opinion, every theory that rests on shaky witness sightings and places RG in Lewisburg on 4/15 has significant problems if we start to ask what happened next and if we try to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

I believe we need to explore the possibility that he never made it to Lewisburg and that Lewisburg was staged to look like a possible suicide/walkaway/foul play scene as a way to confound authorities.

[Politigal]

UTR, once again, you've shown us such intelligent, logical analysis ....

Take that #15!!

I understand those who feel compelled to follow an absolute scientific process in this matter. But I have never felt fettered by the inability to leap across certain "public" gaps in information.

A tribute then to all of us...Judy Collins - Send in the Clowns

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you are basically claiming that we shouldn't look at eye witness testimony in criminal cases. Sorry, that's how are system works.

We, as a justice system, say that eyewitness testimony has value and can be used to determine the aspects of an event. There can be issues, racial misidentification is one, but it certainly doesn't appear to one here.

You could argue that was a fleeting glimpse; the witness didn't get a good look at the person. Okay, that isn't an issue here.

You could argue, as you did, that it was just someone that looked like RFG. Okay, but we have several who not only saw RFG but saw him in a red Mini. We know where the red Mini was found. So now it has to be not only someone who looked like him, but also drove a red Mini.

You keep asking why we're stuck in Lewisburg; it's because you and a few other posters are trying to do everything you can to discuss it. Why, because it doesn't fit your theory. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence. It's nothing to be ashamed of, may of mine have failed as well.

I'm willing to ask, okay was RFG really in Lewisburg on 4/16 and was he Wilkes-Barre on 4/18. And I'm asking the question, okay, if he was in those places, how did he get out?

[Politigal]

Originally Posted by Serendipitous1

I understand those who feel compelled to follow an absolute scientific process in this matter. But I have never felt fettered by the inability to leap across certain "public" gaps in information.

A tribute then to all of us...Judy Collins - Send in the Clowns

Ixnay ithway ethay ypticray ostspay easeplay?

ityay akesmay emay eelfay upidstay

anksthay

Originally Posted by Politigal

Ixnay ithway ethay ypticray ostspay easeplay?

ityay akesmay emay eelfay upidstay

anksthay

LOL, Pgal!

Originally Posted by UndertheRadar

LOL, Pgal!

Yes, thanks, Pgal!

No, JJ, I have never claimed the justice system shouldn't look at eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. I think you'd find, however, that most, if not all, eyewitness research scientists would be happy if there were no more criminal cases relying solely on eyewitness testimony. And valid eyewitness identifications in missing persons' cases are far less common than in criminal cases, where the track record is already not good.

You have failed to answer the question I posed in my opening post: since accurate eyewitness sightings in missing persons' cases are rare, what is it about the RG case which should make us believe it fits the rare Elizabeth Smart/Shasta Groene model rather than the overwhelmingly typical model of inaccuracy? It can't be the car identification, as witnesses in the Sund/Pelosso case who "identified" the women in the 1999 Red Pontiac demonstrate. And it can't be the scent (see Seitz). And as far as the Wilkes-Barre sighting goes, it can't be a witness-as-cop. See the Culberson case and research by one of the country's leading witness testimony researchers. So let's not go over that well-worn ground again. I'd be all for knowing that RG was definitely in Lewisburg, but so far I see nothing persuasive to move the witness sightings there out of the "typical and inaccurate" category and into the "rare and accurate" category.

You've also failed to address anything in the scenario I laid out. I believe it can account for everything we know about publicly in the RG case without having to make illogical leaps.

[J. J. in Phila]

You have made a false assumption UTR; it is that eyewitness in missing persons cases is rare. It often isn't. It is rare for this many witnesses to be completely wrong. It becomes much rarer once the sightings of RFG include his car. It becomes even rarer when some physical evidence, his scent, is found there.

The reason a few people here, UTR, P'gal, for example, get struck in Lewisburg is because it destroys their theory, so they have to keep on trying to come up with increasingly far out theories to explain it.

Occam's razor, the most likely explanation is the correct one. The most likely explanation for all the witnesses seeing RFG in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 is that he was there. The most likely reason for the dog finding his scent in the parking lot is that he left it there.

[gstickley]

Exactly how many "witnesses" saw Ray Gricar in Lewisburg? None who knew him. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar moving a Mini around apparently didn't say much about it to the head of the museum, as he didn't mention it in his interview; all he mentioned that the disappearance occurred in the area. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar with a MW inside the SOS apparently was mistaken as, according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar standing outside the SOS as though he were waiting for someone apparently was mistaken also, since according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. These "witnesses" may have seen someone, but in no way does that prove it was Ray Gricar & that Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 04/15/05.

Yes, the Mini Cooper was found on the SOS lot, but there is no proof Ray Gricar drove it there.

The scent does not prove Ray Gricar was on the SOS lot, since the vehicle door(s) were opened at least twice.

There is no absolute proof of Ray Gricar being anywhere on 04/15/05; the last known sighting of Ray Gricar was at the courthouse on Thursday, 04/14/05.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Originally Posted by logicworks

I do not believe the parking lot of the SOS was the location, otherwise there would be no ashes nor smoke odor. I do not believe he was going to 'meet' anyone that day. I believe he was followed.

I agree with your timeline observations. Something had to occur which prevented RG from either a) returning home or b) contacting PF to alert her he would be later still than he had planned.

On the meeting vs. being followed: if he was simply out for a drive and was being followed, that would limit the pool of suspects to only those who would have been alerted somehow that RG was taking the day off. Otherwise, it's difficult to picture anyone knowing that RG would not be engaged in his usual "going to work" routine that day. That's certainly possible. But there's the added wrinkle of the laptop. If he was followed on what was simply a pleasure drive, we then have to assume that either a) he had the laptop with him for some unknown reason, even though we're told he rarely used the laptop or b) whoever was behind the "following" got access to the laptop.

[gstickley]

Originally Posted by UndertheRadar

But there's the added wrinkle of the laptop. If he was followed on what was simply a pleasure drive, we then have to assume that either a) he had the laptop with him for some unknown reason, even though we're told he rarely used the laptop or b) whoever was behind the "following" got access to the laptop.

IMO, there is an additional wrinkle ref. the laptop. WE don't know exactly when the laptop left the residence. If it hadn't been used for awhile, there is also the possiblity the laptop left the house sometime prior to 04/14-15.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Originally Posted by gstickley

IMO, there is an additional wrinkle ref. the laptop. WE don't know exactly when the laptop left the residence. If it hadn't been used for awhile, there is also the possiblity the laptop left the house sometime prior to 04/14-15.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Agreed. At some point the laptop was described (I think by Dixon, IIRC) as "shuttling" between home and office. Colleagues were asked to search their workspaces for the laptop shortly after RG disappeared, lending credence to the possibility that someone, somewhere believed the laptop could have been in the office rather than in the closet.

Originally Posted by gstickley

Exactly how many "witnesses" saw Ray Gricar in Lewisburg? None who knew him. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar moving a Mini around apparently didn't say much about it to the head of the museum, as he didn't mention it in his interview; all he mentioned that the disappearance occurred in the area. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar with a MW inside the SOS apparently was mistaken as, according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. The "witness" who "supposedly" saw someone looking like Gricar standing outside the SOS as though he were waiting for someone apparently was mistaken also, since according to LE, the dogs didn't track/trail away from the SOS lot. These "witnesses" may have seen someone, but in no way does that prove it was Ray Gricar & that Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 04/15/05.

Yes, the Mini Cooper was found on the SOS lot, but there is no proof Ray Gricar drove it there.

The scent does not prove Ray Gricar was on the SOS lot, since the vehicle door(s) were opened at least twice.

There is no absolute proof of Ray Gricar being anywhere on 04/15/05; the last known sighting of Ray Gricar was at the courthouse on Thursday, 04/14/05.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Completely agree with your assessment, GS.

Bloodhounds are frequently used to determine validity of witness sightings, and if Bennett's sighting (actually inside the SOS) or the supposed MW sightings were valid, the Bloodhound would have confirmed that. We don't have that confirmation.

I've been thinking more, too, about the handler's "might possibly" equivocation regarding the possibility that RG might have gotten into a car. From everything I've come to understand, Bloodhounds can determine if someone got into a car, so why the equivocation? Two things come to mind as possibilities:

• The handler knew, as we've been saying here, that the Mini-Cooper had been in the lot.
  
• The dog didn't follow the scent out of the lot on to the street, trailing the vehicle which RG "might possibly" have gotten into.

Those are two good reasons for equivocation, and would make it less likely RG got into another car, more likely the scent is the result of the Mini's doors being opened in the lot.

Additionally, if accurate sightings in missing persons cases weren't rare, I doubt a 28-year veteran of the NYCPD with expertise in missing persons' cases involving unusual circumstances would have characterized them as such. I think any one of us here could tick off dozens and dozens of cases where multiple witness sightings of a missing person were invalid. The Sund/Pelosso case is a beautiful example, complete with the car, along the "right" route, multiple witnesses including details of "Argentina" being mentioned . . .

But I doubt anyone could come up with a long list of cases where multiple witness sightings in a missing persons case were accurate. Anyone is free to prove me--and Gil Alba--wrong. But I simply don't believe it, and I don't see anything to persuade me the witness sightings in Lewisburg are anything other than garden variety inaccurate empathy sightings.

[Politigal]

My problem with that whole day (Friday) is that darned call. It still doesn't make sense to me.

If RG left shortly before the call, the dog would most likely have already been let out. If he left earlier, where the heck did he go?

And, there's no evidence or proof as to who used the phone....no fingerprints, etc.

And of course, if the call was *not* made by RG, the implications are obvious and HUGE.

Originally Posted by Politigal

My problem with that whole day (Friday) is that darned call. It still doesn't make sense to me.

If RG left shortly before the call, the dog would most likely have already been let out. If he left earlier, where the heck did he go?

And, there's no evidence or proof as to who used the phone....no fingerprints, etc.

And of course, if the call was *not* made by RG, the implications are obvious and HUGE.

I understand where you are coming from. The reasoning is logical given the published record in this case. And to get beyond that does require a leap of faith...past the Friday morning call, maybe on to Lewisburg, and maybe beyond.

If we all were to stick to the last publicly confirmed sighting, on Thursday evening, we would be forever stuck on the shortest of all of the dead-end roads in this case. It has been perfectly and repeatedly stated...there is nowhere else for us to go with that. The alternatives are also all still dead ends, so far. But there is a chance, however remote, that someone here might suggest an important clue that has somehow escaped LE.

I am not stuck. I am still looking at possibilities. But I have no illusion that I will ever be able to help solve this case. My effort (however unfocused it might at times seem) has always been directed at those who are in a postion (or who should or could be in a position) to actually make a difference.

Unless the gods prevail, that effort will likely end this year.

[day2day]

Originally Posted by Politigal

My problem with that whole day (Friday) is that darned call. It still doesn't make sense to me.

If RG left shortly before the call, the dog would most likely have already been let out. If he left earlier, where the heck did he go?

And, there's no evidence or proof as to who used the phone....no fingerprints, etc.

And of course, if the call was *not* made by RG, the implications are obvious and HUGE.

I agree completely...The call has never made sense to me..ever!

[J. J. in Phila]

I have not it being used at home since 2005, but being used as a "home computer" prior to the purchase of the desktop; He would also use if for infrequent conferences.

Originally Posted by logicworks

We have had a number of different versions described as to the laptop's usage.
We were told---- he only took it when he went 'out of town' conferences.
----He used it at home to work on cases.
----They used it at home for personal use until the beginning of 2005.
----It had been in storage in the closet.
So which is it?

The laptop may have been in the car from earlier than Friday.
It may have been taken along for any number of reasons unrelated to the disappearance, and was only checked out after the fact, if there was a 'fact'.

Was there anything on the car other than the PFO, or PLO, or whatever the initials were said to be on the vanity plate? Is it possible that someone who thought RG was 'eavesdropping' or snooping around in their territory, didn't realize that he was a DA? Possibly only after they saw the tag on the laptop they saw there in the car and took with them?

My point is--------did it have to be a disappearance aimed directly at RG, the prosecutor, the DA, or could it have been someone who didn't know who he was, just that they thought he was someone snooping around, and possibly witnessed something illegal they were doing?

If they had followed him, checked out the license plate or the address, wouldn't they have only come up with PF's last name, not his last name, as living there or owner of the car? Maybe they thought this was Mr. F? If they dared to check on her, and found out she worked at the courthouse, there would be no surprise then seeing her car there. Could something have happened to RG without someone from out of the area ever putting the pieces together that he was the DA of Centre County?
JMO

The question is, if this was a murder, was it, in any way related to his official action. There are a few possibilities where it wasn't or where the killer didn't know the victim. One problem with that is, why hide the body?

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, please be more specific as to the witnesses. Overall, there are minimum of 13 witnesses that saw RFG between noon on 4/15/05 and midnight on 4/18/05. I'll be doing extensive blogs on the witnesses, in a few weeks.

[puzzled]

I feel that the key to this case will be found in Ray's cell phone records. Something was going on and there were probably calls related to it. It could be that the calls that are on his record are from people who the police would never ever suspect of being involved in his kidnapping. Think about it ...the fingerprint, MW everything in this case has been kept from us. I believe that the answers are right in front of them ...they just have chosen not to put two and two together.
I also think that a grand jury should be called in this case!

[Politigal]

Re: Post #36

"Extensive blogs" about the alleged witnesses won't mean squat, unless law enforcement comments/confirms that the witness sightings have been corroborated with some type of evidence or have not been eliminated/discounted .... by *them.*

[gstickley]

Originally Posted by Politigal

Re: Post #36

"Extensive blogs" about the alleged witnesses won't mean squat, unless law enforcement comments/confirms that the witness sightings have been corroborated with some type of evidence or have not been eliminated/discounted .... by *them.*

You got it, Pgal. When & if LE ever steps up & releases information on any credible witnesses with credible corroborated sightings of RG being in Lewisburg on 04/15 or anyplace else afterwards, then it's possible RG was there. Until that time, there apparently were no 'credible witnesses with credible corrorborated sightings' of RG there. And no amount of trying to force-feed them down everyone's throat is going to work.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Originally Posted by gstickley

You got it, Pgal. When & if LE ever steps up & releases information on any credible witnesses with credible corroborated sightings of RG being in Lewisburg on 04/15 or anyplace else afterwards, then it's possible RG was there. Until that time, there apparently were no 'credible witnesses with credible corrorborated sightings' of RG there. And no amount of trying to force-feed them down everyone's throat is going to work.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Exactly, GS, and unless LE has something to prove these sightings as valid, I certainly hope they are pursuing other possible scenarios. They've been stuck with "three possible theories, all leading nowhere" for nearly four years now--perhaps it's the Lewisburg problem that's got them stuck.

I'll repeat what I posted on another thread: the FBI requires documentation or corroboration before it will confirm a sighting in a missing persons' case.

In Sund/Pelosso, there were literally dozens of "sightings" of the three missing women after February 15 along the route between El Portal and Long Barn (far more than whatever number is currently in fashion in the RG case). I can find only one that was definitively ruled out--a motel clerk who "saw" the women as guests at the motel where she worked. The FBI located the actual people who stayed in the motel--not the Sund/Pelosso party--and ruled out that sighting.

But of the dozens of other alleged sightings, the FBI neither ruled them out nor confirmed them, saying that it would be difficult to "weigh" their value without substantive corroboration. They had things like three witnesses with "Argentina" references; they had sightings of the specific color and make of car. They did NOT have substantive corroboration.

And as far as we know publicly, we don't have it in the RG case.

Originally Posted by logicworks

My point is--------did it have to be a disappearance aimed directly at RG, the prosecutor, the DA, or could it have been someone who didn't know who he was, just that they thought he was someone snooping around, and possibly witnessed something illegal they were doing?

If they had followed him, checked out the license plate or the address, wouldn't they have only come up with PF's last name, not his last name, as living there or owner of the car? Maybe they thought this was Mr. F? If they dared to check on her, and found out she worked at the courthouse, there would be no surprise then seeing her car there. Could something have happened to RG without someone from out of the area ever putting the pieces together that he was the DA of Centre County?

Under this theory, how would RG acting recognizably distraught prior to the disappearance fit in? Distraught over something unrelated to the disappearance and completely coincidental that he disappeared in the same time period?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by gstickley

You got it, Pgal. When & if LE ever steps up & releases information on any credible witnesses with credible corroborated sightings of RG being in Lewisburg on 04/15 or anyplace else afterwards, then it's possible RG was there. Until that time, there apparently were no 'credible witnesses with credible corrorborated sightings' of RG there. And no amount of trying to force-feed them down everyone's throat is going to work.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Actually most of the witnesses are corroborated by other witnesses and in the Lewisburg case, by physical evidence.

UTR, there another factor other than RFG being "distraught." RFG was increasing his work activity in the week prior to his disappearance. That has been overlooked by us, until now.

I've also found out that it had been increasing prior to that, which might have been tied to his retirement, but it jumped just before he disappeared.

[gstickley]

PF, the person with whom RG lived, stated RG had seemed tired & taking naps a week or so before he disappeared. RG had an upcoming 1st Degree Murder case, plus whatever other cases might have been pending. Then, of course, there is the possiblity that he may have been privately working on some problem perhaps relating to 'close friend/relative/co-worker'. Sometimes workloads increase, believe it or not. Yet, RG took off work on Thu., 04/14/05, going into the office for approx. 3 hrs. that evening. RG also took off work on Fri. morning, planning on going into work in the afternoon, according to some reports. One would assume he would have the weekend off.

Some people having contact with RG prior to his disappeance reported observing no change in him; namely SPM, who exchanged e-mails with RG during the week, & Commissioners Conklin & Excharos, who was in a meeting with RG on 04/14. RG's daughter reportedly spoke to her father several times per week; in fact, she spoke to him on 04/14, & noted no difference in him. Perhaps if other co-workers had been allowed to speak, more light would have been shed on RG's demeanor during the week(s) prior to his disappearance. Perhaps if his so-called only 2 best friends in the whole world had given a statement, more information would have been gained.

IMO, it's almost laughable to think that because RG was tired, perhaps distraught, the week(s) prior to his disappearance he was planning on committing suicide or on the famous "YITMAMPWT". Laughable: no. Ignorant: pretty much.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.