Walkaway: How Much Evidence is Enough?

Everyone on this board is familiar with Mel Wiley, the Ohio police chief who disappeared in 1985. Wiley had told his girlfriend he intended to buy a bathing suit and go swimming with a visitor. The next day, his car was found on the shores of Lake Erie, with Wiley's personal effects locked inside. Just sixteen days after the disappearance, County Detective James Bigam announced that Wiley had voluntarily walked away from his life.

Most of us know the circumstantial evidence for a voluntary walkaway in the Wiley case: Wiley's financial troubles, the bus and travel schedules found after the disappearance, the state in which his apartment was left, his married girlfriend who said she'd never marry him, the bathing suit he never bought, the missing manuscript, and the line "Where I've gone is of no critical importance and it's very doubtful that I'll ever return" found on the typewriter ribbon.

Less often mentioned is that the line came from an entire letter recovered from the ribbon, a letter in which Wiley detailed his dissatisfaction with life and his desire to be far away from his hometown. Also less well-known is that James Bigam tracked Wiley to the west coast after his disappearance. In fact, a year after Wiley's car was found on the shores of Lake Erie, mayor William Lamb announced that Wiley was likely in San Francisco. Bigam revealed that San Francisco was a likely choice since Wiley had described it as a "mecca."

Despite fairly strong evidence Wiley planned his own disappearance, a fifteen-year anniversary article on the Wiley case described the residents of Medina County, Ohio as still "haunted by the question" of whether Wiley's absence was the result of his death or a planned walkaway.


Fast forward to February, 2008. Twenty-eight year-old Nicholas Francisco disappears in West Seattle after telling his wife he's going to stop at Costco before coming home. Like the Wiley case, the NF disappearance shares some superficial similiarities with the RG case. NF's car is found abandoned, and his laptop computer is missing along with him. Unlike RG, however, NF is said to "wear his laptop like a wedding ring," never going anywhere without the computer. As in the RG case, a few uncomfirmed sightings of NF are reported. There's no evidence he ever stopped at any of the area Costco's. Initially, there's no evidence of any bank account activity.

Within six months or so of the disappearance, however, the complexion of the case begins to change. Rumors of NF leading a "secret life" start to surface, most of them apparently traceable back to NF's wife, who begged for his return when he first disappeared. His wife divorces him on the grounds of abandonment. She has talked of uncovering "secret bank accounts." Police do acknowledge uncovering a secret PayPal account and a $50 withdrawal. There's talk of NF belonging to Adult Friend Finder, which appears to be a group created for the "swinging" lifestyle, and there's talk of NF's presence on the internet even today, though no one has confirmed whether the presence is actually NF himself. NF's family has apparently not gone searching for him, leading some to believe they know he is alive and well.

Still, more than a year after the disappearance and with at least plenty of rumored circumstantial evidence that NF may have planned his own disappearance, Francisco remains listed on the Washington State Missing Persons' List, and King County still considers him a missing person.

Detective Holland on the NF case:

"There is no known evidence to suggest that NF disappeared under suspicious circumstances. There is also no known evidence to suggest that he’s alive. Issues in his personal life have been uncovered….which doesn’t minimize the fact that he’s still missing."

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/sh...d.php?t=334688

King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart on the NF case:

Officially, Francisco remains a missing person and will stay one until he is found.

If he is found alive, deputies will inform his wife of only that — not where he is.

"It's not up to the police to tell others of a found person's whereabouts," he said.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rodeur27m.html


In the RG case, we've been told again and again by various bloggers and posters that most, perhaps all, of what we know about RG's disappearance points to walkaway.

But what, precisely, does BPD really have that would be evidence to close the case and call Ray Gricar's disappearance a voluntary one? If there is not enough evidence for King County to close the books on Nicholas Francisco's disappearance, how could BPD possibly consider closing the case on RG's? I'd like to know what pieces of confirmed evidence in the RG case do not have another perfectly plausible possible explanation before putting RG in the dustbin of history along with Mel Wiley.

On this issue, the UK is light years ahead of the US. The UK has a national policy on missing persons, and part of that policy as I understand it requires that a missing person can be declared alive and well only after in person confirmation by a police officer. In the US, we tend to leave things to state and local jurisdictions to decide. Would the Wiley case have been declared a walkaway after sixteen days in King County, WA? What standards will the BPD use to decide whether or not RG's disappearance was voluntary?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I'm going to ask you to define the term "Walkaway."

If you define "walkaway" in this case as "Ray Gricar leaving and starting a new life," some, but perhaps less than you attribute to other bloggers.

If you define "walkaway" in this case as "Ray Gricar leaving and not intending to return home on 4/15/05," much more.

If I understand you correctly, JJ, that very question has arisen in the NF case: that is, given a significant amount of evidence that NF may have been leading a secret life, is it possible he intended to be gone for a time (not disappear entirely) but perhaps ran into foul play in the context of his secret life.

As you can see with NF, King County and Washington State still consider him a missing person either which way. The books, so to speak, have not been closed on his case because he has not been found, either dead or alive.

[J. J. in Phila]

You can read me correctly, when I write it.

In RFG's case, the key question remains, "How did RFG get out of Lewisburg." The answer to that query may make it likely murder or likely a voluntary departure.

I agree that IF it could be proven that RG was ever in Lewisburg to begin with, and IF a specific means out of Lewisburg could be identified, those two items, proven, would provide BPD with evidence that would go a long way toward solving the mystery of RG's disappearance.

I don't agree that eliminating one means (a purchased vehicle) does more than eliminate that one means.

However, my real interest in starting this thread is to focus on these questions I advanced in my opening post:

• But what, precisely, does BPD really have that would be evidence to close the case and call Ray Gricar's disappearance a voluntary one?
  
• If there is not enough evidence for King County to close the books on Nicholas Francisco's disappearance, how could BPD possibly consider closing the case on RG's?
  
• What standards will the BPD use to decide whether or not RG's disappearance was voluntary?

IOW, I'd like to examine confirmed evidence BPD presently has of a voluntary walkaway and compare it to the Wiley and NF cases, where the former has been "closed" as a voluntary walkaway and the latter remains open with NF still listed as a missing person.

It strikes me that King County has a great deal more to suggest NF left of his own accord than we have in the RG case, even admitting that "issues in his personal life have been uncovered." And many of those issues would be hard to provide an alternative explanation for--the affiliation with Adult Friend Finder, for instance. No easy way to explain that if you're a married man with children and expecting another child when you disappear.

As far as the public is aware, no such issues have been uncovered in the four years following RG's disappearance. And things which might possibly suggest a walkaway in RG's case tend to have plausible alternative explanations--the inquiries about erasing a hard drive, for instance, which could potentially be accounted for by RG contemplating the purchase of a home computer and the return of the county-owned laptop.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, some evidence points exclusively to walkaway. Some points to a voluntary act.

Only one piece points away from walkaway, maybe.

[Politigal]

In the cases mentioned in this thread, reasons for the vanishing acts surfaced *shortly after* their disappearances....Wiley's financial problems, porn problems, etc. And Francisco's alter life, etc.

We have nothing like that in RG's case ....nothing.

[J. J. in Phila]

P'gal, most if not all of Wiley's "financial problems" were associated with his walking away. Likewise, Carsey had no "secret life."

[Politigal]

Carsey had issues too, that surfaced quickly.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A9669C8B63

..he foresaw difficult times ahead for the college. His marriage had also come to seem hollow to him.

- - -

But in a parting note discovered by his wife, Nancy, he said: ''I am a physical and psychological disaster, I have no will to improve and I don't want to drag you down with me.''

Nothing has surfaced about Gricar.

Originally Posted by Politigal

In the cases mentioned in this thread, reasons for the vanishing acts surfaced *shortly after* their disappearances....Wiley's financial problems, porn problems, etc. And Francisco's alter life, etc.

We have nothing like that in RG's case ....nothing.

That was part of my point, Pgal, and you're so right. It's been four years, almost, since RG disappeared and so far nothing has surfaced to suggest the classic problems or difficulties uncovered in the majority of walkaway cases.

I have no idea what JJ means by Wiley's financial problems being the result of him walking away. According to the Time magazine article on Wiley, he owed a friend $2,000 and was behind in alimony payments to his ex-wife when he disappeared. The article doesn't mention how much behind. But he clearly owed people money, something not true in RG's case.

And after four years, no one has evidence of RG being part of Adult Friend Finder or anything remotely similar. PF claims she was the woman in the Tyrone antique shop, so if we believe her, he wasn't sneaking around Tyrone with a Mystery Woman. Even if he was in Tyrone with a female companion, it wouldn't mean an affair. And LE has said flat out they don't know whether the Lewisburg MW exists and/or whether that alleged sighting was RG or not.

On another note, I'm disappointed that posts #2 and #6 are so lacking in specificity.

If "most, if not all" of the evidence points to a walkaway in the RG case, then it should be easy to outline, the way I did in paragraphs 2 and 3 of my opening post for the Wiley case.

Where Wiley is concerned, frankly, I think the letter to the friend on the typewriter ribbon was likely the clincher for LE declaring him voluntarily disappeared. (Side note: even with that, I could see a possible argument for not closing the books without an in-person identification by a police officer. After all, Wiley had asked his girlfriend to type the manuscript for his book. Where's the proof that Wiley himself actually typed the letter saying he was fed up with his life and wanted to get far away from his hometown?)

I'd like to see that list of confirmed evidence pointing to walkaway in the RG case. Any takers?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Politigal

Carsey had issues too, that surfaced quickly.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A9669C8B63

..he foresaw difficult times ahead for the college. His marriage had also come to seem hollow to him.

- - -

But in a parting note discovered by his wife, Nancy, he said: ''I am a physical and psychological disaster, I have no will to improve and I don't want to drag you down with me.''

Nothing has surfaced about Gricar.

Thart wasn't a "secret life" nor a "financial problem."

UTR, right before Wiley left, he borrowed $2000.00 (not a huge amount, even in 1985), and basically took it with him. And, UTR, I'm not outlining it here, but it will be outlined.

JJ, Wiley's finances were clearly not the primary reason he wanted out of his current situation. He was unhappy, bored, and restless with his work by all accounts, and fancied himself a writer rather than a law man. He had a married girlfriend who told him she would never leave her husband to marry him. He described San Francisco as his "mecca," a far cry from Hinckley, Ohio, so he clearly fantasized about a very different kind of lifestyle than he currently led.

That said, regarding the money:

a) $2,000 was more significant in 1985 than you're willing to admit. Median household income was only about $23,000 then.

b) But the real financial pressures that may have been part of Wiley's desire to disappear would have come from the alimony payments he owed. Those, of course, would have legal repercussions greater than a loan from a friend.

Now the real question:

Why the reluctance to outline confirmed evidence for RG walking away here, where the question is being asked in a specific context? Here, where there's a level playing field for full discussion?

[ladyheartfixer]

methinks JJ likes to fancy himself the expert on this case and mayhaps that is why he is acting like he is in bed with the BPD...for all I know he is...he won't disclose what he feels is information...he prefers to "blog" it... where it can't be questioned or dissected like it can and will be here. Oh what some ppl will do for their infamy....

JJ, I once respected your opinions because they seemed to be thought out...but now they seem to be nefarious and deceptive....giving you the appearance of someone who thinks they know all. Why do I not like the feelings I get when I read your posts here? Some of us do have brains y'know....

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by ladyheartfixer

methinks JJ likes to fancy himself the expert on this case and mayhaps that is why he is acting like he is in bed with the BPD...for all I know he is...he won't disclose what he feels is information...he prefers to "blog" it... where it can't be questioned or dissected like it can and will be here. Oh what some ppl will do for their infamy....

JJ, I once respected your opinions because they seemed to be thought out...but now they seem to be nefarious and deceptive....giving you the appearance of someone who thinks they know all. Why do I not like the feelings I get when I read your posts here? Some of us do have brains y'know....

I don't believe that I ever claimed I was "in bed" with the BPD. I do prefer to "blog it" because that is what I'm doing. Also, I've found that too few people outside of this message board are truly familiar with the case

I'm currently laying out what evidence is known. I'm attempting to do it chronologically; that means that some points won't be made now. And, BTW, any person may post responses to any blog, as both UTR an P'gal have done (I'm assuming they are the same ones as here). To date, I have not "disapproved" any posting.

Originally Posted by ladyheartfixer

methinks JJ likes to fancy himself the expert on this case and mayhaps that is why he is acting like he is in bed with the BPD...for all I know he is...he won't disclose what he feels is information...he prefers to "blog" it... where it can't be questioned or dissected like it can and will be here.

respectfully snipped.

LHF, IMHO, you are absolutely correct on this point. I gave up trying to "discuss" the witness issue in blogland, where the blogger has all the room in the world to lay out his case and where comments are restricted to 1,000 characters or less.

Blogland is not designed for equal playing field discussion. It is the playing field of the blogger.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, if a $2000 in 1985 would be worth under $3700 in 2005. http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
That is not a gigantic sum of money.

As for your "false question," because that will take time to lay out (and no, it isn't written yet). I want to look at all the evidence first, then look at what theories fit that evidence.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, you stated your opinions, and claimed they were what "experts" said. You were asked to cite some of these "experts." You fell silent.

Re Wiley and the money issue: why, JJ, do you ignore my observation that the alimony payments in arrears would be the real pressure component if finances played a role in Wiley's desire to take off? Courts do have a habit of going after people who don't pay alimony, child support, and other court-ordered payments.

I don't believe financial pressure was the primary reason Wiley would have disappeared anyway. But he certainly owed money to people--so why make such a big deal pretending that he didn't?

"False question"? I have no idea what you mean.

I've asked legitimate questions on this thread. In Session provides a place where all registered users have an equal opportunity to discuss issues fully. You've been making claims for a long, long time now that all the known evidence appears to point to walkaway in the RG case. Surely at this point you can make the kind of summarized list I did for Wiley and NF. Surely you must have some basis for these claims.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, UTR, we agree that financial pressures were not the issue in the Wiley case. Your "false question" was why not lay the evidence for walkaway out here. The answer is, because I want lay out all the evidence. I'd rather go with all the evidence first, then look at theories consistent withe the evidence.

I fell silent?

I gave up because 1,000 characters is way too small a limit to deal with all the errors in fact and logic.

You claimed you cited an expert, but your expert was an expert in constitutional law, not an expert in researching eyewitness testimony and memory. Dorf, your expert, was entirely focused on the need for expert testimony on eyewitnesses in the courtroom, saying, "jurors typically believe an eyewitness who sticks to his or her story despite cross-examination . . . because most jurors are not aware of the studies tending to cast doubt on such testimony" and "[t]he ordinary citizens we trust to protect us against potentially overzealous government are, by virtue of their very ordinariness, often inexpert at the tasks they must perform."

His entire article was a push for the courts to accept expert testimony on eyewitnesses because a) eyewitnesses are so often wrong and b) because jurors do not understand the many problems with eyewitness testimony.

Interestingly enough, only two states in the entire union have absolutely refused any form of expert testimony on eyewitnesses. Guess what? Pennsylvania is one of those two states refusing to educate juries (and judges and lawyers) about this issue.

Couple that with Pennsylvania police departments' 2005 incredibly poor showing with regard to implementation of the DOJ guidelines--not just a lack of awareness but in some cases an outright refusal to use them--and Pennsylvania looks like a state stuck in the dark ages with regard to understanding of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony.

And JJ, if you can't name off the top of your head the leading researchers in eyewitness testimony and memory on your own, it certainly casts your discussion of witnesses in an interesting light. You should not only know the names, but also have read extensively the various studies they've done so you're familiar with the empirical data regarding memory and eyewitness testimony. Otherwise, I find it difficult to understand how you can make arguments based on ideas the research has proven not to be true.

That's why I found your citing of Dorf to be so ironic, and why I noted the irony in my comment on your blog. There was Dorf, calling for jurors (lay people) to be educated regarding the research that's been done into eyewitnesses and memory, and yet you were laying out two premises that were contradicted by that very research.

Now you see why 1,000 characters is a futile restriction in terms of response (for me, at any rate), and now I'd like to return this thread to the question of confirmed evidence for a walkaway in RG's case.

[gstickley]

Originally Posted by ladyheartfixer

methinks JJ likes to fancy himself the expert on this case and mayhaps that is why he is acting like he is in bed with the BPD...for all I know he is...he won't disclose what he feels is information...he prefers to "blog" it... where it can't be questioned or dissected like it can and will be here. Oh what some ppl will do for their infamy....

JJ, I once respected your opinions because they seemed to be thought out...but now they seem to be nefarious and deceptive....giving you the appearance of someone who thinks they know all. Why do I not like the feelings I get when I read your posts here? Some of us do have brains y'know....

LHF, are you the one in my head?????? And my heart???
Thanks from my head & my heart!!!!!

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, First, you can make multiple posts, one to begin, and others to continue. Other posters have. Second, you can cite these experts and give a link.

It's interesting. I wish to discuss the evidence, which I've said in many cases may point in another direction from walkaway, or even a short stroll. You don't want to discuss the evidence.

[Politigal]

The bottom line...in the other cases of walkaway, there were *issues* whether it be personal, financial, mental, etc. and all those issues surfaced very quickly as to the reason for walkaway.

No issues whatsoever have surfaced about Gricar....none, nada, zilch.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, Dorf cited several studies that came up with a rate of error, i.e. how likely is for a singular witness to be correct. I've noted that.

LW, there is more evidence out there. It has been provided by numerous sources.

JJ, Dorf spend only six short lines discussing studies done on problems with eyewitness identification--a very brief summary. Are you familiar with any of these studies? If so, you must surely understand how the 50% error rate he alludes to was derived, and it has nothing to do with "how likely it is for a singular witness to be correct." Are you also aware that the data for the 50% rate comes from laboratory studies done almost entirely on college student volunteer populations, and that data collected from field studies and "real life" would indicate an even lower accuracy rate for identification? Are you aware all these studies deal with identifications of perpetrators in crime situations? Does accuracy of witness ID for missing persons have a real life correctness track record anywhere close to witness ID for crime perpetrators? Not according to those with expertise in the field like Alba and Van Zandt.

As for your rather silly statement that I "don't want to discuss the evidence," that's the whole reason I started this thread in the first place. Quoting myself again:

However, my real interest in starting this thread is to focus on these questions I advanced in my opening post:

* But what, precisely, does BPD really have that would be evidence to close the case and call Ray Gricar's disappearance a voluntary one?
* If there is not enough evidence for King County to close the books on Nicholas Francisco's disappearance, how could BPD possibly consider closing the case on RG's?
* What standards will the BPD use to decide whether or not RG's disappearance was voluntary?


IOW, I'd like to examine confirmed evidence BPD presently has of a voluntary walkaway and compare it to the Wiley and NF cases, where the former has been "closed" as a voluntary walkaway and the latter remains open with NF still listed as a missing person.

Shout out to OOBrett: I declare shenanigans.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, there you go again.

There is no question in my mind that witnesses can make mistakes; that has been noted. There is no question that a singular witness can be wrong. The question is, how likely multiple witnesses will all be wrong about exactly the same things; how likely is it that they will make the same mistake? We can add that sometimes it might be more likely to error in terms of facial recognition. How likely are multiple witnesses to mistake both a persons face and a car?

I do call "shenanigans" on the repeated failure to answer those.

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is something about what a true expert on eyewitness testimony will testify to in court (the admissibility might have been overturned).

# • The tendency of a witness to focus on a weapon;
# • The effect of allowing eyewitnesses to meet with other eyewitnesses before identification;
# • The effect of hats on recognition;
# • Cross-racial identification;
# • The lack of correlation between confidence and accuracy in witness identifications;
# • The influence of show-up identification procedures on witness accuracy; and
# • The effect of post-event information on witness confidence.


http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/m/es..._brownlee.html

You will see that in this case, looking at the eyewitnesses generally none apply (in one case, one does apply, which will be noted in the summation).

In other words, more shenanigans from UTR.

Look, JJ, you're doing the same thing with eyewitness testimony that you did with scent theory, and that's grabbing one quote from one website without an understanding of the bigger picture.

If you'd read the article you quoted carefully, you'd see that the judge in the case limited the expert witness' testimony only to narrow areas dealing with that particular case to avoid potential juror confusion. The case was appealed, and this was the outcome: "Thus the 3d Circuit panel found that Schooler's testimony was improperly restricted and granted Brownlee a new trial."


Surely somewhere in your final year at PSU, a professor in your field must have required you do spend a semester doing a lit survey so you could demonstrate an overall understanding of the work that's been done in a particular area? That approach could really help you understand potential eyewitness testimony issues in the Gricar case.

Originally Posted by logicworks

I would like to know more about the length of the observations and the distance between the witness and the person observed. I am most interested in any witnesses who claim they saw RG outside of the vehicle in the parking lot as opposed to those who claim to have witnessed RG inside the SOS or saw a 'driver' inside the vehicle.

Respectfully snipped.

There's a long list of questions that need to be answered about the witnesses. Distance is one of them.

A few more off the top of my head:

TG once said to the best of his knowledge, all Lewisburg witnesses were the result of canvassing. Is this accurate?

When, specifically, was each of these witnesses questioned?

What were the lighting conditions in each alleged sighting?

Do any of the witnesses wear glasses/contact lenses? When did each of the witnesses last have his/her eyes examined by a doctor?

In the alleged multiple witness sightings, where, specifically, were each of the alleged witnesses positioned?

Who did the questioning of each witness? Was it the same LE officer in each case, or were different officers involved?

For this officer or officers, how much experience had he/they had in questioning witnesses in missing persons' cases?

How familiar was the officer/officers with the DOJ guidelines? Had he/they received any instruction in witness questioning since 1999?

Were the witnesses interviewed by officers who knew RG and/or could identify RG, or were they questioned by officers who could not identify RG?

Were they shown a group of photos at one time, or were they shown a succession of photos individually?

Did witnesses spend time considering their choices before selecting RG as "the one" they saw, or did they immediately leap to the conclusion that RG was "the one"?

Were any of the witnesses told they had made a correct identification of RG?

****

That's just for starters.

Personally UtR, I cringe at the use of the word "evidence" on here. There is very little known in the way of actual evidence in this case. For the most part the public only knows what LE has chosen to reveal. And that has been delivered by the news media, which has no obligation to be accurate, precise...or questioning.

With all due respect to bloggers and fellow posters, we can regurgitate everything ever written about this case...and argue over expert opinions, probabilities, statistics and a preponderence of the "evidence"...but there will still be no clear indication about what might have happened to Ray Gricar.

How much evidence is enough to show that RG intentionally disappeared himself? Just one, incontrovertible, post 4/15/05 "slip-up". That, so far as I know, is not in "evidence".

[J. J. in Phila]

S1, three points.

1. I've been surprised how even folks with an interest in the case, but are not regular posters, have missed some of the details.

2. So far, and this will probably change during the week, I have not looked at anything beyond 4/15/05.

3. Some new details have trickled out. Some things that were there and missed, and a few things that were unreported are now reported (one being the location of McKnight's witness).

I'd also suggest that you wait to the summary on the witnesses, at least, before jumping to the conclusion that they point toward walkaway.

Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila

S1, three points.

1. I've been surprised how even folks with an interest in the case, but are not regular posters, have missed some of the details.

2. So far, and this will probably change during the week, I have not looked at anything beyond 4/15/05.

3. Some new details have trickled out. Some things that were there and missed, and a few things that were unreported are now reported (one being the location of McKnight's witness).

I'd also suggest that you wait to the summary on the witnesses, at least, before jumping to the conclusion that they point toward walkaway.

New details...what, from Bellefonte by way of State College, Charlotte, and Philadelphia? Some secret that PB felt duty bound not to publish...what, from some fear it would just lead to another theory? I can hardly wait for the amazing one's (ones') words of wisdom! Will the sun be rising in the North this time?

P.S. I saw you already embellished the "McKnight witness' sighting". But it means nothing to me...coming from you, sorry to say.

P.P.S. Your embellishments are nothing more than third-person heresay. If you want credibility you have to disclose your source. PB disappointed a lot of people. But that seems to be the norm in this case.

Good grief...everyone must have all given up and gone home to bed. Ladyheartfixer, I see you are online. What do you think? Look...PB already stretched out his credentials, and I can readily appreciate that. But coddling some dufus underling (I am glad he left 'this dufus'...me...out) to do what he could and should have done...well, that just ain't right. But I really put this dilemma on TC and MM. This case has always been solvable. But governor and attorney general hopefuls live in a different world altogether.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally Posted by Serendipitous1

P.S. I saw you already embellished the "McKnight witness' sighting". But it means nothing to me...coming from you, sorry to say.

Didn't embellish, just reported, sorry to say. I do talk to a few folks.
Oh, if you only knew.

[J. J. in Phila]

I should add something else, as far as I know, PB didn't have that detail.

A SOB judge, who conveniently forgot the particulars after just 3 days, speaks volumes. That failure was posted here well before it became public knowledge, and was (in effect) subsequently CONFIRMED thanks to SPM. And a newly elected DA, licking the AG's behind while hoping for a miracle, also speaks volumes. People need to know that their public servants have failed them, because they failed Ray Gricar.

Originally Posted by Serendipitous1

Personally UtR, I cringe at the use of the word "evidence" on here. There is very little known in the way of actual evidence in this case. For the most part the public only knows what LE has chosen to reveal. And that has been delivered by the news media, which has no obligation to be accurate, precise...or questioning.

With all due respect to bloggers and fellow posters, we can regurgitate everything ever written about this case...and argue over expert opinions, probabilities, statistics and a preponderence of the "evidence"...but there will still be no clear indication about what might have happened to Ray Gricar.

How much evidence is enough to show that RG intentionally disappeared himself? Just one, incontrovertible, post 4/15/05 "slip-up". That, so far as I know, is not in "evidence".

Agreed for the most part, S1. But to clarify, I deliberately chose the word "evidence" in response to the walkaway campaign perpetrated here and in blogland, best expressed in this quote from the original blogland blogger:

"I would suggest there is more evidence Gricar intentionally vanished on April 15, 2005, than there is that someone, or a group of conspirators, killed him. Read past entries of this blog and the plethora of newspaper coverage of his disappearance. You'll find a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting Gricar knew exactly what he was doing and, if you believe witnesses who claim to have seen the former prosecutor, he was alive and well days after he was reported missing."

And, like the word "evidence," the choice to start this thread was deliberate and for a reason. So far it has demonstrated exactly what I thought it would.