The scent in the parking lot would be solid. He would have had to be in that spot to slough off enough skin cells to make a scent spot that the dog alerted on. It "most likely" would not have been skin cells that fell out of the car with the entry and exit of another driver.
The SOS and the area around it would have been contaminated by both human and animal scents, so it is not possible to say if RG was in the SOS or not, and it appears that the witness(s) for this part "may not" be as credible as the ones putting him in the Mini (supported by the scent evidence). I will concede that as a lover of antiques, the opportunity to walk around the SOS might have been very tempting, but not supported by anything substantial, unless J.J has something I am not aware of.
The only thing in addition to the support the SoS sightings is that the timing is right. Beyond sayng that RFG was in Lewisburg, in the Mini, at about 5:00-5:30 PM on 4/15.
RFG in the mini is substantiated by two independent evidence methods. The SOS is not, so while we can "assume" or "speculate", it does not have a second independent and scientific validation method, however probable it appears.
That is pretty much what I meant. The timing is right for it to have been RFG, but so is the sighting behind the courthouse.
The scent in the parking lot would be solid. He would have had to be in that spot to slough off enough skin cells to make a scent spot that the dog alerted on. It "most likely" would not have been skin cells that fell out of the car with the entry and exit of another driver.
The SOS and the area around it would have been contaminated by both human and animal scents, so it is not possible to say if RG was in the SOS or not, and it appears that the witness(s) for this part "may not" be as credible as the ones putting him in the Mini (supported by the scent evidence). I will concede that as a lover of antiques, the opportunity to walk around the SOS might have been very tempting, but not supported by anything substantial, unless J.J has something I am not aware of.
I do believe other "experts" would disagree with you
I do believe other "experts" would disagree with you
I believe walkaway is very unlikely and that increases by the day. In 10 years I think he would've been seen by now.
I'm all in favor of discussing theories because those theories could lead to examining evidence in a new light or even to discovering new evidence.Accidental death with remains being accidentally covered or inaccessible is also a theory. . . . The largest category of middle aged adults who die accidentally and are not found for many years are said to be those who end up in a deep body of water inside their vehicle. Does anyone feel that we should be able to discuss theoretical aspects and post theories, or is this " Just the facts" which number less than probably 100 total facts known to the public and provable about the case in ten long years?
The part about people drowning in their vehicles is too important to be overlooked. Just because Gricar didn't drown in his Mini doesn't mean that he isn't at the bottom of lake somewhere in someone else's vehicle. Maybe he met someone who drove into a body of water that hasn't been searched. Were any other disappearances reported around the same time as Gricar's and in the same part of the State? The biggest problem with that scenario is how to explain the presence of the laptop in the water, so I'd categorize it as a remote possibility only.
Also, he may have died accidentally, but that doesn't mean he hasn't been found. Maybe he died in bed with a married woman who couldn't report the death without enraging her jealous husband and getting herself killed. Men his age sometimes die of heart attacks in the throes of passion, and I don't think he'd be the first paramour to be buried under a faithless wife's rose garden.
Those scenarios aren't meant to sully Gricar's image. Regardless of how he may have died, he will always be a hero to me because of his prosecution of the murderer of Dawn Marie Birnbaum.
Never said it wasn't Gricars scent only that it could have been cast off from another and pooling from opening and closing the door which he exclusively drove.
I do not agree. We looked at the possibilities of a false positive. The rate is very low. While Trackergd said about 95% unlikely, the studies indicated 96%. Not much of a difference.
The handler felt it was RFG's scent.
What "studies" do you refer too? Must have missed that.
This one, when dealing with a trained and veteran dog: http://pinestreetfoundation.org/wp-...10_SSRN_canine-scent-detection-in-the-law.pdf
Why don't you save us all from reading 80pgs and cite the specific excerpt that tells us that the scent detected had to have been Ray himself in 96% probability.