PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #12

[J. J. in Phila]

We'll have to agree to disagree. All those things mean little or can easily be explained by other reasoning that doesn't include him walking away from his life.

I think the Wiley case is interesting but I have no intention of leaving my life.

It's ok you've done great at keeping the case alive and that is commendable.

The lack of assets cannot be easily explained, and just about any explanation points to a voluntary act.

The trip to Lewisburg lacks the characteristics of an un-planned trip.

The change in demeanor certainly points away from foul play and the trip into an area without cell coverage is not consistent with a guy worrying about his safety (he can't call for help).

The desire to destroy the drive is not consistent with using the laptop.

The interest in Wiley could be coincident if it was around the time of his disappearance. It occurred at least 8 years after Wiley disappeared, if not longer.

 

[SuperSmith]

The lack of assets is documented. That might provide both a motive and part of the means.

The lack of assets is documented by you yes. With regards his money he shared his money with his daughter and there is NO WAY anyone here could know what Gricar's expenses were or how much he spent for fun. So what may seem like that there should be more is just a scratch on the surface. No one knows for sure. The use of this aspect that hasn't been fully investigated, at least publicly released, in my opinion cannot be used to support your opinion or assumption.

[/QUOTE]The interest in the Wiley, who walked away, case is known.[/QUOTE]

I find nothing unusual about a LE agent who finds a mysterious case interesting especially when it was from his home town. I highly doubt that interest only began 8 years after Wiley's disappearance.
[/QUOTE] The trip to Lewisburg, with no stated purpose, is witnessed.[/QUOTE]

Again, it is not known where Gricar's destination was that day. If you have proof that he was going to be in Lewisburg 4/15/05 then post it! Otherwise it is your opinion.

[/QUOTE]The desire to destroy the hard drive is known.[/QUOTE]

Yep sure is but an alternative explanation for that is he was going to retire and wanted to wipe the drive clean prior to handing it back in to the County. Nothing unusual about that and was backed up by Bob Buehner.

[/QUOTE]His change in demeanor is note from multiple sources.[/QUOTE]

It is noted that he had been working hard on some cases and with his pending retirement he had plenty of loose ends to tie up before the end of the year. Being tired or sleeping more in no way points to walkaway.

[/QUOTE]All of those things are consistent with a voluntary act on RFG's part.[/QUOTE]

I respectfully disagree. If all of those things pointed to ONE theory it would've been investigated as such. I have also noted alternative explanations.

[/QUOTE]None is consistent with an involuntary act, like foul play.[/QUOTE]

All of the aforementioned may not even be part of his disappearance. :floorlaugh:

 

[Hbgchick]

I believe he was in Lewisburg. Where I get stuck is here: Assume the eyewitnesses were correct that thay saw RFG in the SoS. If that is the case, how did RFG get from his car into the SoS without the scent dogs picking up THAT scent, from 4/15?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The lack of assets is documented by you yes. With regards his money he shared his money with his daughter and there is NO WAY anyone here could know what Gricar's expenses were or how much he spent for fun. So what may seem like that there should be more is just a scratch on the surface. No one knows for sure. The use of this aspect that hasn't been fully investigated, at least publicly released, in my opinion cannot be used to support your opinion or assumption.

The documentations by the estate. Both Trackergd and I got got some of them. They are a matter of public record.

Simply put, what does exist does not support the idea that RFG was saving for retirement.

I find nothing unusual about a LE agent who finds a mysterious case interesting especially when it was from his home town. I highly doubt that interest only began 8 years after Wiley's disappearance.

It actually was near his hometown, but not in it. It did not occur while RFG lived there. It was not a current event when he discussed it.

Again, it is not known where Gricar's destination was that day. If you have proof that he was going to be in Lewisburg 4/15/05 then post it! Otherwise it is your opinion.

Again, we have evidence. The map. The call, and the times he was spotted in Lewisburg.

Yep sure is but an alternative explanation for that is he was going to retire and wanted to wipe the drive clean prior to handing it back in to the County. Nothing unusual about that and was backed up by Bob Buehner.

I'm not sure that BB "backed" that up. There is nothing unusual about even wanting to destroy a computer with personal or confidential information on it.

Doing searches on how water will damage it, then going to a place where water will damage is a good indication that he was planning to do it. Then finding that this is what happened to the laptop, is strong evidence. None of that points to foul play.

It is noted that he had been working hard on some cases and with his pending retirement he had plenty of loose ends to tie up before the end of the year. Being tired or sleeping more in no way points to walkaway.

It may point to making arrangements for something, like walking away. It may be a symptom of depression, pointing to suicide. No, it doesn't point to foul play.

I respectfully disagree. If all of those things pointed to ONE theory it would've been investigated as such. I have also noted alternative explanations.

Actually, we know that LE is looking in Eastern Europe for RFG.

Also, remember that some of these things were not known early in the investigation.
None is consistent with an involuntary act, like foul play.

All of the aforementioned may not even be part of his disappearance. :floorlaugh:

So far, nothing posted has actually pointed to foul play, exclusively.

So, we have evidence on one side that points exclusively to a voluntary act (which includes suicide), and none that points exclusively to an involuntary act.

 

[Hbgchick]

So, we have evidence on one side that points exclusively to a voluntary act (which includes suicide), and none that points exclusively to an involuntary act.

That's how I see it. I have seen no evidence at all that points to an involuntary act, not to say that it *couldn't be* what happened. I just don't see any evidence of it.

 

[SuperSmith]

The lack of assets is documented. That might provide both a motive and part of the means.

The interest in the Wiley, who walked away, case is known.

The trip to Lewisburg, with no stated purpose, is witnessed.

The desire to destroy the hard drive is known.

His change in demeanor is note from multiple sources.

All of those things are consistent with a voluntary act on RFG's part.

Some of those things are consistent with suicide, but not all.

None is consistent with an involuntary act, like foul play.

I believe he was in Lewisburg. Where I get stuck is here: Assume the eyewitnesses were correct that thay saw RFG in the SoS. If that is the case, how did RFG get from his car into the SoS without the scent dogs picking up THAT scent, from 4/15?

That is my point. If we are to believe the dog then we have to conclude RG was not in the SOS and those eyewitnesses that claim they saw him in there were mistaken. IF that is the case then how can we trust any eyewitness OUTSIDE the SOS?

You cannot use what the dog found as evidence to support a theory and conversely not for something else because it doesn't fit that theory. That has been lost on some here.

If the dog was wrong and RG's scent was simply transfer from another individual or the Mini then it cannot be proven that RG was in Lewisburg.

I'm on the fence 50/50 that he was in Lewisburg. What the dog found and what the eyewitnesses reported conflict each other.

 

[SuperSmith]

The documentations by the estate. Both Trackergd and I got got some of them. They are a matter of public record.

Simply put, what does exist does not support the idea that RFG was saving for retirement.



It actually was near his hometown, but not in it. It did not occur while RFG lived there. It was not a current event when he discussed it.



Again, we have evidence. The map. The call, and the times he was spotted in Lewisburg.



I'm not sure that BB "backed" that up. There is nothing unusual about even wanting to destroy a computer with personal or confidential information on it.

Doing searches on how water will damage it, then going to a place where water will damage is a good indication that he was planning to do it. Then finding that this is what happened to the laptop, is strong evidence. None of that points to foul play.



It may point to making arrangements for something, like walking away. It may be a symptom of depression, pointing to suicide. No, it doesn't point to foul play.



Actually, we know that LE is looking in Eastern Europe for RFG.

Also, remember that some of these things were not known early in the investigation.
None is consistent with an involuntary act, like foul play.



So far, nothing posted has actually pointed to foul play, exclusively.

So, we have evidence on one side that points exclusively to a voluntary act (which includes suicide), and none that points exclusively to an involuntary act.

We have discussed all of this before and they ALL are your opinion, thoughts, and assumptions. Some may agree with you. I am not one of them. Everyone can make their own opinion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That's how I see it. I have seen no evidence at all that points to an involuntary act, not to say that it *couldn't be* what happened. I just don't see any evidence of it.

I am not the one who said "I believe homicide is the least likely." I don't completely agree with that statement. I do not think it is the most likely either.

 

[Hbgchick]

That is my point. If we are to believe the dog then we have to conclude RG was not in the SOS and those eyewitnesses that claim they saw him in there were mistaken. IF that is the case then how can we trust any eyewitness OUTSIDE the SOS?

You cannot use what the dog found as evidence to support a theory and conversely not for something else because it doesn't fit that theory. That has been lost on some here.

If the dog was wrong and RG's scent was simply transfer from another individual or the Mini then it cannot be proven that RG was in Lewisburg.

I'm on the fence 50/50 that he was in Lewisburg. What the dog found and what the eyewitnesses reported conflict each other.

Well, that's not exactly my point. I am curious as to how he happened to be in both places. Both the eyewitness account and the search dog account IMO could well both be correct.

Did he get into another car with someone, go somewhere else, then come back to the SoS? If it was a voluntary walk away I am sure he would have some *plan* to confuse LE and throw them off of his trail. If they never took the search dogs into the SoS there's no way to be sure his scent wasn't in the SoS.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That is my point. If we are to believe the dog then we have to conclude RG was not in the SOS and those eyewitnesses that claim they saw him in there were mistaken. IF that is the case then how can we trust any eyewitness OUTSIDE the SOS?

We might conclude that RFG was not in the SoS with the Mystery Woman, but that conclusion might weaken any foul play theory.

You cannot use what the dog found as evidence to support a theory and conversely not for something else because it doesn't fit that theory. That has been lost on some here.

That is not factual. The dog adds an additional level of confidence to a sighting; other things do as well.

If the dog was wrong and RG's scent was simply transfer from another individual or the Mini then it cannot be proven that RG was in Lewisburg.

Is the dog in on the conspiracy too?

So far, there is no evidence that a transfer is possible.

I'm on the fence 50/50 that he was in Lewisburg. What the dog found and what the eyewitnesses reported conflict each other.

100% chance that he was there on 4/15. 50/50 on 4/16, with what have been released publicly.

BB thinks he was there on 4/16, and on that point, I disagree with him.

 

[Hbgchick]

I am not the one who said "I believe homicide is the least likely." I don't completely agree with that statement. I do not think it is the most likely either.

I don't think it's the *least* likely either, but I've seen no evidence of foul play or suicide.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We have discussed all of this before and they ALL are your opinion, thoughts, and assumptions. Some may agree with you. I am not one of them. Everyone can make their own opinion.

The financial information isn't opinion. It simply is.

The fact that the dog behaved in a manner consistent with RFG getting into another isn't opinion. It simply is.

The fact that RFG was interested in destroying the data on his laptop isn't opinion. It simply is.

That is the difference between opinion and evidence.

 

[SuperSmith]

Here is the opinion of a more credible or qualified individual.

VAN SUSTEREN: Jim, there was a cell phone found inside the car, I mean, which might suggest perhaps suicide or walked away, unless the cell phone didn't belong to him, it belonged to the county, because he was a county employee. What do you think about the cell phone in the car?

BRYANT: That's just one of the reasons I believe Ray is no longer with us. There's no activity on the cell phone. And quite candidly, Ray was the kind of person that prided himself on law enforcement being able to reach him if something serious went down. He would have taken it. And Ray was also what you would consider an urban cripple. There's no activity on his credit cards. It makes it hard for me to believe that he was around on Saturday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/21/hunt-continues-for-missing-pennsylvania-da/

 

[SuperSmith]

Another opinion

"STATE COLLEGE — State Attorney General Tom Corbett said Thursday he has concluded that, because Ray Gricar's keys have not been recovered, the missing Centre County district attorney intended to return to his car.

Corbett, in Centre County for an unrelated matter, acknowledged that hope for a happy ending to Gricar's disappearance is fading because so much time has gone by without a trace of him."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2005/05/13/3777/corbett-says-hope-fading-for-gricar.html#storylink=cpy

 

[SuperSmith]

I don't think it's the *least* likely either, but I've seen no evidence of foul play or suicide.

and I have seen no evidence of walkaway. No reasons, no notes, no credit card activity, no communication, no plans.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't think it's the *least* likely either, but I've seen no evidence of foul play or suicide.

His change in demeanor could point to depression leading to suicide. The family history could point to a genetic propensity to suicide.

Even the finances could, in some cases, point to suicide.

The fact is that the assets are too low based on income. RFG grossed more than $450 k since his divorce, excluding any money left after his divorce. He had, as a practical matter, about $100 K saved, including any money he had after his divorce.

What could account for that?

Hiding it in foreign accounts to live on after he disappeared.

Some bad investments. Some people do get depressed at losing money and financial reversals have been known to lead to suicide.

Estate planning, on a fairly massive scale. On this scale, it would be indicative of RFG's belief that he won't be there at retirement. That would point to the idea that RFG would be dead, legally and/or in reality.

Being blackmailed. There is no evidence that RFG was being blackmailed, but if it would show up, that could be a reason to leave or to kill himself. A blackmailer wants his victim to "Live Long and Prosper," and keep paying him.

The first points to walkaway, the second to murder, and the other two to both. None of it points to foul play.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is the opinion of a more credible or qualified individual.

VAN SUSTEREN: Jim, there was a cell phone found inside the car, I mean, which might suggest perhaps suicide or walked away, unless the cell phone didn't belong to him, it belonged to the county, because he was a county employee. What do you think about the cell phone in the car?

BRYANT: That's just one of the reasons I believe Ray is no longer with us. There's no activity on the cell phone. And quite candidly, Ray was the kind of person that prided himself on law enforcement being able to reach him if something serious went down. He would have taken it. And Ray was also what you would consider an urban cripple. There's no activity on his credit cards. It makes it hard for me to believe that he was around on Saturday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/21/hunt-continues-for-missing-pennsylvania-da/

Bryant, a political opponent, is far from a good source; he compared RFG to "oatmeal."

 

[SuperSmith]

Bryant, a political opponent, is far from a good source; he compared RFG to "oatmeal."

FAR BETTER SOURCE than anyone here. Knew him for years obviously and if he didn't like Gricar than he would've indicated the Walkaway theory. Clearly Gricar walking away from this life paints a bad image of his character.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

and I have seen no evidence of walkaway. No reasons, no notes, no credit card activity, no communication, no plans.

Yet there is evidence supporting it. There is none for foul play.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

FAR BETTER SOURCE than anyone here. Knew him for years obviously and if he didn't like Gricar than he would've indicated the Walkaway theory.

No, some of these people's views of RFG are shaped by this experience.

For example, Bryant ran against RFG, saying how "unseemly" it was for him to lobby to go full time.

Clearly Gricar walking away from this life paints a bad image of his character.

Like asking for his salary to be nearly doubled?

Bryant actually questioned the "morality" of some of RFG's actions. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_90281759-b91a-5f97-b446-4453359ce320.html

Or saying, ""I think they'll have to put in double doors to fit (Gricar's) ego."

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_fb8e6ad1-a7cb-5cce-97b0-4180eec8ea8b.html

Now, since Bryant knew him, a poster makes the suggestion that we should listen to him. So, perhaps we should assume that RFG had questionable "morality" in his official conduct and a double door sized ego? :floorlaugh:

I hope it very comes to that, in spite of the suggestion.