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

from Shadow of My Mind:

Here is more food for thought.

Freeh Report on the Child Abuse at Penn State
Source: http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
Page 19 is where time line starts
Page 39 is the report on the 1998 investigation that would include RG

This stood out to me: Page 46 of pdf.
D. Late May 1998: District Attorney’s Decision to Not Prosecute Sandusky
"Sometime between May 27, 1998 and June 1, 1998, the local District Attorney declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998. A senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was “severely hampered” by Seasock’s report."




With regard to "a local victim resource center," Gricar did make a large contribution to the local women's resource center when his DA job finally changed from part-time to full-time, although I can't find a link to that now. Also, that same women's resource center was involved in the reward fund set up for information on his disappearance:

http://www.centrelaw.com/page.php?id=40

Snipped:

nittanylioness234 said:

With regard to "a local victim resource center," Gricar did make a large contribution to the local women's resource center when his DA job finally changed from part-time to full-time, although I can't find a link to that now. Also, that same women's resource center was involved in the reward fund set up for information on his disappearance:

http://www.centrelaw.com/page.php?id=40

Click to expand...

I don't know if it was the same one, but TG had indicated that RFG donated the difference between his part-time and full-time salary in 1996. That is not uncommon for a public official getting a large pay raise. It also was the beneficiary from his reward fund.

I would doubt that it would have any role in the 1998 case, as it was a women's resource center.

As previously noted, Seasock and Chambers conclusions were not admissible in 1998.

J. J. in Phila said:

He ran into someone who recognized him, the doctor. That might have been a factor.



LE has said he was there, as early as 11/05.

You know much more about scenting than I do. What, in general, would be the odds about a bloodhound getting a false positive?

Click to expand...

If it was an experienced bloodhound, I would say there was only about a 5% or less chance of a false positive. They usually get a head of steam and don't want to give up the search once they have latched onto the scent trail.

Regarding the Women's Resource Center, my question would be why an administrator there would have knowledge of Gricar's decision making process in 1998, how that person got this knowledge, and who it was...
...and if it is a different resource center, the same questions apply.

I'm also wondering if Gricar could have retired in 4/2005 - did he have the required age and length of time on the job? - rather than waiting until the end of the year?

Also wondering about his lunchtime naps in the weeks leading up to his disappearance - did he sleep in the office or did he go home for the naps? If at home, was he doing computer searches at a time he was supposed to be sleeping?

Trackergd said:

If it was an experienced bloodhound, I would say there was only about a 5% or less chance of a false positive. They usually get a head of steam and don't want to give up the search once they have latched onto the scent trail.

Click to expand...

On another site, someone noted that witness have as much as 1 in 3 chance of mis-identification, but that would be per witness. With just the eight identified witnesses, the odds that all the witnesses are wrong are 1 to 6,561 against (99.98475842% chance of being RFG).

Factoring in a 5% (1 in 20) false positive rate for the dog, the odds that all the witnesses and the dog is wrong is 1 to 131,220 against (99.99771376% chance of being RFG).

That doesn't account for the odds that the car would also be there, or that the laptop would also be there.

I actually think the 1 in 3 chance for the witnesses is too high because it includes cross racial identifications and there is a legitimate problem with racial mis-identification. Judging from the demographics of Lewisburg, most or all of the witnesses were the same race as RFG.

In short, I think RFG was in Lewisburg, beyond doubt.

nittanylioness234 said:

Regarding the Women's Resource Center, my question would be why an administrator there would have knowledge of Gricar's decision making process in 1998, how that person got this knowledge, and who it was...
...and if it is a different resource center, the same questions apply.

Click to expand...

She wouldn't. It is one my disagreements with Freeh.

nittanylioness234 said:

I'm also wondering if Gricar could have retired in 4/2005 - did he have the required age and length of time on the job? - rather than waiting until the end of the year?

Also wondering about his lunchtime naps in the weeks leading up to his disappearance - did he sleep in the office or did he go home for the naps? If at home, was he doing computer searches at a time he was supposed to be sleeping?

Click to expand...

Some of the searches were done on different computers. The searches about the hard drive were done his home computer. The map, on his office computer.

I'm told that he could have retired immediately, though age might have been a factor. Had he retired, and then died, I'm told his heirs would have have gotten much less money.

I'm not endorsing this, but it is out there. Our old "friend," Keisling. :facepalm:

http://www.yardbird.com/ray_gricar_drops_the_ball.htm

Second time he's done this and he is even more strident.

J. J. in Phila said:

I'm not endorsing this, but it is out there. Our old "friend," Keisling. :facepalm:

http://www.yardbird.com/ray_gricar_drops_the_ball.htm

Second time he's done this and he is even more strident.

Click to expand...

As I was reading, I kept waiting to see how long it would take him to connect the dots back to "Harrisburg."

The problem is RFG was not answerable to "Harrisburg"; he answered to the voters of Centre County, who were overwhelmingly Penn State football fans.

And typical of the conspiracy theorists, yardbird is obsessed with the Second Mile. But the Second Mile (which, btw, actually did do some good things) is long gone. Meanwhile, Penn State's football recruiting class for 2015 is currently ranked 2nd in the nation by Rivals.com (https://rivals.yahoo.com/bwi/football/recruiting/teamrank/2015/all/all). Penn State football is poised for a return to the glory days. The beat goes on.

BigCat said:

As I was reading, I kept waiting to see how long it would take him to connect the dots back to "Harrisburg."

The problem is RFG was not answerable to "Harrisburg"; he answered to the voters of Centre County, who were overwhelmingly Penn State football fans.

And typical of the conspiracy theorists, yardbird is obsessed with the Second Mile. But the Second Mile (which, btw, actually did do some good things) is long gone. Meanwhile, Penn State's football recruiting class for 2015 is currently ranked 2nd in the nation by Rivals.com (https://rivals.yahoo.com/bwi/football/recruiting/teamrank/2015/all/all). Penn State football is poised for a return to the glory days. The beat goes on.

Click to expand...

A few of the conspiracy theorists try to link in Corbett. Corbett was a defense attorney in Pittsburgh at the time.

I did not like Keisling trying to put sole blame on RFG:

"Had he lived, Ray Gricar certainly would have taken heat for not properly following through on the 1998 investigation involving [Redated] and [Redacted].

Due to DA Gricar's mistakes and inactions, Sandusky would be given a green light.

Thanks in large part to Gricar, Jerry Sandusky would proceed to molest a long list of kids with impunity.

Thanks to Ray Gricar, the stage was set for all that was to come.

For Ray Gricar, his disappearance would turn out to be a smart career move."

- See more at: http://www.yardbird.com/ray_gricar_drops_the_ball.htm#sthash.f0potOWi.dpuf

Come on, if the PSU 3 would have reported it in 2001, the stage set would have been struck.

You are correct; Gricar was not answerable to Harrisburg.

J. J. in Phila said:

On another site, someone noted that witness have as much as 1 in 3 chance of mis-identification, but that would be per witness. With just the eight identified witnesses, the odds that all the witnesses are wrong are 1 to 6,561 against (99.98475842% chance of being RFG).

Factoring in a 5% (1 in 20) false positive rate for the dog, the odds that all the witnesses and the dog is wrong is 1 to 131,220 against (99.99771376% chance of being RFG).

That doesn't account for the odds that the car would also be there, or that the laptop would also be there.

I actually think the 1 in 3 chance for the witnesses is too high because it includes cross racial identifications and there is a legitimate problem with racial mis-identification. Judging from the demographics of Lewisburg, most or all of the witnesses were the same race as RFG.

In short, I think RFG was in Lewisburg, beyond doubt.

Click to expand...

I worked out the odd on RFG being in Lewisburg on either or both 4/15 and/or 4/16.

Conservatively, with just the bloodhound and witnesses, the odds that he was in Lewisburg are 3,542,940, to 1, or a 99.99999114% chance. That assumes the dog has a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong and that each of the 11 witnesses (including the three from 4/16) has a 1 in 3 chance of being wrong. If the witnesses had a 1 in 4 chance of being wrong (which is more likely in this case) odds would increase to 83,886,080 to 1 against RFG being in Lewisburg (99.9999997 %).

RFG was in Lewisburg.

IF the scent dog or dogs which were used in the parking lot alerted on Gricar's scent for a very short time only, why no alerts in the park where he was said to be, or in the SOS area, or at the little museum?

IF his Mini was opened up in the parking lot, couldn't his scent have come from the air and particles we all shed which were in his car?
I don't know when it was initially opened, but the lack of a positive scent anywhere else in the vicinity seems mighty strange to me.

How could he have been in that area and the dog didn't detect his scent at all except where his car had been? I've asked a similar question in the past and never really got much of an answer. If no one knows, that's fine. This is bothering me, though. Thanks for reading.:loveyou:

SeekingJana said:

IF the scent dog or dogs which were used in the parking lot alerted on Gricar's scent for a very short time only, why no alerts in the park where he was said to be, or in the SOS area, or at the little museum?

IF his Mini was opened up in the parking lot, couldn't his scent have come from the air and particles we all shed which were in his car?
I don't know when it was initially opened, but the lack of a positive scent anywhere else in the vicinity seems mighty strange to me.

How could he have been in that area and the dog didn't detect his scent at all except where his car had been? I've asked a similar question in the past and never really got much of an answer. If no one knows, that's fine. This is bothering me, though. Thanks for reading.:loveyou:

Click to expand...

It trail ran about 20 yards from where the car was parked.

I think Trackergd did discuss some possibilities. One possibility was that the scent from 4/15 had disbursed and/or the scent was newer and/or much stronger. We can't rule out that the bloodhound detected RFG's scent from the morning/afternoon of 4/16.

A period of ONE DAY would make the difference between " no scent detected" in any area other than where the car was parked and all the places at which Mr. Gricar was " seen" by witnesses?
I would have to see field trial data on the difference in a 24 hour period with same to very similar weather conditions, and one location at least being indoors and thus sheltered from weather elements.

Either the car search was or is being misinterpreted, or he doesn't seem to have left any trace of himself for a scent dog to find in ONE DAY. How does a mere mortal do this? I don't believe the two stories mesh well at all. Something's OFF about the dog story.

AND as I asked my fellow posters --What would be the result of the scent dog hitting on particulate matter ( dust composed of skin cells, etc) from the CAR and not from the physical presence of Mr. Gricar in the SOS parking lot?
This would seem to be possible if someone from LE opened a door or the trunk to the car door shortly before the scent dog was in the same location, I would imagine, from my knowledge of molecular biology. However, since I lack knowledge of scent dogs in the field, I cannot assume to presume.

Again, there should be data available from control tests done with the dogs and handlers OR in other cases which substantiate any answers. I am not certain we have the completely correct answers. No disrespect meant to anyone, but if there was any staging done in Lewisburg, then this could be how we narrow it down from a shop parking lot to a crime scene.

SeekingJana said:

A period of ONE DAY would make the difference between " no scent detected" in any area other than where the car was parked and all the places at which Mr. Gricar was " seen" by witnesses?
I would have to see field trial data on the difference in a 24 hour period with same to very similar weather conditions, and one location at least being indoors and thus sheltered from weather elements.

Either the car search was or is being misinterpreted, or he doesn't seem to have left any trace of himself for a scent dog to find in ONE DAY. How does a mere mortal do this? I don't believe the two stories mesh well at all. Something's OFF about the dog story.

AND as I asked my fellow posters --What would be the result of the scent dog hitting on particulate matter ( dust composed of skin cells, etc) from the CAR and not from the physical presence of Mr. Gricar in the SOS parking lot?
This would seem to be possible if someone from LE opened a door or the trunk to the car door shortly before the scent dog was in the same location, I would imagine, from my knowledge of molecular biology. However, since I lack knowledge of scent dogs in the field, I cannot assume to presume.

Again, there should be data available from control tests done with the dogs and handlers OR in other cases which substantiate any answers. I am not certain we have the completely correct answers. No disrespect meant to anyone, but if there was any staging done in Lewisburg, then this could be how we narrow it down from a shop parking lot to a crime scene.

Click to expand...

ITA. Something is off here.

Snipped

SeekingJana said:

A period of ONE DAY would make the difference between " no scent detected" in any area other than where the car was parked and all the places at which Mr. Gricar was " seen" by witnesses?
I would have to see field trial data on the difference in a 24 hour period with same to very similar weather conditions, and one location at least being indoors and thus sheltered from weather elements.

Click to expand...

The dog was brought in on 4/17/05. That was close to the 48 hour window. Somethings can cause the skin rafts to be destroyed, like direct sunlight. It is possible.

It is also possible that the scent raft could have been masked by car exhausts in the parking lot.

The false positive is well less than 5%.

To an analogy, I might walk down a hall. Nobody may see me walk down the hall. I may not touch anything to leave fingerprints or DNA. For some reason, e.g. the chemicals used in the hall, I may not leave a sent. That doesn't mean I didn't walk down the hall.

Now, if someone sees me, and there is some evidence, e,g. scent, and someone sees me walking down the wall, that is evidence that I walked down the hall.

Now, if I did not walk down the hall, how likely is it that someone will see me walk down the hall and that my scent would be there? We can quantify that as being the general odds that the witness is wrong, 1/3, plus the dog giving a false positive, 1/20. [1/3 + 1/20 = 1/60.] And what it there is a second witness that also saw me walking down the hall? 1/3 that the first witness is wrong, plus a 1/3 chance that the second witness, plus 1/20 for the dog. The odds that all these would indicate wrongly that I walked down the hall is 1 in 180 [1/3 + 1/3 + 1/20 = 1/180]

In RFG's case, we have 11 known witnesses that put RFG in Lewisburg on either 4/15 or 4/16 (or both). So, the odds that all the witnesses are wrong is 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3, which is 1/177,147. Now, on top of that, we have the dog having to give a false positive, 1/20. So with those two pieces of evidence, the witnesses and the bloodhound, the odds these are both wrong are 1/177,147 + 1/20, which is 3,542,940.

Now maybe the dog will give a false as much as 10% of the time, that would still make the odds 1 to 1,771,470 that RFG was not in Lewisburg.

Now, I think the 1/3 error rate for witnesses is high, for a number of reasons in this case. I would expect to be closer to 1/4.

J. J. in Phila said:

I worked out the odd on RFG being in Lewisburg on either or both 4/15 and/or 4/16.

Conservatively, with just the bloodhound and witnesses, the odds that he was in Lewisburg are 3,542,940, to 1, or a 99.99999114% chance. That assumes the dog has a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong and that each of the 11 witnesses (including the three from 4/16) has a 1 in 3 chance of being wrong. If the witnesses had a 1 in 4 chance of being wrong (which is more likely in this case) odds would increase to 83,886,080 to 1 against RFG being in Lewisburg (99.9999997 %).

RFG was in Lewisburg.

Click to expand...

You convinced me. Good work there.

On the subject of statistical probability: one reason I have my doubts about foul play is that, statistically speaking, an older Caucasian male is at low risk to suffer death by homicide. If we consider RFG's professional status, education, and location, the probability he was murdered decreases even further.

When it comes to suicide, on the other hand, he was in a high risk demographic. Throw in a family history of suicide and pending retirement, and he was a likely candidate for suicide (as much as anyone, I mean to say. Much more likely to die of suicide than homicide. And let's not forget that suicide is more common than homicide in general).

Of course, the lack of a body is a major stumbling block to the theory he committed suicide. However, I would also say the lack of a body is a problem for any theory involving foul play, especially since there exist no evidence of a crime scene. I suppose that (the lack of a body) is one of the reasons I lean toward walk away.

(btw, I reread your blog on the possibility of suicide. It's interesting to note that it was written in 2010 and you wrote that no scandal had emerged as of yet. It made me think that if he did walk away, he would still be at a very high risk to commit suicide, especially after the Sandusky scandal broke. Are his finger prints in a national data base? And is every unidentified body's finger prints compared to that national data base?)

JMO

Snipped.

BigCat said:

You convinced me. Good work there.

Click to expand...

And, using the same calculation, the odds that RFG was not in Lewisburg on 4/16/05 is 1 to 27 against. That is quite a difference.

When it comes to suicide, on the other hand, he was in a high risk demographic. Throw in a family history of suicide and pending retirement, and he was a likely candidate for suicide (as much as anyone, I mean to say. Much more likely to die of suicide than homicide. And let's not forget that suicide is more common than homicide in general).

Click to expand...

Throw in his financials, it is even more likely.

Of course, the lack of a body is a major stumbling block to the theory he committed suicide. However, I would also say the lack of a body is a problem for any theory involving foul play, especially since there exist no evidence of a crime scene. I suppose that (the lack of a body) is one of the reasons I lean toward walk away.

Click to expand...

If we had a body that was disposed of 9 years ago, in the general area, that would eliminate walkaway.

I do think a body could have been hidden, if this was foul play. While I think RFG was in Lewisburg, at least on 4/15, he may not have remained there.

(btw, I reread your blog on the possibility of suicide. It's interesting to note that it was written in 2010 and you wrote that no scandal had emerged as of yet. It made me think that if he did walk away, he would still be at a very high risk to commit suicide, especially after the Sandusky scandal broke. Are his finger prints in a national data base? And is every unidentified body's finger prints compared to that national data base?)

JMO

Click to expand...

My understanding is that RFG prints and DNA are in the missing persons database.

I did write something about the possibility of RFG walking away, and then dying, even by natural causes: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/08/06/3288229/the-passage-of-time.html That, sadly, is also a possibility.

And ironically, "Bad Girls" is playing.

This is what we know about Gricar's actions in the last year or so before he disappeared:

1. No specific saving for retirement, but announces retirement. Relatively low assets, in both 2004 and 2005.

2. Wants to destroy whatever is on the laptop. Asks about it about a year before, but does the searches within 30 days of the disappearance on his home computer.

3. 5-6 prior weeks, acts unusually. Tired, distraught, unfocused.

4. On 4/14 and 4/15, drives through remote areas. 4/15, drives into areas without cell coverage. Both areas have water features, which is not unusual for Central PA.

5. Generates the map to Lewisburg on office computer.

6. 4/15/05 is not indicated to be related to any official duty, he "plays hooky." No notes or e-mails indicating a purpose for going to Lewisburg or anything else on 4/15.