PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8

[Lord_Chatterly]

My problem has always been with murder. I'm not thrilled, on purely moral grounds, with suicide, but it is a matter of choice. Walkaway was always a matter of choice.

My complain about MTM is that there is a potential murder, of a sitting DA, and he really has not taken any solid steps to bring the murderer to justice or to prevent him/her from murdering again. Granted, he did some things when the press got bad enough, but not a lot.

I think that parallel can be appropriately drawn in the Sandusky case. Had RFG tried, and failed, I'd be commending him.

Now, let's go a step further. Stacy Parks-Miller, the current DA. Oh yes, now she gets all sorts of accolades for going after Sandusky, but I feel that is Bull. How bad does the Press have to get for her to release anything at all of the Gricar Case that she is so committed to ? And not this baloney that "it's an on-going investigation" !!!

Sorry, I had seen her on the Amandola Press conference the day of the Preliminary Hearing, in the background on the steps. What is she doing about this case ?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Now, let's go a step further. Stacy Parks-Miller, the current DA. Oh yes, now she gets all sorts of accolades for going after Sandusky, but I feel that is Bull. How bad does the Press have to get for her to release anything at all of the Gricar Case that she is so committed to ? And not this baloney that "it's an on-going investigation" !!!

Sorry, I had seen her on the Amandola Press conference the day of the Preliminary Hearing, in the background on the steps. What is she doing about this case ?

First, SPM is not handling the Sandusky case. It is the AG's office.

Second, since the review panel started, they have released some new stuff, and confirmed some stuff. I would like to see them release more.

 

[minazoe]

woah dudes , whats in the water out there?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/2...nlin-accused-child-sex-abuse/?intcmp=obinsite

 

[J. J. in Phila]

woah dudes , whats in the water out there?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/2...nlin-accused-child-sex-abuse/?intcmp=obinsite

I doubt this is in any way related to the Gricar case.

One of the victims is now, ironically, a prosecutor. She didn't realize the NJ statute of limitations had expired.

 

[minazoe]

I wasn't implying that, thanks

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This medical discussion is very interesting. Perhaps this 'identity' for Ray Gricar could have been done as his 'new identity' in the Walkaway scenario. We have learned that Ray Gricar had been one for aliases. Just to add to your thought. Thanks.

The "aliases" are the names of his ex-wives; I think they showed up on a credit report or something.

 

[Centerice]

I doubt this is in any way related to the Gricar case.

One of the victims is now, ironically, a prosecutor. She didn't realize the NJ statute of limitations had expired.

Sorry for the OT reply on the Conlin mess but I just wanted to add that NJ law was changed in 1996 so that there is now no statute of limitations on sex crimes.

Unfortunately, for the Conlin victims, their abuses took place well before the change in the law.

Back on topic, I'm afraid that I don't have much to add to the discussion regarding Mr. Gricars dissappearance but I do want to commend the posters on this thread. Lots of interesting thoughts and respectful discussion going on in here which keeps me checking in on an almost daily basis.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Happy Holidays everyone.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry for the OT reply on the Conlin mess but I just wanted to add that NJ law was changed in 1996 so that there is now no statute of limitations on sex crimes.

Unrelated does not mean off topic.

Unfortunately, for the Conlin victims, their abuses took place well before the change in the law.

Back on topic, I'm afraid that I don't have much to add to the discussion regarding Mr. Gricars dissappearance but I do want to commend the posters on this thread. Lots of interesting thoughts and respectful discussion going on in here which keeps me checking in on an almost daily basis.

I think both the Sandusky and Conlin cases show how much we do not know about public figures, how there is a facade that we often cannot see behind.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I guess this is why I am bothered by this. My question is, if RG visited a different Dr. would that Dr be bound by ethics to come forward with information about a patient who is missing without records being subpeoned (sp?)? You know considering HIPPA laws?

wm

I checked with my doctor of Friday, a regular appointment. His office staff said that they could not volunteer that I was present, without a court order. Another doctor is a possibility.

 

[quixote]

Does it strike anyone as odd that a man, particulary one in his position, would be rather open about wanting to know how to destroy a hard drive?? Generally, most people who would want to obliterate potentially sensitive information - including information that maybe shouldn't be destroyed - would probably not want to draw attention to that. Despite that, it seems as if Mr. Gricar willingly left a pretty large trail of breadcrumbs (especially asking people about it) about this. If it were me, and I wanted to make information vanish, I'd try to do so as quietly as possible. On a side note, does anyone know if the browsers back then allowed for private browsing, like Safari does?? Or the ability to either not leave a history or erase a browsing history??

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Does it strike anyone as odd that a man, particulary one in his position, would be rather open about wanting to know how to destroy a hard drive?? Generally, most people who would want to obliterate potentially sensitive information - including information that maybe shouldn't be destroyed - would probably not want to draw attention to that. Despite that, it seems as if Mr. Gricar willingly left a pretty large trail of breadcrumbs (especially asking people about it) about this. If it were me, and I wanted to make information vanish, I'd try to do so as quietly as possible. On a side note, does anyone know if the browsers back then allowed for private browsing, like Safari does?? Or the ability to either not leave a history or erase a browsing history??

First, he specifically asked about destroying the date, not necessarily destroying the hard drive that contained the data. He did searches, within 30 days of his disappearance, about how to destroy the hard drive specifically.

I've always thought that he had something on the drive that he never wanted to see the light of day, but he wasn't overly concerned that others would know he's destroying it. (I fall into that category, and don't have anything criminal or any walkaway plans on my drive.)

You could erase browser history at the time, but it still might be recoverable from the drive.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Maybe RG wanted to know how someone else might remove data from or destroy a hard drive, e.g., a pedophile or white collar criminal. that is, perhaps his interest was not personal but investigative.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Maybe RG wanted to know how someone else might remove data from or destroy a hard drive, e.g., a pedophile or white collar criminal. that is, perhaps his interest was not personal but investigative.

I can, having some knowledge of whom he spoke to, and length of time between when he asked and the searches, rule that out. Remember, he was talking about staff about it; if they were that savvy about computers, why not bring them in on the case?

He spoke to people beyond staff, but not tech types.

 

[quixote]

First, he specifically asked about destroying the date, not necessarily destroying the hard drive that contained the data. He did searches, within 30 days of his disappearance, about how to destroy the hard drive specifically.

I've always thought that he had something on the drive that he never wanted to see the light of day, but he wasn't overly concerned that others would know he's destroying it. (I fall into that category, and don't have anything criminal or any walkaway plans on my drive.)

You could erase browser history at the time, but it still might be recoverable from the drive.

Well, the browser history and information about the searches was on the intact home computer. It seems he made no efforts to cover his tracks there. As far as the work laptop, I guess just find it odd that he'd be so cavalier about publicizing the fact that he wanted to make sure information on it disappeared permanently, either by software means, or hardware destruction. Given the nature of his work, would it be considered "criminal" behavior to destroy work-related information on a government-issued computer?? If so, why would he be so open about it?? If he knew he would soon vanish, perhaps no need to be secretive??

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

Happy Holidays everyone.

Hope you had a blessed Christmas, JJ.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, the browser history and information about the searches was on the intact home computer. It seems he made no efforts to cover his tracks there. As far as the work laptop, I guess just find it odd that he'd be so cavalier about publicizing the fact that he wanted to make sure information on it disappeared permanently, either by software means, or hardware destruction. Given the nature of his work, would it be considered "criminal" behavior to destroy work-related information on a government-issued computer?? If so, why would he be so open about it?? If he knew he would soon vanish, perhaps no need to be secretive??

Destroying the laptop would be a minor offense, either a summary or misdemeanor offense of destruction of county property, but my understanding is that if he paid for it, he wouldn't be charged. His private data would not be included.

As for being secretive, LE didn't discover the searches until about 19-20 months after he disappeared. It wasn't obvious.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

If it was personal, why would he have personal information on his county computer? I have a work computer but limit personal email and personal searches done via that computer. For instance, I might check and home email but not political sites. RG was a prosecutor and was likely far smarter than I am about these things. He may just have wanted to be sure there was no evidence of password data, etc., that should be private.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If it was personal, why would he have personal information on his county computer? I have a work computer but limit personal email and personal searches done via that computer. For instance, I might check and home email but not political sites. RG was a prosecutor and was likely far smarter than I am about these things. He may just have wanted to be sure there was no evidence of password data, etc., that should be private.

First, RFG was the guy in charge, so he didn't have to answer to anyone.

Second, prior to getting the desktop computer, RFG used it as the home computer.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Not at all true. High-level LE officers, prosecutors, and judges are all accountable to someone, as the judges who participated in the scheme to make money by sending kids to for-profit juvenile detention centers found out. If he was turning in his computer, he would need to remove personalmcata from it--just as no one should ever donate or give away a computer that might have data that can be mined from its hard drive.

Either RG was a guy who thought he was above the law (like so many people in authority or prestigious positions do) or he was what he seemed to be, and would have held himself to appropriate computer use (within reason, such as checking home email). That's really the question at the heart of the case.

Me, I think he was a straight arrow and got murdered as a result.