PA PA - District Attorney Ray Gricar Mysteriously Disappeared - Bellefonte 15 April 2005 #18

[J. J. in Phila]

interesting..I was hoping for a train yard...but there could be a switch area where someone could hop a train out of the area. I know it's far out but just thinking of ways out, how a person might vanish without a trail.

Believe it or not, I already looked.

Heck, I even where Joe Paterno was on 4/15/05.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Since Gricar's disappearance, there have been years of investigators following leads that led to dead ends, and multiple theories as to what happened to Gricar. Some think that Gricar was a victim of foul play. Others believe he committed suicide, as his brother previously did in 1996. Some also think Gricar disappeared to start a new life elsewhere. Bellefonte Police Department initially led the investigation, which was later turned over to Pennsylvania State Police.

Buehner strongly believed Gricar was a victim of foul play. Buehner told NorthcentralPa.com in a 2021 interview that a state prison inmate had written him with information about his cellmate in Centre County, who may have been involved in Gricar's disappearance. The inmate told Buehner that Gricar had "ran afoul of a person who was in the witness protection program," Buehner said. The person was someone Gricar had prosecuted in Centre County and sent to prison. Investigators had only done a cursory interview with the inmate, according to Buehner.

Reward offered for Centre County DA missing person cold case

Bellefonte, Pa. — Nineteen years after his disappearance, there are still no answers in the case of the missing Centre County District Attorney, Ray Gricar.

www.northcentralpa.com

 

[dotr]

• 3 hrs ago
• Pa. Crime Stoppers offering $5K reward in Gricar cold case
• 'According to the site, Pennsylvania State Police at Hollidaysburg are continuing their investigation into Gricar’s disappearance. He was last seen on April 15, 2005, in Bellefonte. He took a half-day off from work and left his place of employment, driving his 2004 Mini Cooper, which is red with a white top and a vanity license plate.'

''An antiques store was close by, and its proprietor thought Gricar might have been in his shop that day, but this has not been confirmed. The store owner said the man he saw appeared to be waiting for someone, according to Crime Stoppers.''

 

[J. J. in Phila]

• 3 hrs ago
• Pa. Crime Stoppers offering $5K reward in Gricar cold case
• 'According to the site, Pennsylvania State Police at Hollidaysburg are continuing their investigation into Gricar’s disappearance. He was last seen on April 15, 2005, in Bellefonte. He took a half-day off from work and left his place of employment, driving his 2004 Mini Cooper, which is red with a white top and a vanity license plate.'

''An antiques store was close by, and its proprietor thought Gricar might have been in his shop that day, but this has not been confirmed. The store owner said the man he saw appeared to be waiting for someone, according to Crime Stoppers.''

I'm happy that the ran the story, but the reward has been offered since the early 2010's.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I did check my old blogs. This reward has been around since 2014.

Initially, in 2005, there was a reward of $16,000. That would be about $25,000 today.

 

[Betty P]

I did check my old blogs. This reward has been around since 2014.

Initially, in 2005, there was a reward of $16,000. That would be about $25,000 today.

So, $5,000 is relatively small.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So, $5,000 is relatively small.

$5 K is $5 K. It would have been about $3200 in 2005.

Do I think anyone will come forward, just for the reward? No.

What it does do, and what it did here, is get a little press. That might help.

 

[Betty P]

$5 K is $5 K. It would have been about $3200 in 2005.

Do I think anyone will come forward, just for the reward? No.

What it does do, and what it did here, is get a little press. That might help.

JMO, too little, too late but there's always hope that someone will gather the courage to do the right thing.

It's great when people finally step forward to help solve cold cases, but frustrating sometime when you realize how many decades they sat and did nothing.

Here's an eyewitness to a brutal, senseless murder who sat around for 35 years doing nothing until some good LE dragged the info out of him

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/25/us/missouri-kelle-ann-workman-cold-case-arrests/index.html

 

[Sweetluv]

I can't get around the search on his home computer....how to destroy a hard drive.
How long before he disappeared was this searched and do we know, if any, what Patty's opinion of this was?

 

[minazoe]

I can't get around the search on his home computer....how to destroy a hard drive.
How long before he disappeared was this searched and do we know, if any, what Patty's opinion of this was?

The computer is a HUGE part of this story. It gets downplayed..even I know someone who destroyed a hard drive before
relinquishing it to an employer. But it was due to NSFW searches and downloads because he also used it for a personal
computer. It makes sense to do this if there is compromising information or to protect witnesses etc., sure. However ,
we don't know the facts and they say they cannot retrieve the info off the hard drive. So we don't know what all was going on, yet he spent part of that day getting rid of it... mOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The computer is a HUGE part of this story. It gets downplayed..even I know someone who destroyed a hard drive before
relinquishing it to an employer. But it was due to NSFW searches and downloads because he also used it for a personal
computer. It makes sense to do this if there is compromising information or to protect witnesses etc., sure. However ,
we don't know the facts and they say they cannot retrieve the info off the hard drive. So we don't know what all was going on, yet he spent part of that day getting rid of it... mOO

The searches could be huge. I can think of a few reasons, including NSFW, but not limited to that, of why RFG may have wanted to get rid of everything on the hard drive. Some of it could point to walk away, some to suicide, but much of it could be related to a guy wanting to get rid of personal data on a work computer.

The only things that we can say is:

1. RFG wanted to destroy the data on his laptop.

2. The only persons that knew what data was on that laptop prior to 4/15/05 was RFG.

3. The only person that knew if any of the data on the laptop was copied to another device or printed was RFG.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

On the laptop, there are two things we can say for certain.

A. Nobody else could have know if by destroying the laptop they would destroy any copies that RFG may have made prior to about 10:00 AM on 4/15/05. Even someone not technically savvy would realize that.

B. Unless someone else viewed the laptop prior to RFG bringing it to Lewisburg, they would have no idea if the data they wanted to see was actually on the laptop.

A Expanded: I can understand someone wanting to destroy hypothetical incriminating information on the laptop, but, unless the person was an idiot, he would have to know that digital data is easy to copy. RFG could have copied it to either or both of two other computers, He could have, even in 2005, downloaded it a floppy disk, a CD-ROM, or a flash drive (which were around since 2002). He also could have printed it and kept it on file. He could have done that as late as 10:00 AM.

B Expanded: It is, in theory, possible that someone who wanted private information saw RFG put it on the laptop prior to 4/15/05, though very unlikely. That person would then have to convince RFG to bring the laptop to Lewisburg. That person would also have to assume that the data was still on the laptop when he brought it.

If there was even a short period (less than an hour) between the person knowing the material was on the laptop (unlikely) and RFG leaving, there was no guarantee that it would not be deleted. If this was something very confidential, and high valued, RFG could have copied it to another computer or a removable device, where it would be safer.

As I said, the laptop could be huge, as it can point to walkaway or suicide. It may, and likely, is not huge, if RFG was the victim of foul play.

 

[Sweetluv]

Maybe, because it was a work computer which contained sensitive information, he thought it was best to destroy it. Rather than leave it behind and take the chance of someone having access to it.
If he walked away, he didn't take the computer or work cell because technically they didn't belong to him. No crime committed IMO.

 

[Sweetluv]

I really lean towards walking away.
Just don't know why he didn't leave on better terms so to speak..letting his daughter and Patty know?
Though people do have secret lives or he was in fear of someone and wanted his destination unknown.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I really lean towards walking away.
Just don't know why he didn't leave on better terms so to speak..letting his daughter and Patty know?
Though people do have secret lives or he was in fear of someone and wanted his destination unknown.

First, that was destruction of county property, which would be misdemeanor, but could be rectified by reimbursing the could. That reimbursement would be for a used computer that is no longer manufactured; I would expect it to be worth very little.

Not telling is easily explained. At some point, both PEF ad LAG would be expected to testify, if RFG is declared dead. If either heard from him, and said under oath that they didn't, that would be perjury and fraud, when they get the estate. RFG was a good attorney, and would know that. It makes absolute sense not to tell.

 

[Sweetluv]

Great points!

 

[Black Diamond]

On the laptop, there are two things we can say for certain.

A. Nobody else could have know if by destroying the laptop they would destroy any copies that RFG may have made prior to about 10:00 AM on 4/15/05. Even someone not technically savvy would realize that.

B. Unless someone else viewed the laptop prior to RFG bringing it to Lewisburg, they would have no idea if the data they wanted to see was actually on the laptop.

A Expanded: I can understand someone wanting to destroy hypothetical incriminating information on the laptop, but, unless the person was an idiot, he would have to know that digital data is easy to copy. RFG could have copied it to either or both of two other computers, He could have, even in 2005, downloaded it a floppy disk, a CD-ROM, or a flash drive (which were around since 2002). He also could have printed it and kept it on file. He could have done that as late as 10:00 AM.

B Expanded: It is, in theory, possible that someone who wanted private information saw RFG put it on the laptop prior to 4/15/05, though very unlikely. That person would then have to convince RFG to bring the laptop to Lewisburg. That person would also have to assume that the data was still on the laptop when he brought it.

If there was even a short period (less than an hour) between the person knowing the material was on the laptop (unlikely) and RFG leaving, there was no guarantee that it would not be deleted. If this was something very confidential, and high valued, RFG could have copied it to another computer or a removable device, where it would be safer.

As I said, the laptop could be huge, as it can point to walkaway or suicide. It may, and likely, is not huge, if RFG was the victim of foul play.

Very thought provoking stuff you brought up on the laptop. You have convinced me that if it was foul play, both the destruction of the laptop and the searches about clearing or wrecking the hard drive were major coincidences and not likely related to the foul play.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Very thought provoking stuff you brought up on the laptop. You have convinced me that if it was foul play, both the destruction of the laptop and the searches about clearing or wrecking the hard drive were major coincidences and not likely related to the foul play.

One of the problems I've had from the start is trying to fit the laptop into a coherent murder scenario. The problem is that it really doesn't fix, especially after finding the searches, that he had erasure software, that RFG ask people, including public defender Lux, about cleaning the laptop.

So, is there some other reason, not tied to either walk away or suicide that RFG could have wanted to toss the laptop? Sure, he wanted to get rid of either personal or job related data on the laptop. That would be why, under this scenario, RFG talked to Lux, bought erasure software, did the searches and then tossed the drive and the laptop. This scenario does not tell us what happened after that.

That said, did this make something voluntary, suicide or walkaway, a bit more likely. Yes, but that does not rule out foul play. It may be a killer getting very lucky with a red herring. It may be a piece of the puzzle, but it is not the key piece.

 

[Sweetluv]

If we think of Ray stepping away...I assume he had help. I believe the cigarette smoke is telling of that. It had to have been someone in his circle he COMPLETELY trusted....who has kept their lips sealed to this day. Who could Ray trust with such vital information?
On the other hand, he was intelligent and could have been planning this for quite sometime, on his own. Leaving the car in a familiar area wanting to be seen..as if it was just another normal day so to speak.
Wherever he went, he has gone unrecognized if that's the case.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

If we think of Ray stepping away...I assume he had help. I believe the cigarette smoke is telling of that. It had to have been someone in his circle he COMPLETELY trusted....who has kept their lips sealed to this day. Who could Ray trust with such vital information?
On the other hand, he was intelligent and could have been planning this for quite sometime, on his own. Leaving the car in a familiar area wanting to be seen..as if it was just another normal day so to speak.
Wherever he went, he has gone unrecognized if that's the case.

Was DNA ever retrieved from that cigarette?