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

[MissJ]

In the last week another case of missing persons where LE and many others said walkaway...bodies were found, it was determined murder. I think RFG was murdered and his body well hidden. JMO

 

[SeekingJana]

In the last week another case of missing persons where LE and many others said walkaway...bodies were found, it was determined murder. I think RFG was murdered and his body well hidden. JMO

Miss J, the McStay family case? It is so horrible and so depressing.
I was one of those who said " That's not them" on the border patrol camera.
I never thought they would leave their dog like that either. It never made sense why LE wasn't looking for bodies.. but considering the remoteness of the desert where some remains were found ( and ID'd), their loved ones and we are lucky, in a way, to have an answer. It's the answer I expected, as in so many missing cases, and I certainly feel the same way you do about Mr. Gricar much of the time.

If there wasn't so much room for doubt with the car, the low money that we know of, and a few other things, I'd have stopped posting on his case years ago. I would feel badly saying " He's dead" over and over when others had hope.
That's why I only posted on the McStay case very early and then not again. False leads and deceptions gave so many people false hope. The border video was actually what convinced me that it was an elaborate hoax when I watched their segment on " Disappeared". The parents were not close enough to the small boys in a border crossing situation, which is dangerous in Mexico.
Thanks for your post and if you didn't mean the McStay family, I'm sorry to assume so.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In the last week another case of missing persons where LE and many others said walkaway...bodies were found, it was determined murder. I think RFG was murdered and his body well hidden. JMO

Both are possible. Within the last year, the body of Sherry Leighty was found after 14 years. After 11 years, a missing person who had been declared dead, Brenda Heist, was found alive in Florida. Both of these cases were from Central PA.

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/05/20/3622716/two-solutions.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

Really insightful and also entertaining post about the factors which influenced people of Mr. Gricar's age/ cultural generation. I don't remember any of them, like you, but I remember my parents telling me things about The Fugitive right before it was " solved" and ended.

What struck me was not so much the The Fugitive but Route 66.

The plot was about two guys, traveling across county, in a hot Corvette, and an 6 episodes are not only set in, but filmed in, Cleveland. One episode, at least, deals with the Slavic community there. If you make it one guy, his name might as well be Ray Gricar.

I'd use the term "eerily similar" to describe it, at least.

 

[SeekingJana]

Respectfully snipped.




What struck me was not so much the The Fugitive but Route 66.

The plot was about two guys, traveling across county, in a hot Corvette, and an 6 episodes are not only set in, but filmed in, Cleveland. One episode, at least, deals with the Slavic community there. If you make one guy, his name might as well be Ray Gricar.

I'd use the term "eerily familiar" too describe it, at least.

I'd really like to see the show now and try looking at it through the eyes of a person of that era.

I have a source for DVDs of almost all old TV shows. I'll contact him, .

 

[Trackergd]

Estate planning. Feel the wave. Trackergd found the compelling, though circumstantial, evidence. If I knew where to send trackergd a contribution toward the $24 expense, I would gladly do so!

Don't worry about it. I got a nice bonus last quarter. If anyone want's a copy of the file, PM me.

 

[Trackergd]

If the money in a hypothetical joint account was moved in the period between RG going missing and when LG became trustee, that would (to me) indicate either prior knowledge of a "planned event", an attempt to avoid inheritance taxes or an attempt to keep finances out of the public eye. The last seems to fit with the petition to keep the tax records private.

I say this without prejudice towards LG.

And for all the discussion we have engaged in, the money my not be the proverbial "smoking gun" in this case, although the exercise was well worth it and we may find later down the road, some small clue that ties it all together.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If the money in a hypothetical joint account was moved in the period between RG going missing and when LG became trustee, that would (to me) indicate either prior knowledge of a "planned event", an attempt to avoid inheritance taxes or an attempt to keep finances out of the public eye. The last seems to fit with the petition to keep the tax records private.

I say this without prejudice towards LG.

The police reported that there were joint accounts, so I wouldn't use the term "hypothetical."

There are some non-estate reasons to use joint accounts.

The thing is even interest from a joint account would be reported on the Financial Disclosure Form, if the source is above $1300. In other words, if, in 2004 RFG had a $75 K CD that also had LG's name on it, and it generated $1400 interest, that still had to be reported on the form. Likewise, if RFG had $1250 interest on a CD jointly held with LG, and had other accounts in the same bank, solely under his own name that generated $75, that would also have to be reported on the form.

No interest was reported.

RFG either:

1. Did not put the correct information on the form.

2. Simply was a poor planner and did not earn interest.

3. Did not have these assets under his name. That would mean effectively transferring them to LG and not being able to use them in retirement.

#1 might well point to hiding assets. #3 would point to RFG not planning to be around for retirement, where he could spend the money.

And for all the discussion we have engaged in, the money my not be the proverbial "smoking gun" in this case, although the exercise was well worth it and we may find later down the road, some small clue that ties it all together.

While this "wave" doesn't sink the foul play theory, it certainly has it listing to starboard.

 

[Saunterer]

There is evidence that his assets were low before he disappeared. It has been posted. Assets generate interest and RFG indicated that, in 2004, his interest was below $1300 from any single source. That is strong evidence that his assets were lower than they should be. We just don't know why that is the case.

I think it is fair to say that the LE people actually involved in the case have all downplayed foul play. The finances might be the reason. If the theory that this was estate planning is correct, suicide might end up being stronger than foul play.

Perhaps if some of the details would be revealed, and there is no real need to keep them secret, some of the questions would be answered. Our first look at the numbers points away from foul play.

I recall there was speculation that if the account(s) held jointly with his daughter (liquid assets) was essentially all that there was other than his remaining salary for 2005 and a healthy pension, that would be highly unusual. But LE has essentially said that there is no missing money. We just are not privy as to why that is...but estate planning is likely for the reasons I have already given.

IMO a trust (or even spread interest-bearing accounts not individually meeting the reporting threshhold) would not indicate missing assets at all under the Ethics Act...and estate planning would not point to any particular theory concerning the disappearance, unless perhaps it was cranked out or ramped up early in 2005.

So many questions. So few answers.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There were no attachments to the forms; you are looking at all income from one source that was more than $1,300 that RFG reported.

 

[Saunterer]

In the last week another case of missing persons where LE and many others said walkaway...bodies were found, it was determined murder. I think RFG was murdered and his body well hidden. JMO

I agree. I feel for the families of every missing person whose case has gone cold...and especially those cases (like Gricar's) where foul play should have been the main focus of LE from the beginning.

 

[Saunterer]

The police reported that there were joint accounts, so I wouldn't use the term "hypothetical."

There are some non-estate reasons to use joint accounts.

The thing is even interest from a joint account would be reported on the Financial Disclosure Form, if the source is above $1300. In other words, if, in 2004 RFG had a $75 K CD that also had LG's name on it, and it generated $1400 interest, that still had to be reported on the form. Likewise, if RFG had $1250 interest on a CD jointly held with LG, and had other accounts in the same bank, solely under his own name that generated $75, that would also have to be reported on the form.

No interest was reported.

RFG either:
1. Did not put the correct information on the form.
2. Simply was a poor planner and did not earn interest.
3. Did not have these assets under his name. That would mean effectively transferring them to LG and not being able to use them in retirement.

#1 might well point to hiding assets. #3 would point to RFG not planning to be around for retirement, where he could spend the money.

While this "wave" doesn't sink the foul play theory, it certainly has it listing to starboard.

I respectfully disagree with your asset analysis as being all-inclusive, for the reasons previously stated.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I recall there was speculation that if the account(s) held jointly with his daughter (liquid assets) was essentially all that there was other than his remaining salary for 2005 and a healthy pension, that would be highly unusual. But LE has essentially said that there is no missing money. We just are not privy as to why that is...but estate planning is likely for the reasons I have already given.

I know of no instance where LE has said that, "essentially" or otherwise. I have yet to see a link regarding that claim.
There have been questions regarding money and LE has been looking in 2010, and a statement from TG in 2011.

"Estate planning" assumes that RFG though he would not be there for retirement. He would either be dead or he would be ruled dead. If it is estate planning, we could great reduce the chances that this was foul play (which LE has at least hinted at).

IMO a trust (or even spread interest-bearing accounts not individually meeting the reporting threshhold) would not indicate missing assets at all under the Ethics Act...and estate planning would not point to any particular theory concerning the disappearance, unless perhaps it was cranked out or ramped up early in 2005.

So many questions. So few answers.

Setting up multiple accounts in different banks would be a very poor financial decision. Many, if not most, banks did give higher interest for larger amounts of money. $50,000 in one bank will likely generate more interest than $10,000 in five banks. For RFG to do it, just so it wouldn't show up as making more than $1300 on an Financial Disclosure form really makes no sense. Most people would assume that, approaching a retirement which was publicly known, he would be saving up money. We could have easily look and say, **Oh, Ray was saving up for retirement,** if that was the case.

"Estate planning" on the level RFG would have had to do it to have less $1,300 in interest is merely another way of saying, "RFG was planning for something other than retirement."

 

[Saunterer]

If the money in a hypothetical joint account was moved in the period between RG going missing and when LG became trustee, that would (to me) indicate either prior knowledge of a "planned event", an attempt to avoid inheritance taxes or an attempt to keep finances out of the public eye. The last seems to fit with the petition to keep the tax records private.

I say this without prejudice towards LG.

And for all the discussion we have engaged in, the money my not be the proverbial "smoking gun" in this case, although the exercise was well worth it and we may find later down the road, some small clue that ties it all together.

IMO money held in a joint account can be added to or withdrawn by either signatory at any time...and if the latter would (in addition to exercising any other options available under the law) in no way indicate anything nefarious. We (the public) are simply not entitled to every fact. But of what little information exists in the public eye in regard to RG's true financial situation, I believe your $24 worth speaks volumes (for the reasons I have previously stated).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I respectfully disagree with your asset analysis as being all-inclusive, for the reasons previously stated.

At no point have I said "all-inclusive." I have said, "Assets generate interest and RFG indicated that, in 2004, his interest was below $1300 from any single source. That is strong evidence that his assets were lower than they should be."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

IMO money held in a joint account can be added to or withdrawn by either signatory at any time...and if the latter would (in addition to exercising any other options available under the law) in no way indicate anything nefarious. We (the public) are simply not entitled to every fact. But of what little information exists in the public eye in regard to RG's true financial situation, I believe your $24 worth speaks volumes (for the reasons I have previously stated).

We also have a statement, literally of RFG's "true financial situation," assuming he was telling the truth, in 2004. It has his signature on it. It says that, whatever his assets were, they did not generate $1,300 in interest from a single source.

 

[Saunterer]

At no point have I said "all-inclusive." I have said, "Assets generate interest and RFG indicated that, in 2004, his interest was below $1300 from any single source. That is strong evidence that his assets were lower than they should be."

I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have previously stated.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have previously stated.

"Assets generate interest and RFG indicated that, in 2004, his interest was below $1300 from any single source. That is strong evidence that his assets were lower than they should be."

That is simply a statement of fact, and it has been demonstrated. Why that is the case is questionable, but that RFG claimed it is not.

 

[Saunterer]

We also have a statement, literally of RFG's "true financial situation," assuming he was telling the truth, in 2004. It has his signature on it. It says that, whatever his assets were, they did not generate $1,300 in interest from a single source.

It does not in any way indicate RG's "true financial situation". It only says that, as an individual, RG had no single source of income over $1300 for that year other than his salary. And, BTW, I find ANY suggestion that RG filed a false report using such flimsy evidence to be absolutely reprehensible...if not slanderous.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It does not in any way indicate RG's "true financial situation". It only says that, as an individual, RG had no single source of income over $1300 for that year other than his salary. And, BTW, I find ANY suggestion that RG filed a false report using such flimsy evidence to be absolutely reprehensible...if not slanderous.

I think we have to consider the possibility that the form was inaccurate. I assume that RFG was telling the truth. I assume that LG was telling the truth.

That would indicate that RFG had no assets that generated at least $1,300 in income. We should also note that this would include any capital gain. If RFG sold an asset, stocks for instance, and put the money into another account, any capital gain above $1,300 would have to be reported.

So, if RFG purchased $10,000 in stock in 2002, and sold it for $12,000 in 2004, that capital gain of $2000 would have to be reported.