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

[Saunterer]

IMNSHO, RG's disappearance is most likely the result of foul play, awaiting the discovery of a body and/or an arrest...neither of which may ever happen. Of course, in the interim, that leaves the door perpetually open to the gambit of alternative, fantastic theories casting RG as a family cad, a public prankster, and/or one prone to colossal failure in the performance of his public duty. Go figure...I guess!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

IMNSHO, RG's disappearance is most likely the result of foul play, awaiting the discovery of a body and/or an arrest...neither of which may ever happen. Of course, in the interim, that leaves the door perpetually open to the gambit of alternative, fantastic theories casting RG as a family cad, a public prankster, and/or one prone to colossal failure in the performance of his public duty. Go figure...I guess!

I think most of those characterizations are subjective at best. While there has been criticism of RFG's conduct, in general, and while his last contested electoral performance was not stellar, I would say that generally RFG was a good District Attorney, though not perfect.

I would not call someone who provided well for his daughter a "family cad." I would not call someone who wished to leave his life, a "public prankster," or a perpetrator of a "hoax," which I have also seen; there was no evidence that was left to make it look like it was anything else. That may be how some people regard RFG, but not I.

Certainly, what evidence that does exist does not indicate foul play solely. Evidence does exist that points away from foul play, but not conclusively.

 

[Saunterer]

I think most of those characterizations are subjective at best. While there has been criticism of RFG's conduct, in general, and while his last contested electoral performance was not stellar, I would say that generally RFG was a good District Attorney, though not perfect.

I would not call someone who provided well for his daughter a "family cad." I would not call someone who wished to leave his life, a "public prankster," or a perpetrator of a "hoax," which I have also seen; there was no evidence that was left to make it look like it was anything else. That may be how some people regard RFG, but not I.

Certainly, what evidence that does exist does not indicate foul play solely. Evidence does exist that points away from foul play, but not conclusively.

Duly noted...and I salute you, LOL!!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Duly noted...and I salute you, LOL!!

Why would RFG care what anyone would think if he did choose to leave voluntarily, especially the folks on the Internet.

I take strong exception to the characterization that a voluntary departure would be either a "prank" or a "hoax." RFG took no action to make it look it was foul play or suicide, and could have easily.

Smashing his phone and/or putting a few drops of blood on the seat could have led to the supposition of foul play. There was none. Leaving a suicide note could have easily made it look like suicide; there was no note. Tossing the laptop from the side of the bridge with a walkway could have added to that illusion. The laptop appears to have been tossed from the opposite side.

If RFG did walk away, he left evidence that was consistent with walkaway. I would find nothing dishonest in that, just a guy, "fiercely independent," making a personal choice. We don't have to say that we would make the same choice, but we should respect his. He does not need our approval.

 

[Saunterer]

Why would RFG care what anyone would think if he did choose to leave voluntarily, especially the folks on the Internet.

I take strong exception to the characterization that a voluntary departure would be either a "prank" or a "hoax." RFG took no action to make it look it was foul play or suicide, and could have easily.

Smashing his phone and/or putting a few drops of blood on the seat could have led to the supposition of foul play. There was none. Leaving a suicide note could have easily made it look like suicide; there was no note. Tossing the laptop from the side of the bridge with a walkway could have added to that illusion. The laptop appears to have been tossed from the opposite side.

If RFG did walk away, he left evidence that was consistent with walkaway. I would nothing dishonest in that, just a guy, "fiercely independent," making a personal choice. We don't have to say that we would make the same choice, but we should respect his.

You are the one (perhaps the only one here) assuming RG was somehow in control of his own destiny. That is your right...and certainly intentional disappearance has not been ruled out by LE. Personally, I find the many possible foul play theories presented over the years to be much more persuasive, given the evidence released to the public and the history of the man neither of us ever met.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You are the one (perhaps the only one here) assuming RG was somehow in control of his own destiny. That is your right...and certainly intentional disappearance has not been ruled out by LE. Personally, I find the many possible foul play theories presented over the years to be much more persuasive, given the evidence released to the public and the history of the man neither of us ever met.

I would doubt that I am the only person here who thinks it is likely.

The difference is that many of the foul play theories come and then dissolve in the acid of evidence. Voluntary departure has continued to pass the acid test.

When looking at things like the finances, we are looking for things consistent with retirement, or liquidating assets for estate planning. The evidence does not support either premise.

 

[Saunterer]

I would doubt that I am the only person here who thinks it is likely.

The difference is that many of the foul play theories come and then dissolve in the acid of evidence. Voluntary departure has continued to pass the acid test.

When looking at things like the finances, we are looking for things consistent with retirement, or liquidating assets for estate planning. The evidence does not support either premise.

All of the publicly offered theories and tips to LE have failed to meet the acid test. If that were not true this case would have been solved long ago. JMOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

All of the publicly offered theories and tips to LE have failed to meet the acid test. If that were not true this case would have been solved long ago. JMOO

Actually, no. Some of the murder scenarios that get bandied about can get tossed fairly easily. Suicide, which was hugely likely in that first six month, suffers from the lack of a body.

Voluntary departure remains and the newer evidence tends to support it, including the recent financial data. It does not prove it, but it does strengthen it.

Perhaps the question is why would LE, with various degrees of officialness, reach the conclusion that homicide is the least likely scenario (a likelihood that I disagree with, BTW).

 

[Saunterer]

Actually, no. Some of the murder scenarios that get bandied about can get tossed fairly easily. Suicide, which was hugely likely in that first six month, suffers from the lack of a body.

Voluntary departure remains and the newer evidence tends to support it, including the recent financial data. It does not prove it, but it does strengthen it.

Perhaps the question is why would LE, with various degrees of officialness, reach the conclusion that homicide is the least likely scenario (a likelihood that I disagree with, BTW).

I guess we will just have to disagree about so easily tossing out murder scenarios...or suicide for that matter...and especially about accepting so-called evidence pointing toward voluntary departure, including recent financial data (batted about here, ex publico) which you believe tends to support it.

 

[Saunterer]

Attempting to break this intense (LOL) discussion for the evening...and somewhat off topic (I know)...but gosh dang it, I have exactly one-half of one tree (an Elm) on my property. But I have had to rake up maple and oak leaves on multiple occasions. I really hate having to be "my brother's keeper", as it were. It just does not seem fair! But I do it anyway, with a smile. Oh, the "joys" of home ownership. Go figure! Perhaps some will see the symbolism.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I guess we will just have to disagree about so easily tossing out murder scenarios...or suicide for that matter...and especially about accepting so-called evidence pointing toward voluntary departure, including the recent financial data which you believe tends to support it.

Evidence is not "so called." It simply exists.

The estate could explained by just RFG putting money into join accounts. Money in join accounts is not subject to probate, but it is subject to tax.

A number of people find that telling, but I do not. Should RFG have become incapacitated, having his next of kin on the account would make sense. There was also a tax advantage, but that may have been secondary.

We have the estate. It is fair to say, based of what LE has said, that most of his money was in join accounts. Since that is not subject to probate, we could reasonably expect a low probate value.

Now, we have RFG's pre-estate earnings. There was low income from non-employment sources; we should not expect to see that from a guy saving up for retirement (most of the time).

Maybe RFG made some arrangement to do some estate planning. Okay, that would involve some sort of transfer out of his accounts. Once transferred out, RFG could not spend that money in retirement.

If RFG had assets that would appreciate in value, and then he transferred them to his daughter, there may be capital gains, i.e. he sold assets, got the money for them, and transferred it, directly or indirectly to LG. That would generate capital gains, in some cases, which would have to be reported if above $1300. There was no report of capital gains above that level. That weakens the possibility of some of the more advanced planning options.

Okay, if RFG was into estate planning, that would mean that, on the verge of retirement, he was planning for a situation where he would be spending his money in retirement.

RFG would retire at 60, and was presumably in good health. LG was just graduating and would presumably be working and possibly have a S.O. of her own. He didn't need to provide for her and, unless he wasn't planning to be there, RFG could use the money in retirement.

So, RFG was doing some estate planning, that would involve things like an irrevocable trust, transferring the money to his daughter, or getting single premium life insurance policy, he wasn't planning to be there on retirement.

Two options are consistent with not being there for retirement, suicide and walkaway. It isn't consistent with foul play, unless RFG willingly went to his murder.

So what if RFG wasn't doing things like an irrevocable trust, transferring the money to his daughter, or getting single premium life insurance policy, then there is a question about why he didn't have more money. Some of it is unaccounted for. Unaccounted for money is not consistent with foul play either.

This new data weakens foul play, no matter what.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Since 2006, there have only been two pieces of new evidence that have not weakened foul play.

1. The lack of readable fingerprints in the Mini.

2. Ruling out the Wilkes Barre sighting.

Everything else has either strengthened walkaway or has been neutral in all the scenarios in general (though it weakened some of the individual murder scenarios).

 

[Saunterer]

I am not the one who has variously cast RG as (essentially) a family cad, or a public prankster deserved to be saluted, or a colossal failure in the performance of any aspect his public duty. I summarily reject all of these notions because there is not one shred of proof that any of these aspersions are applicaple/deserved.

 

[Saunterer]

Evidence is not "so called." It simply exists.

The estate could explained by just RFG putting money into join accounts. Money in join accounts is not subject to probate, but it is subject to tax.

A number of people find that telling, but I do not. Should RFG have become incapacitated, having his next of kin on the account would make sense. There was also a tax advantage, but that may have been secondary.

We have the estate. It is fair to say, based of what LE has said, that most of his money was in join accounts. Since that is not subject to probate, we could reasonably expect a low probate value.

Now, we have RFG's pre-estate earnings. There was low income from non-employment sources; we should not expect to see that from a guy saving up for retirement (most of the time).

Maybe RFG made some arrangement to do some estate planning. Okay, that would involve some sort of transfer out of his accounts. Once transferred out, RFG could not spend that money in retirement.

If RFG had assets that would appreciate in value, and then he transferred them to his daughter, there may be capital gains, i.e. he sold assets, got the money for them, and transferred it, directly or indirectly to LG. That would generate capital gains, in some cases, which would have to be reported if above $1300. There was no report of capital gains above that level. That weakens the possibility of some of the more advanced planning options.

Okay, if RFG was into estate planning, that would mean that, on the verge of retirement, he was planning for a situation where he would be spending his money in retirement.

RFG would retire at 60, and was presumably in good health. LG was just graduating and would presumably be working and possibly have a S.O. of her own. He didn't need to provide for her and, unless he wasn't planning to be there, RFG could use the money in retirement.

So, RFG was doing some estate planning, that would involve things like an irrevocable trust, transferring the money to his daughter, or getting single premium life insurance policy, he wasn't planning to be there on retirement.

Two options are consistent with not being there for retirement, suicide and walkaway. It isn't consistent with foul play, unless RFG willingly went to his murder.

So what if RFG wasn't doing things like an irrevocable trust, transferring the money to his daughter, or getting single premium life insurance policy, then there is a question about why he didn't have more money. Some of it is unaccounted for. Unaccounted for money is not consistent with foul play either.

This new data weakens foul play, no matter what.

Although you are entitled to believe what you want, I respectfully reject this analysis for the reasons previously stated. Specifically, I reject what you call evidence when, in fact, it is only your interpretation of your assumption of certain facts not in evidence.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am not the one who has variously cast RG as (essentially) a family cad, or a public prankster deserved to be saluted, or a colossal failure in the performance of any aspect his public duty. I summarily reject all of these notions because there is not one shred of proof that any of these aspersions are applicaple/deserved.

I reject any aspersion that any individual who chooses to walk away, doing nothing illegal, not running out on debts nor on a minor child and/or spouse is a "family cad." It is the individual's right to do so.

I reject any aspersion that any individual that would choose to walk away, and not in any way make it look like anything other than walking away is a "public prankster." It is not an attempt to mislead anyone.

In RFG's case, I will note that his career, while not perfect, was still very good.

I would also not consider RFG a "family cad," nor a "public prankster," if it turns out that is disappearance was voluntary. I would wholeheartedly reject the aspersion that he would be.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Although you are entitled to believe what you want, I respectfully reject this analysis for the reasons previously stated. Specifically, I reject what you call evidence when, in fact, it is only your interpretation of your assumption of certain facts not in evidence.

The fact that RFG reported no outside income from a single source above $1300 for 2004 is just that, a fact. LG's report of the same for her father in 2005 is also a fact.

The claim that RFG was doing estate planning is possible, though there is no evidence supporting him doing that in 2004.

 

[Saunterer]

I really would like it if someone else was able to authoritatively "rake up the leaves" blown onto my lot, so I would not have to do it. Too bad for me if no one else does, I guess. Too bad for Ray too in his case, I am sure!

 

[Saunterer]

I reject any aspersion that any individual who chooses to walk away, doing nothing illegal, not running out on debts nor on a minor child and/or spouse is a "family cad." It is the individual's right to do so.

I reject any aspersion that any individual that would choose to walk away, and not in any way make it look like anything other than walking away is a "public prankster."

In RFG's case, I will note that his career, while not perfect, was still very good.

I would also not consider RFG a "family cad," nor a "public prankster," if it turns out that is disappearance was voluntary. I would wholeheartedly reject the aspersion that he would be.

All duly noted personal opinion, expressed countless times and in different forums over the years. But in the end, this is just your opinion, to which you are entitled, even if it is not one shared by others.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

All duly noted personal opinion, expressed countless times in different forums over the years. But in the end, this is just your opinion, to which you are entitled even though it is not one I and others share with you...being entitled to my/our opinion(s) also.

Well, I would disagree with the characterization of "public prankster," or "family cad," strongly.

Simply put, while there are a few people on the Internet insisting that RFG was murdered, there is simply no evidence that he created to make it look like murder (or suicide). He certainly could have created that evidence, easily, but he didn't. The characterization of a "public prankster" is grossly false, as there is no "prank."

As for "family cad," a "cad" is someone "a rude and selfish man." I would not consider providing for his daughter and/or girlfriend to be either "rude" or "selfish." I am surprised that anyone would.

An alternated definition of "cad" is "a man who acts with deliberate disregard for another's feelings or rights." I doubt if there was a "deliberate" disregard of feelings; if RFG walked away, I have never heard that he did it for spite. As for rights, if he did leave voluntarily, he certainly did protect the financial rights of his daughter.

Unless RFG was in cahoots with LG and/or PEF he would have protected them by not putting them in the position where they would have to tell LE. I do not believe that either is in cahoots with RFG, MOO. Others do not share that view.

The definition of "cad" is here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cad

 

[nevereverever]

All duly noted personal opinion, expressed countless times and in different forums over the years. But in the end, this is just your opinion, to which you are entitled, even if it is not one shared by others.

I share it. I think the financial evidence very strongly points towards walkaway or suicide. I don't think it's absolutely conclusive, but it certainly points that way. Frankly, I haven't seen any evidence that points towards foul play.