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

[J. J. in Phila]

Nothing new, except the Disappeared episode is available in Spanish.

 

[SeekingJana]

Here's a guy who went missing in 1977. 40 years later, he's found alive, knows who he is, has a family and home.
However, in his case, he is likely a deserter from the Armed Services as he was on active duty when he vanished. Thus, he was voluntarily missing and committed a crime against the USAF.

What this proves, though, is that people who want to leave, do and can leave. This guy left right in front of the US Government. Only difference other than the military part might be the Internet age vs. the paper trail era of the mid 1970's. Either way, I don't see a lot of finesse' in finding missing people who vanish without a trace and are found alive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...airman-40-years-later-living-double-life.html

 

[JerseyGirl]

An esteemed district attorney, Ray Gricar was 59 years old in April 2005 when he vanished. He had served as the district attorney of Centre County, Pa., for nearly 20 years and was preparing to retire at the end of the year. On the morning of April 15, 2005, Gricar called his girlfriend, Patty Fornicola, and told her he was going for a drive on Route 192 toward Lewisburg. The following day, Gricar's red and white 2004 Mini Cooper was found locked and abandoned in a Lewisburg parking lot, not far from the Susquehanna River. Gricar's laptop was later found in the river but authorities never found any sign of the missing DA. For more information, read "Case of Missing Pa. District Attorney Baffles Police, Family".

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...show=true#gallery/559e0f6ce4b0967291557f1d/34

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The article mentioned is here, along with several others: https://projectjason.org/forums/topic/2128-missing-man-ray-frank-gricar-pa-04152005/

Most, if not all, are post-11/11.

 

[PaulR]

I thought I'd add this.

It was known, in 2005, that depression could be genetic. It was strongly suspected, but not confirmed, in 2005, that suicidal could be genetic. It is known that RFG's brother, Roy Gricar, was bipolar and that his death was ruled a suicide.

In 2011, it was confirmed that the was a genetic link to suicide: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007113941.htm

That is a minor point for suicide, but not everyone that has this gene commits suicide, and people without this gene commit suicide.

Hear me out - suppose Gricar wanted to go after Sandusky. He thought he had enough to at least bring it to trial. But we all know Penn State didn't want their reputation sullied - I know PS grads today who think what happened to Paterno was unfair - and they pull the strings in that area, and have an incredible amount of influence in Pennsylvania as being the dominant public university with a big football program that brings in big bucks. Gricar may already be leaning towards depression, now he's told "forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown." That could drive him to suicide, or it could drive him to run far away and not have his named dragged through the mud because of something that wasn't really his call.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hear me out - suppose Gricar wanted to go after Sandusky. He thought he had enough to at least bring it to trial. But we all know Penn State didn't want their reputation sullied - I know PS grads today who think what happened to Paterno was unfair - and they pull the strings in that area, and have an incredible amount of influence in Pennsylvania as being the dominant public university with a big football program that brings in big bucks. Gricar may already be leaning towards depression, now he's told "forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown." That could drive him to suicide, or it could drive him to run far away and not have his named dragged through the mud because of something that wasn't really his call.

That could, but there are two factors that point away vfrom that:

1. There was no indication that RFG was looking at Sandusky. The police went through everything he was working on, and there was nothing on Sandusky. There wasn't even a record from 1998.

2. RFG, at least according to his statement in 1/2004, was planning to retire since he was re-elected in 2001. He basically had 3 1/2 years to prosecute, or to investigate. He did not do anything.

 

[Ozoner]

Hear me out - suppose Gricar wanted to go after Sandusky. He thought he had enough to at least bring it to trial. But we all know Penn State didn't want their reputation sullied - I know PS grads today who think what happened to Paterno was unfair - and they pull the strings in that area, and have an incredible amount of influence in Pennsylvania as being the dominant public university with a big football program that brings in big bucks. Gricar may already be leaning towards depression, now he's told "forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown." That could drive him to suicide, or it could drive him to run far away and not have his named dragged through the mud because of something that wasn't really his call.

Gricar's disappearance has nothing to do with Sandusky. If Gricar had had the evidence to prosecute Sandusky, he would have. As the DA, he didn't need anybody's permission. Prosecutors drop cases all the time because there isn't enough evidence, then they move on to the next case. As a prosecutor back in Cuyahoga County, OH, Ray had specialized in prosecuting cases of rape and murder. The Sandusky case wouldn't have fazed Ray; if Paterno hadn't been dragged into it, that case would not have gotten a fraction of the media attention that it did.
If Ray had any work-related depression, it was more likely from the cumulative weight of 30 years of looking at murder-scene photos.

 

[PaulR]

How much choice did Gricar have? This was not just an ordinary person accused of rape. This was someone high up in the Penn State football program, who had been doing it for years, and I'm sure Spanier would have preferred Sandusky retire and hope the whole thing go away over Gricar deciding to prosecute and finding the many victims out there, and that Penn State knew about the allegations for years.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

How much choice did Gricar have? This was not just an ordinary person accused of rape. This was someone high up in the Penn State football program, who had been doing it for years, and I'm sure Spanier would have preferred Sandusky retire and hope the whole thing go away over Gricar deciding to prosecute and finding the many victims out there, and that Penn State knew about the allegations for years.

RFG could have been voted out at the next election, but after 2001 there was no "next election."

RFG also, had he thought that there was a lack of resources, asked the AG's Office to prosecute.

 

[Sailor Haumea]

I'm 100% convinced this was a voluntary disappearance, especially considering his search history.

Having "how to destroy a hard drive" in your search history is quite significant...

 

[Ozoner]

I'm 100% convinced this was a voluntary disappearance, especially considering his search history.

Having "how to destroy a hard drive" in your search history is quite significant...

Someone planning to commit suicide might want to destroy personal information, though. I used to lean towards a voluntary disappearance, but the more I think about the details, the more I lean towards suicide.

 

[colette]

Someone planning to commit suicide might want to destroy personal information, though. I used to lean towards a voluntary disappearance, but the more I think about the details, the more I lean towards suicide.

That is more my theory too. Plus didn't his brother kill himself in a similar way, in water?

 

[PaulR]

I'm 100% convinced this was a voluntary disappearance, especially considering his search history.

Having "how to destroy a hard drive" in your search history is quite significant...

Why destroy the hard drive, you can just take it with you. Laptop hard drives are very small, I think they were using 2.5" hard drives back then (still are) and their size is 2.8" x 4" x 0.4". Can then just throw it in the trash or take a mallet to it or search "how do I destroy a hard drive" once you are at your new location.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First, the computer searches and the estate point to the reason for the disappearance as being voluntary. That would, however, not eliminate suicide. Suicide is a voluntary act.

Yes, his brother drowned in the Greater Miami River, in Ohio. He was diagnosed as bi-polar. Even at the time, it was known that depression can be genetic; in 2011, it was discovered that there was a genetic link to suicide by depressed people as well.

LE has RFG's genetic profile; it could be used to determine if a genetic predisposition existed. It might make suicide more or less likely if there was a genetic predisposition to depression or suicide.

Most of the evidence in this case is consistent with something voluntary; I would not call it conclusive.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Why destroy the hard drive, you can just take it with you. Laptop hard drives are very small, I think they were using 2.5" hard drives back then (still are) and their size is 2.8" x 4" x 0.4". Can then just throw it in the trash or take a mallet to it or search "how do I destroy a hard drive" once you are at your new location.

A while back, I tried destroying a hard drive (from a desk top) with a hammer and tossing it around on a cement floor. It did surprisingly little damage. The first nail that I tried driving through it, bent.

Throwing it in the trash would not prevent it from being discovered, even by a "dumpster diver." If at a "new location," would he have the resources to do it. Unless he checked it out before he was at the "new location," he wouldn't know if this was an option.

The question that i have is that, if he took the disk with him and went on the Internet using it, could it be traced? Is there something identifiable that could show where this was?

 

[PaulR]

A while back, I tried destroying a hard drive (from a desk top) with a hammer and tossing it around on a cement floor. It did surprisingly little damage. The first nail that I tried driving through it, bent.

Throwing it in the trash would not prevent it from being discovered, even by a "dumpster diver." If at a "new location," would he have the resources to do it. Unless he checked it out before he was at the "new location," he wouldn't know if this was an option.

The question that i have is that, if he took the disk with him and went on the Internet using it, could it be traced? Is there something identifiable that could show where this was?

There is software that can be installed on a hard drive that can effectively "phone home" (pings a website which records the IP address, which in most cases can be traced to a location.) This isn't particularly difficult to write, I'm not sure if it existed in 2005 but I would be surprised if it didn't. It's typically used in a laptop so that if someone steals it, once it is booted up then the location of the laptop can be traced. Of course this requires some level of internet connectivity which isn't guaranteed.

The problem is that this is easy to overcome now with a USB stick which wipes the hard drive, so more sophisticated systems will run as part of the firmware.

Back to the software version: if the hard drive is removed and placed in another computer (including laptop), that "phone home" code would still work. But taking the drive would allow more time (assuming Ray vanished) to do some independent research on how to deal with a laptop hard drive that would have this software, assuming he wanted to keep the contents of the hard drive. For instance, he could hook up the hard drive as a secondary one to an existing system; since it wouldn't be an OS drive, the location software wouldn't run and he could access his files and then just dispose of the hard drive at a recycler, or take his time properly wiping the hard drive. Throwing it into the water would have been a risk since there would be no guarantee that it wouldn't have been found relatively quickly, perhaps quickly enough to recover some of the data. Of course Ray doesn't strike me as being technically saavy or having techie friends who would have remained quiet, since he wouldn't have been doing web searches for this data.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First, thank you for the answer.

Second, RFG was not overly technical, though his nephew had a a company that I think designed software. Your assessment is correct.

Third, RFG did have a lot of time to deal with the removing the data. He had asked people about erasing the data about a year before he disappeared. One of the people he asked was a defense attorney, so it was not something case related.

Also around that time, he purchased erasure software. LE found the box it came in, but not the disc with the software.

He could have been pretty sure that it wasn't going to be found quickly. Everyone in LE, from about the 4/18/05 knew that the laptop wasn't in the case, but they were not looking for the drive specifically.

First, LE had to know that the laptop was missing. When RFG disappeared, nobody would have said, "Oh, let's see if the rarely used laptop is still in its case." They were doing other things like looking for his car.

Second, LE had to find the laptop in order to know the drive was missing. The laptop ended up on the north side of the bridge; the bridge has a walkway, but it is on the south side; the flows north to south. If somebody was going to toss it while on foot (and then jump), it would not be on the north side.

Third, LE had to the drive. It was found about 100 yards north of where the laptop was found, but fairly close to the riverbank. It could not have been tossed from the bridge.

If RFG did toss both the drive and then the laptop; he would be fairly sure that the drive would not be discovered until it had been in the water for a few weeks, if not months.

There is also the possibility that RFG erased the drive before tossing it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Again, thank you.

Respectfully snipped.

There is software that can be installed on a hard drive that can effectively "phone home" (pings a website which records the IP address, which in most cases can be traced to a location.) This isn't particularly difficult to write, I'm not sure if it existed in 2005 but I would be surprised if it didn't. It's typically used in a laptop so that if someone steals it, once it is booted up then the location of the laptop can be traced. Of course this requires some level of internet connectivity which isn't guaranteed.

The problem is that this is easy to overcome now with a USB stick which wipes the hard drive, so more sophisticated systems will run as part of the firmware.

One thing that I have been rolling around in my mind is that RFG may have thought the drive could be traced or was just unsure. The computer was county issue, so he would not necessarily have known what programs were on it.

 

[PaulR]

Again, thank you.

Respectfully snipped.



One thing that I have been rolling around in my mind is that RFG may have thought the drive could be traced or was just unsure. The computer was county issue, so he would not necessarily have known what programs were on it.

The side question is whether RFG would have even thought about whether individual hard drives could be traced. It's a great question to ask, and the answer is "yes given some constraints" but I'm not sure most non-technical people would even consider the question. I do think that RFG would have had to work with computer forensics at some point; he might not have known whether it was possible or not and decided to not take chances, assuming this was a voluntary disappearance. Note that two months before he vanished, Dennis Rader was arrested and computer forensics played a key role. So it may have been in the forefront of his mind.

For your first reply:

One, I find it unusual that they found the box but not the disc that the software came on. If he wanted to hide his plan to erase the hard drive, why not throw the box away? This seems a bit sloppy.

Two, I would assume that RCG at least attempted to wipe the drive before throwing it away, just to be safe, not knowing whether the software would be adequate if state/federal resources were put into trying to recover drive data.

Three, it is possible that the drive could have been recovered before the laptop, but without anyone knowing the value of the hard drive.

Four, there is always the possibility that this is a red herring. Assuming a voluntary disappearance, the best outcome for RCG would be for people to not be sure what happened to him, and his work laptop being found (with the drive in another location) can map to a number of different theories. Nobody will find him if they aren't looking for him.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipping respectfully.

The side question is whether RFG would have even thought about whether individual hard drives could be traced. It's a great question to ask, and the answer is "yes given some constraints" but I'm not sure most non-technical people would even consider the question. I do think that RFG would have had to work with computer forensics at some point; he might not have known whether it was possible or not and decided to not take chances, assuming this was a voluntary disappearance. Note that two months before he vanished, Dennis Rader was arrested and computer forensics played a key role. So it may have been in the forefront of his mind.

I didn't recognize the name, but yes, I remember the BTK case. He was arrested on 2/25/05, or 7 weeks prior to RFG's disappearance. RFG got the home computer around Christmas of 2004, and that is the computer he used for the searches, so the timing might be right.

One, I find it unusual that they found the box but not the disc that the software came on. If he wanted to hide his plan to erase the hard drive, why not throw the box away? This seems a bit sloppy.

Two, I would assume that RCG at least attempted to wipe the drive before throwing it away, just to be safe, not knowing whether the software would be adequate if state/federal resources were put into trying to recover drive data.

Three, it is possible that the drive could have been recovered before the laptop, but without anyone knowing the value of the hard drive.

Four, there is always the possibility that this is a red herring. Assuming a voluntary disappearance, the best outcome for RCG would be for people to not be sure what happened to him, and his work laptop being found (with the drive in another location) can map to a number of different theories. Nobody will find him if they aren't looking for him.

On the first one, RFG might not have cared. The first thing that LE will do is definitely not going to be looking to see if he had software. It is similar to his computer searches; they were not discovered until late 2006. If this was walkaway or suicide, it would be well too late by the time LE would start looking at this stuff. This type of stuff is not top priority in a missing person's case, even one that might be murder.

On the second one, this is very possible, and even likely.

On the third, yes, that is possible as well. At that time, at least, data could be recovered from a hard drive that had been the water for 2-3 weeks. Even under exceptionally good circumstances, it would have been unlikely that the drive would have been found, and identified as one that was probably from RFG's laptop in 2-3 weeks.

I disagree that the laptop was a deliberate red herring. If RFG was planning to walk away, and there was nothing on the laptop that give any clues about it, it would make more sense to leave it. LE would have to check out everything on it, all of which would be false leads. He could even start looking up some place that he not planning to go to, e.g. Butte, Montana. He goggles a lot of things regarding Butte, maybe even send some e-mail inquiring about setting up a bank account or buying land in Butte. The police would assume that he might be in Butte, and focus there.

All that said, I think that the laptop may be an unintentional red herring. He may have been going to Lewisburg for some other reason, e.g. to meet somebody. RFG may have thought that since he'd be in Lewisburg, this would be a good opportunity to toss the computer. That "other reason" may have ended up getting him killed.

I think RFG was planning to go to Lewisburg on 4/15/05. I think he was planning to, and did, toss that drive into the river. Tossing the drive, looking at methods of removing the data, may not be related to RFG's disappearance.