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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
We know RFG searched for how to destroy a hard drive and we have a high degree of probability that he had a previous aborted attempt to toss it in a lake prior to his going missing. What is everyone's percentage with regard to the computer and drive being related to his going missing? Is it part of the case or an outlier?

I think it is 95% related and 5% not related. It may have not been case related as much as another (non-illegal) activity.
 
For Seeking Jana:

The technical term is a "cenotaph." I have a headstone, but I want to be cremated, so I'm sort of planning that.

I don't know if there is a Gricar family plot or not, but it is possible that they have erected one. If they don't have a family plot, they might not do it.


Trackergd said:
We know RFG searched for how to destroy a hard drive and we have a high degree of probability that he had a previous aborted attempt to toss it in a lake prior to his going missing. What is everyone's percentage with regard to the computer and drive being related to his going missing? Is it part of the case or an outlier?

I think it is 95% related and 5% not related. It may have not been case related as much as another (non-illegal) activity.
Click to expand...

If this is voluntary, I think it is related 100%. Since I give voluntary a 75% chance, there is an automatic 75% right there.

If RFG was the victim of foul play, there are some problems:

1. Assume that the killer, K, wanted to make sure that what ever data was on the drive would never come out? How does K know that RFG didn't have it on his home or office desktops, or didn't have it on a CD or a flash drive, stored online someplace, or that he didn't print the information out and have it in a file? Unless RFG put the information on the laptop on 4/15/05 (or later) in the presence of K, and the laptop was in K's presence from that point, there is no way K could know that.

2. Assume that K wanted some data? How does he know that the data was on the laptop in the first place? If K was sure that the data was on the laptop, he would probably be close enough to RFG to be able to access the laptop or one of the other computers?

The odds on either one happening are very low, in toto, 1% at best.

Another foul play scenario is that RFG brought the laptop, in order to get rid of it, because he had some other reason to go to Lewisburg. He thought, **I'm going to be in Lewisburg on Friday, and I can dump it down there.** In doing so, he was planning to return to Bellefonte. He may have been planning to replace the drive before returning it to the county.

Here we have to make a distinction between the drive and the laptop. RFG have tossed the drive and, for some reason, takes the laptop with him when he meet the other person, K. Something happens after he meets K and RFG dies. K hides the body, but doesn't realize that RFG had the laptop. K finds the laptop and knows it can be traced back to RFG. K tosses it off the bridge, primarily so he won't be caught with it.

I'd give that about a 50% chance of that happening, or a 12% chance of RFG being a victim of foul play and K tossing the laptop so it would not be traced back to him (K).

So the chance of the laptop being related are:

From walkaway and suicide: 75%
From foul play: 12%

Total chance that the laptop is related to the disappearance: 87%

Overall chance that the laptop is not related (which includes him having an accident after tossing the laptop): 13%

The likelihood that the drive was tossed because RFG was murdered is less than 1%.
 
Trackergd said:
We know RFG searched for how to destroy a hard drive and we have a high degree of probability that he had a previous aborted attempt to toss it in a lake prior to his going missing. What is everyone's percentage with regard to the computer and drive being related to his going missing? Is it part of the case or an outlier?

I think it is 95% related and 5% not related. It may have not been case related as much as another (non-illegal) activity.
Click to expand...

I agree with your percentages. I think he was communicating with someone not known to Patty on the laptop when Patty wasn't home. The " helper" theory, more or less.

Good to see you back with the case. :)
 
J. J. in Phila said:
For Seeking Jana:

The technical term is a "cenotaph." I have a headstone, but I want to be cremated, so I'm sort of planning that.

I don't know if there is a Gricar family plot or not, but it is possible that they have erected one. If they don't have a family plot, they might not do it.




If this is voluntary, I think it is related 100%. Since I give voluntary a 75% chance, there is an automatic 75% right there.

If RFG was the victim of foul play, there are some problems:

1. Assume that the killer, K, wanted to make sure that what ever data was on the drive would never come out? How does K know that RFG didn't have it on his home or office desktops, or didn't have it on a CD or a flash drive, stored online someplace, or that he didn't print the information out and have it in a file? Unless RFG put the information on the laptop on 4/15/05 (or later) in the presence of K, and the laptop was in K's presence from that point, there is no way K could know that.

2. Assume that K wanted some data? How does he know that the data was on the laptop in the first place? If K was sure that the data was on the laptop, he would probably be close enough to RFG to be able to access the laptop or one of the other computers?

The odds on either one happening are very low, in toto, 1% at best.

Another foul play scenario is that RFG brought the laptop, in order to get rid of it, because he had some other reason to go to Lewisburg. He thought, **I'm going to be in Lewisburg on Friday, and I can dump it down there.** In doing so, he was planning to return to Bellefonte. He may have been planning to replace the drive before returning it to the county.

Here we have to make a distinction between the drive and the laptop. RFG have tossed the drive and, for some reason, takes the laptop with him when he meet the other person, K. Something happens after he meets K and RFG dies. K hides the body, but doesn't realize that RFG had the laptop. K finds the laptop and knows it can be traced back to RFG. K tosses it off the bridge, primarily so he won't be caught with it.

I'd give that about a 50% chance of that happening, or a 12% chance of RFG being a victim of foul play and K tossing the laptop so it would not be traced back to him (K).

So the chance of the laptop being related are:

From walkaway and suicide: 75%
From foul play: 12%

Total chance that the laptop is related to the disappearance: 87%

Overall chance that the laptop is not related (which includes him having an accident after tossing the laptop): 13%

The likelihood that the drive was tossed because RFG was murdered is less than 1%.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the term. I had hoped that maybe a plaque could be put in the park, or on the courthouse grounds, actually. A public remembrance of his body of work for them.
I can't go to cemeteries or funerals, but appreciate those who can.
However, if my own adopted dad had been missing 13 years, I would gather the proper officiants together and hold a public non-denominational Christian memorial service for him. I'd make it through somehow, as a matter of utmost respect.
If there's ever going to be such a thing, it should be while those who worked with him or knew him are still alive, you know?
 
The first attached photograph is of RFG's office. On the desk is a calendar pad blotter, with entries penned in for most every day on the page.

The calendar page is dated as "May 2005."

If RFG was contemplating suicide the previous two+ weeks during which his demeanor was reported as distraught, depressive, anxious, etc., why would he bother to schedule out days all through May? I dismiss the idea a secretary or assistant filled out the blotter... it was on *his* desk, not on a secretary's or assistant's desk, both it is assumed would have their own calendars / methods of tracking schedules. That blotter was RFG's. I believe he penned the entries.

What happened to the "April 2005" page? Confiscated as evidence? Maybe. Why not also confiscate the May page? The entire blotter? Wouldn't LE want to follow up all possibilities?

attachment.php



The second attached photograph is of RFG, taken in State College on March 31, 2005.

attachment.php


I do not know the context but it appears it may be a press conference. It was two weeks before RFG went missing. Such a somber appearance by RFG... depression, disconnected?
 
Respectfully snipped

ChuckMaureen said:
The first attached photograph is of RFG's office. On the desk is a calendar pad blotter, with entries penned in for most every day on the page.

The calendar page is dated as "May 2005."

If RFG was contemplating suicide the previous two+ weeks during which his demeanor was reported as distraught, depressive, anxious, etc., why would he bother to schedule out days all through May? I dismiss the idea a secretary or assistant filled out the blotter... it was on *his* desk, not on a secretary's or assistant's desk, both it is assumed would have their own calendars / methods of tracking schedules. That blotter was RFG's. I believe he penned the entries.
Click to expand...

The office was being used, in May 2005, by 1st ADA Smith. Those are probably his scheduling. The DA's Office did not shut down when RFG vanished.


ChuckMaureen said:
I do not know the context but it appears it may be a press conference. It was two weeks before RFG went missing. Such a somber appearance by RFG... depression, disconnected?
Click to expand...

The presser was about the breakup of a drug ring run by Taj "Verbal" Lee. There were two possible reasons for RFG not looking too happy.

1. IIRC, nobody was smiling, or looking pleasant, because it was a serious matter. They had their sober "game faces" on. For example, the photo that I have in my signature was from a years earlier press conference, where he is looking serious.

2. RFG didn't like the guy conducting the presser, then AG Tom Corbett. He had had a run in with Corbett in 1998, when Corbett was a defense attorney and chair of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

I would not read too much into RFG's appearance at that press conference.

Some people had noted a change in RFG's demeanor as early as March 8, 2005.

Please note that your photos did not appear. I think the desk photo is the second one here: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/04/looking_back_at_ray_gricar_on.html
 
RFG wanted his whereabouts (destination) known, up to a point, when he left on his drive... via phone call to PEF and destination was a familiar location.

Why would RFG bring the laptop with him?

How often, if at all did RFG bring his laptop with him on 'road trip' outings?

Did he intend simply to work on case files on the laptop while sitting on a park bench on his day off? If so, this would support the kidnapped / forced disappearance scenarios.

If working was not his intention and prevention of data retrieval was, why would RFG dismantle the laptop while sitting in his vehicle or on a park bench where privacy is questionable... maybe RFG felt privacy wasn't necessary or he hadn't yet decided to separate the hard drive from the laptop?

Why did he not simply remove the hard drive from the laptop while at home (privacy) and bring it with him on his road trip?

Knowing what we know after-the-fact (drive and laptop ended up in the river) at what point did RFG decide to also discard the laptop in the river?

Did RFG want people to believe the entire laptop disappeared with him or was he so concerned about data revelation that he did not want to chance it (not knowing that most computer RAM is volatile memory) and decided to also dump it in the river?

Why was the hard drive discarded separately from the laptop? In case data was still retrievable upon discovery and separating it from the laptop would make it more difficult to associate the drive / data with the laptop and, therefore, with RFG?

The attached image shows RFG's laptop after LE removed the floppy drive, CD drive and drive cage (NOT hard drive).

attachment.php


How's about this? Was the actual RFG hard drive really found separately from the laptop?

Was that a LE ruse? Maybe the laptop was found complete (with hard drive)?

Purpose? Maybe to weed out the true perp in a foul play scenario... or confuse RFG if he were still alive, following the case from afar? Not a likely scenario... I include it just to be complete.


Cigarette smoke smell and ashes discovered in RFG's vehicle? Another ruse, or did the Mystery Woman or other helpful person smoke?


All in all, I believe RFG disappeared on purpose, and maybe scored a ride to (nearer) his ultimate destination and the helpful driver was asked not to ever reveal her/his participation... did RFG pay cash?


The Sandusky case could have been a/the catalyst... RFG may either have suspected or known more kids were involved and suffered after the 1998 incident and he eventually felt guilty for not attempting prosecution. He would have if he felt he had a strong case at that time (those who knew him said as much) but something made him believe otherwise.

Suicide from guilt? Maybe.

But... why not pursue the case later if it was bothering him to such an extent?

If it wasn't the Sandusky case then... what?

New life? Maybe... why?

Financial situation?

Depression?

Exhaustion / Boredom?

Suicide and New Life scenarios are the most-likely possibilities.

Foul play? I'm not getting that vibe. Searches on how to erase data (assuming it was RFG who initiated the searches), brought his laptop with him, disappeared.
 
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_271ed522-86cd-58b2-8d85-af2915187862.html

[FONT=&quot]Pennsylvania State Police will be retesting cigarette butts found near Gricar's abandoned car for mitochondrial DNA. Robert Shaler, head of the Penn State forensic science program, said mitochondrial DNA testing, though not conclusive, would allow investigators to compare a body or person to DNA found on the cigarette butts. Nuclear DNA testing, which was conducted last year, is used to make identifications of people from the national DNA database, Shaler said. Zaccagni said during the press conference that there was no match to the nuclear DNA found on the cigarette butts in the national database.
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
DNA retesting was initiated in 2006. How often, if at all, does LE seek DNA matches... it's been twelve years since?
 
ChuckMaureen said:
RFG wanted his whereabouts (destination) known, up to a point, when he left on his drive... via phone call to PEF and destination was a familiar location.

Why would RFG bring the laptop with him?

How often, if at all did RFG bring his laptop with him on 'road trip' outings?

Did he intend simply to work on case files on the laptop while sitting on a park bench on his day off? If so, this would support the kidnapped / forced disappearance scenarios.

If working was not his intention and prevention of data retrieval was, why would RFG dismantle the laptop while sitting in his vehicle or on a park bench where privacy is questionable... maybe RFG felt privacy wasn't necessary or he hadn't yet decided to separate the hard drive from the laptop?

Why did he not simply remove the hard drive from the laptop while at home (privacy) and bring it with him on his road trip?

Knowing what we know after-the-fact (drive and laptop ended up in the river) at what point did RFG decide to also discard the laptop in the river?

Did RFG want people to believe the entire laptop disappeared with him or was he so concerned about data revelation that he did not want to chance it (not knowing that most computer RAM is volatile memory) and decided to also dump it in the river?

Why was the hard drive discarded separately from the laptop? In case data was still retrievable upon discovery and separating it from the laptop would make it more difficult to associate the drive / data with the laptop and, therefore, with RFG?

The attached image shows RFG's laptop after LE removed the floppy drive, CD drive and drive cage (NOT hard drive).

attachment.php


How's about this? Was the actual RFG hard drive really found separately from the laptop?

Was that a LE ruse? Maybe the laptop was found complete (with hard drive)?

Purpose? Maybe to weed out the true perp in a foul play scenario... or confuse RFG if he were still alive, following the case from afar? Not a likely scenario... I include it just to be complete.


Cigarette smoke smell and ashes discovered in RFG's vehicle? Another ruse, or did the Mystery Woman or other helpful person smoke?


All in all, I believe RFG disappeared on purpose, and maybe scored a ride to (nearer) his ultimate destination and the helpful driver was asked not to ever reveal her/his participation... did RFG pay cash?


The Sandusky case could have been a/the catalyst... RFG may either have suspected or known more kids were involved and suffered after the 1998 incident and he eventually felt guilty for not attempting prosecution. He would have if he felt he had a strong case at that time (those who knew him said as much) but something made him believe otherwise.

Suicide from guilt? Maybe.

But... why not pursue the case later if it was bothering him to such an extent?

If it wasn't the Sandusky case then... what?

New life? Maybe... why?

Financial situation?

Depression?

Exhaustion / Boredom?

Suicide and New Life scenarios are the most-likely possibilities.

Foul play? I'm not getting that vibe. Searches on how to erase data (assuming it was RFG who initiated the searches), brought his laptop with him, disappeared.
Click to expand...

The idea that the Sandusky case had anything to do with this is silly. Ray had a long history of prosecuting rape and murder cases. The Sandusky case wouldn't have fazed him. The idea that Sandusky should have been prosecuted sooner is fallacy created by the media. He was prosecuted at the appropriate time, i.e. once enough witnesses had come forward that the prosecution had a fair shot at a conviction. The bar for firing someone is much lower than the bar for prosecuting someone, so Sandusky probably should have been fired sooner, but that had nothing to do with the D.A.'s office.
 
Kroll attempted to access the data on the drive but was unsuccessful. I wonder if the drive is still in evidence and can be re-checked using advanced technology not available at the time?
 
Trackergd said:
Kroll attempted to access the data on the drive but was unsuccessful. I wonder if the drive is still in evidence and can be re-checked using advanced technology not available at the time?
Click to expand...

LE still has it; it is evidence.
 
Respectfully snipped, for length, not content.

ChuckMaureen said:
RFG wanted his whereabouts (destination) known, up to a point, when he left on his drive... via phone call to PEF and destination was a familiar location.
Click to expand...

The Mini was about 42 miles (as the crow flies) away from where the call was made. If the purpose of the call was not about the dog, RFG gave the general direction of where he was heading, but with a pretty big area to cover. He would have known that if someone was searching for him, they would start searching along 192. At the time, much of it was out of cell range and lightly populated.

The call had the effect of drawing LE to the area along 192 and not to Lewisburg. We can't say if that was RFG's intent.

Why would RFG bring the laptop with him?

How often, if at all did RFG bring his laptop with him on 'road trip' outings?

Did he intend simply to work on case files on the laptop while sitting on a park bench on his day off? If so, this would support the kidnapped / forced disappearance scenarios.

If working was not his intention and prevention of data retrieval was, why would RFG dismantle the laptop while sitting in his vehicle or on a park bench where privacy is questionable... maybe RFG felt privacy wasn't necessary or he hadn't yet decided to separate the hard drive from the laptop?

Why did he not simply remove the hard drive from the laptop while at home (privacy) and bring it with him on his road trip?

Knowing what we know after-the-fact (drive and laptop ended up in the river) at what point did RFG decide to also discard the laptop in the river?
Click to expand...

RFG had had a longstanding interest of getting rid of the data on the computer. He asked a defense attorney, I wish I could shed some light on who, about it in early 2004. He had used the laptop as his home computer until around Christmas 2004. Since that time, the laptop was generally not used. He would take it to conferences, but there not that many.

There can be several reasons RFG took the drive out in Lewisburg:

1. He needed something on it in Lewisburg; that could be anything.

2. He wanted to check to make sure that he wasn't throwing out something that he needed; that would assume that he was planning to come back.

3. He thought that LE would be searching, but realized that they while they could be looking for a laptop, they would not be looking for a separated drive. It is like if you can't find the TV remote. You would look for the remote, but not the batteries that are in the remote. He might not have been thinking about that when he started out, but realized that in Lewisburg.

It was not a ruse, though LE did hold back the discovery of the drive for about 6 weeks. The drive could not be proven to be the one in the laptop, though it fit it.

As for Sandusky, he had no idea if the 1998 incident would ever come out or if there would be other incidents. RFG could have prosecuted Sandusky at any point during the remainder of his term. There was no Sandusky file at the office nor in RFG's personal possessions. He was not even trying to build a case.

Further, if Sandusky had come out after 2001, it would have created no legal nor ethical problems for RFG. He was not planning to run again for anything, nor to go into private practice. He didn't have to worry about bad press. While RFG's not to prosecute was arguably terrible, he, as any DA, has the discretion on filing charges. His decision was neither illegal nor unethical. Other than bad press about someone not practicing law nor running for anything, it would have had no effect.

I have no doubt that RFG did the searches and tossed the drive; I do have doubt that his disappearance was voluntary.
 
RFG's conscience may have been more powerful than any reelection campaign or public perception. I'm not ruling out Sandusky although I agree it would seem not to have been a significant catalyst. By all accounts RFG would prosecute a case if he knew he could build a case but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have felt some level of guilt in Sandusky after the fact. Woulda-Coulda-Shoulda? Again, probably not a significant element, but possible.


Regarding the laptop and hard drive, assuming RFG had complete control over what eventually happened (river) to those items:

RFG, possibilities...

1) was protecting someone.
2) (and / or) protecting himself.
3) was not protecting anyone, not thinking clearly, possible mental issue, founded / unfounded paranoia.
4) destroyed government property without regard of consequence, lends credence to voluntary disappearance.


Assuming RFG had NOT intended to disappear:

1) would have to explain going to extremes to destroy the laptop and hard drive.
2) life goes on.


Assuming RFG had intended to disappear:

1) why did he lock his vehicle, take / discard 'car keys' but leave a cell phone in the vehicle (+ other items not revealed to the public)? Purposeful LE misinformation?
2) was the hard drive full of Roy Gricar-related files? Could not disprove suicide? Catalyst for disappearance? I'm leaning toward this scenario.


Just for reference:

HDD Data Recovery: https://www.gillware.com/blog/best-practices-and-tips/intro-water-damaged-hdds/
 
My ultimate belief, IMO:

1) RFG moved money to 'other' accounts using the laptop.
2) RFG destroyed that evidence and moved on to a 'new life'... no suicide.
3) RFG was not alone when he moved on.
 
To take the last points in this post.

1. I use an old style flip phone. I do not know if it could be tracked or not if it isn't turned on. That could have been the reason he left it in the car. Simply, he did not want to be tracked. That fits with any of the three scenarios.

2. AFAIK, there were no Roy Gricar files. RFG was not the next of kin, Roy's wife and children were. This was not in RFG's jurisdiction. TG has read the psychological report on Roy, and TG does not that it was suicide.

In his professional life, RFG really questioned the psychological possibilities. In the case of a mother with postpartum depression who killed her child, Sharon Comitz, he said, "Obviously, Sharon was depressed and 'lost it,' but there's no way she was out of her mind. She had to know exactly what she was doing and had a clear head to do it." He said it in Time magazine. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,149520,00.html He said it less that four years prior to his disappearance.

We have seen a number of the mass shooters that have psychological problems. They know exactly what they are doing and are capable implementing those plans. It doesn't mean that they are not crazy.

RFG used his laptop as home computer. It his almost impossible for him not to have had personal data on that drive. Anything from his credit card number to scans of LG's birth records to some naughty photos. He could have had some confidential work related material like employee evaluations. He might not have wanted whomever won the next election and say, **Well, Ray said you were deficient in these areas, so that's a good reason to fire you.**

Assume, for a second that, RFG was planning to come back after going to Lewisburg. He could have removed the drive, tossed it, and then bought a replacement drive; it would have been less than $150.00, maybe $100. There would be no way that anyone else would know that it was a replacement. If somebody finds the drive in Lewisburg, they can't tie it to RFG; as far as Centre County is concerned, the laptop has the original drive.

Another scenario, RFG tosses the drive and then the laptop. He returns home and on Monday, tells the person in charge of county property:

**I took the laptop out to Lewisburg because I wanted to do some work outside and enjoy the weather. I tripped and the laptop went flying into the river. I couldn't get it back, but there wasn't anything really important on it. I'll be happy to reimburse the county.**

The laptop was used, so it would not be too valuable. That model had not been manufactured in at least a year, so it was basically obsolete. It won't cost RFG that much, maybe $200. If someone finds the laptop, reads the tag, and contacts Centre County, what is Centre County going to do? They have been reimbursed. They will tell whomever found it to toss it.

There is a good reason for the laptop and drive to have endued up where they did, that is not linked to RFG's disappearance.

BTW: The laptop was given to RFG until at least 4 year after the Sandusky incident, according to the county. It was not even available for sale when that incident happened. Finally, all of the documents regarding the 1998 incident were faxed. RFG would have had to scanned the documents, downloaded those to the laptop, and then destroyed the originals.
 
ChuckMaureen said:
My ultimate belief, IMO:

1) RFG moved money to 'other' accounts using the laptop.
2) RFG destroyed that evidence and moved on to a 'new life'... no suicide.
3) RFG was not alone when he moved on.
Click to expand...

Possible, and even likely, but possible is not proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 2,003 (members: 158, guests: 1,845)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
1,845
Total visitors
2,003
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,630
Messages
18,127,508
Members
231,111
Latest member
Paolo67
Back
Top