PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #5

[J. J. in Phila]

He most likely is aware of the $10K rule and would know how to work around it.

LE is looking at his finances again.

He comes across as a perfectionist and one who made sure most everything was taken care of before he walked? ... if he walked.

Everything I've heard tells me that RFG was brilliant. He could have pulled off a disappearance.

 

[APIMaple]

Hey JJ - I'm curious about your Aardsma blog, would you be kind enough to post a link to it or where I can find it? Strange case there too.
Thanks so much

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hey JJ - I'm curious about your Aardsma blog, would you be kind enough to post a link to it or where I can find it? Strange case there too.
Thanks so much

It is an entry in "Sporadic Comments on Ray Gricar" blog here: http://tiny.cc/Sporadic_Comments

or here for the specific blog that Littlehorn posted: http://www.centredaily.com/personas/...Id=personaDest

 

[arielilane]

Has it been mentioned if they have the DNA on the cigarette or cigarette butt that was found? TIA

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Has it been mentioned if they have the DNA on the cigarette or cigarette butt that was found? TIA

I think they extracted it.

While the do have RFG's DNA, they have never indicated a match with him.

It is not in an offender database, but Pennsylvania only began establishing a database in the mid 2000's.

They also don't know if the cigarette butts found were from someone involved in the disappearance. It is a parking lot and anyone could walk across it while smoking.

 

[arielilane]

J.J., thank you.

I just found this informative article from 5/15/06.

When police opened his car, they caught a strong whiff of smoke—yet Ray never touched cigarettes, and didn’t allow smoking in his beloved car.

Zaccagni: They found a minute amount of tobacco ash on the passenger side. Tat could have resulted from anybody leaning in and talking to Ray, maybe smoking a cigarette.
​

Police found two cigarette butts nearby and recovered DNA from them, but it matched nothing on file: a dead end.
They also used a bloodhound—but the dog lost Gricar’s scent 20 yards from the car.
The tracker suggested Gricar got into another vehicle, perhaps with his killer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12756052/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J., thank you.

I just found this informative article from 5/15/06.

When police opened his car, they caught a strong whiff of smoke—yet Ray never touched cigarettes, and didn’t allow smoking in his beloved car.

Zaccagni: They found a minute amount of tobacco ash on the passenger side. Tat could have resulted from anybody leaning in and talking to Ray, maybe smoking a cigarette.
​

Police found two cigarette butts nearby and recovered DNA from them, but it matched nothing on file: a dead end.
They also used a bloodhound—but the dog lost Gricar’s scent 20 yards from the car.
The tracker suggested Gricar got into another vehicle, perhaps with his killer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12756052/

I'm glad my memory is working. They did retest them about a year later.

There are several problems regarding the cigarette.

1. As noted, it might not be related.

2. The "Harrisburg Woman," an old girlfriend of RFG's, is a smoker. She also met the vague description of the "Lewisburg Mystery Woman," seen with RFG in the Street of Shops in the evening of 4/15/05. (I'm told she has an alibi. She was in the NYC area.)

3. The witnesses, including a vacationing police officer, that identified the man in Wilkes-Barre as RFG said he was smoking. The officer said he noticed it because he wasn't holding the cigarette like an experienced smoker; he seemed clumsy with it.

Take you pick.

It is a piece of evidence, but it could lead in several different directions.

(Don't worry; I'm as frustrated as you are.)

 

[twinkiesmom]

Just wondering if anyone noticed the parallels between the John Glasgow disappearance and Ray's case. They just showed John's case on Disappeared this week.

http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/case.cfm?id=66406

His car was abandoned in a public area a few hours from his home. No signs of foul play....no apparent taking of assets with him...laptop abandoned...no trail from where the car was left.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just wondering if anyone noticed the parallels between the John Glasgow disappearance and Ray's case. They just showed John's case on Disappeared this week.

http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/case.cfm?id=66406

His car was abandoned in a public area a few hours from his home. No signs of foul play....no apparent taking of assets with him...laptop abandoned...no trail from where the car was left.

I did see that, and one poster has tried to link the two, but there are a lot of differences.


1. In the Glasgow case, there was no evidence that he was near where the car was found. No witnesses and no scent trail from the car; the scent that was detected was thought to be due to pooling. There is a question if Mr. Glasgow parked the car.

In the Gricar case, there were at least 8 witnesses that put him in Lewisburg or the general area on the day he disappeared; six of them put him near or in the car. Two saw him in the parking lot where the car was found. As arielilane noted there was a 20 yard scent detection by the dog and that was thought to not have been due to pooling.

2. Mr. Glasgow's laptop was intact and there appeared to be no attempt to destroy the data on its hard drive. It was found in the car, in easy view.

RFG's laptop and drive were destroyed and they were not in anything close to plain view. There is able evidence that he wanted the laptop destroyed.

3. Most importantly, Mr. Glasgow was spotted by several independent witnesses several weeks after he vanished. The dog detected his scent trail at the location the witnesses reported; that was physical evidence of his presence.

While there independent witness reports of RFG on 4/18, there was no independently corroborated witness report after that. There has been no reported of any physical evidence after 4/16 that indicated RFG was there.

4. While none of Mr. Glasgow's personal funds were missing, we don't know if RFG had moved any money out of his accounts in the prior 5-6.

5. While both men were acting unusually prior to their disappearance, Mr. Glasgow's change was due, from his words and actions, to the audit..

There was no such "cause" in the RFG case.

************

I'll add one point. If we had several independent witnesses that put RFG alive and well three weeks after he vanished and physical evidence that he was present in the area where the witnesses reported seeing him, I wouldn't be posting.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I did see that, and one poster has tried to link the two, but there are a lot of differences.


1. In the Glasgow case, there was no evidence that he was near where the car was found. No witnesses and no scent trail from the car; the scent that was detected was thought to be due to pooling. There is a question if Mr. Glasgow parked the car.

In the Gricar case, there were at least 8 witnesses that put him in Lewisburg or the general area on the day he disappeared; six of them put him near or in the car. Two saw him in the parking lot where the car was found. As arielilane noted there was a 20 yard scent detection by the dog and that was thought to not have been due to pooling.

2. Mr. Glasgow's laptop was intact and there appeared to be no attempt to destroy the data on its hard drive. It was found in the car, in easy view.

RFG's laptop and drive were destroyed and they were not in anything close to plain view. There is able evidence that he wanted the laptop destroyed.

3. Most importantly, Mr. Glasgow was spotted by several independent witnesses several weeks after he vanished. The dog detected his scent trail at the location the witnesses reported; that was physical evidence of his presence.

While there independent witness reports of RFG on 4/18, there was no independently corroborated witness report after that. There has been no reported of any physical evidence after 4/16 that indicated RFG was there.

4. While none of Mr. Glasgow's personal funds were missing, we don't know if RFG had moved any money out of his accounts in the prior 5-6.

5. While both men were acting unusually prior to their disappearance, Mr. Glasgow's change was due, from his words and actions, to the audit..

There was no such "cause" in the RFG case.

************

I'll add one point. If we had several independent witnesses that put RFG alive and well three weeks after he vanished and physical evidence that he was present in the area where the witnesses reported seeing him, I wouldn't be posting.

Thank you for your well reasoned and comprehensive response. I have read a great deal on Ray's case but don't have all the details at my fingertips.

I can't really disagree with anything here except there was that associate of Ray's who believed she saw him at the court house on Friday. I don't know what the reasons were behind discounting that sighting...I do understand why one would discount the stranger sightings without credible evidence.

I do think it's possible that Ray's research about cleaning the hard disk was in anticipation of his retirement and that the laptop at the bottom of the river was due to foul play. It's a stretch, but still possible. I don't know enough about how a district attorney operates to know...do they have sensitive files on their work laptop hard disk that would need to be permanently destroyed (e.g., child *advertiser censored* evidence, crime scene photos, etc)?

The main problem I have with Ray being a walkaway is his being a law and order type guy (my perception from reading about him) and knowing that the investigation into his disappearance would take enormous resources away from real crime victims. Walkaway seems very narcissistic, especially in light of the pain caused to the folks left behind...Wouldn't that eat into his soul as a former district attorney? Did he have a strong personal conscience?

Thanks again.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thank you for your well reasoned and comprehensive response. I have read a great deal on Ray's case but don't have all the details at my fingertips.

I can't really disagree with anything here except there was that associate of Ray's who believed she saw him at the court house on Friday. I don't know what the reasons were behind discounting that sighting...I do understand why one would discount the stranger sightings without credible evidence.

The lead detective at the time said that the Courthouse sighting, "didn't fit the timeline."

Here are the reported sightings from 4/15-4/16/05:

Brush Valley Area:

11:12 AM. Ms. Fornicola receives a brief call from Mr. Gricar; call carried by a cell tower in the Brush Valley area.

Lewisburg: 4/15/05 (Prior to 4:00 PM)

Around noon:

Ms. Snyder, saw Mr. Gricar and the Mini across from the Packwood House Museum

Afternoon (possibly before 1:30 PM):

At least two other witnesses saw Mr. Gricar moving the car across from the Packwood House Museum.

Bellefonte: 4/15/05

3:00 PM:

Ms Fenton sees Mr. Gricar in a metallic colored car behind the Centre County Courthouse. (Judge Grine is unsure of the day).

Lewisburg: 4/15/05 (After 4:00 PM)

4:00 PM-5:00 PM:

McKnight’s witness saw Mr. Gricar, driving the Mini, on Route 15 near the Country Cupboard.

Circa 5:30 PM:

At least two witnesses saw Mr. Gricar moving the Mini in the parking lot across from the Street of Shops. The Mini was seen parked there later.

Two people, Mr. Alvey and another person saw Mr. Gricar in the Street of Shops at about the same time; one saw him with the “Mystery Woman.”



Lewisburg: 4/16/05

11:00 AM to Noon: Two employees, Mr. Bennett see Mr. Gricar in Street of Shops.

6:30 PM

State Police Trooper spots the Mini Cooper in the parking lot across from the Street of Shops.



As you can see, there is nothing in the reported timeline that conflicts with the Courthouse sighting. That said, these others are corroborated with other witnesses and some physical evidence; they all fit the timeline.

I have heard of other witnesses, so it is possible that other witnesses put RFG in Lewisburg that would conflict with the Courthouse sighting.

I give Fenton about a 50% of being correct.

Note that there are two other sightings, Wilkes-Barre, 4/18/05, and Southfield 5/27/05 that are considered "credible" by LE.

I do think it's possible that Ray's research about cleaning the hard disk was in anticipation of his retirement and that the laptop at the bottom of the river was due to foul play. It's a stretch, but still possible. I don't know enough about how a district attorney operates to know...do they have sensitive files on their work laptop hard disk that would need to be permanently destroyed (e.g., child *advertiser censored* evidence, crime scene photos, etc)?

RFG had a work desktop; he used the desktop as a home computer. I would take it to conferences, but there was no evidence there.

Also, most any evidence begins as something physical, like a police report. In any event, a copy at least would be on file in his office. Destroying the drive or the data on it would not make that data go away.

Obviously, there could be things of a personal nature that RFG wouldn't want out there, like his credit card number; I'd have the same concerns about my stuff.

He also could have had photos of his family and didn't want anyone ogling vacation photos of his daughter.

It could be possible that he was keeping a personal log or diary of what was going on the office, but that would not be evidence in a case.

Whatever was on there, he didn't want anyone else to see it.

There is nothing necessarily nefarious in wanting to make sure that this kind of stuff never saw the light of day.

I wanted to address your third point separately.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I want to say, in answering this question, that I am not convinced RFG walked away, by a long shot.

The main problem I have with Ray being a walkaway is his being a law and order type guy (my perception from reading about him) and knowing that the investigation into his disappearance would take enormous resources away from real crime victims. Walkaway seems very narcissistic, especially in light of the pain caused to the folks left behind...Wouldn't that eat into his soul as a former district attorney? Did he have a strong personal conscience?

The very first thing that I want to say is that it breaks absolutely no law to voluntarily leave your life. If Mr. Gricar walked away, his action was perfectly legal. It would no longer be a police matter.

Second, RFG, whatever happened to him, was in a financial position where he provided for his daughter and, to an extent his girlfriend. His daughter had access to his bank deposits (more than $100,000), and can claim his pension if she files to have him declared dead; she could do now if she wishes. He paid his girlfriends mortgage and the Mini Cooper, which he paid for fully and he drove principally, was in her name, solely. He left no debt.

Three, if his daughter ever goes to court to have him declared dead, she will have to swear she never heard from him. If he contacts her, he would be putting her in a position to commit perjury, a criminal act that, if caught, could cause her to do jail time. RFG was a good lawyer, and would realize this.

Four, RFG did absolutely nothing to make it look like suicide or murder; he easily could have done both, if his purpose was to walk away and he wanted to misdirect the police. He could have left a "suicide" note; he could broken his nonprescription sunglasses, his cell phone or his watch and left then in the Mini. He could have left his wallet in the Mini, minus credit cards and cash; making it look like robbery. He could have pricked his finger and left a smear of blood in the Mini. He didn't do any of those things to make it look like suicide or murder (even during a robbery).

In that regard, if RFG did walk away, he did not attempt to mislead LE, or anyone else. He never did anything to say, in effect, **I'm a victim, look for me.** In other words, if he walked away, he didn't lie, he just didn't us what he was doing. He does not legally owe anyone an explanation and morally, he certainly does not owe most of us one, including me. The explanation to his family and girlfriend is to provide for them financially.

In terms of cost to the community, for more than a decade RFG was grossly underpaid. He worked 40-60 hours a week, but was treated as part time. His first term began in 1986; I looked up his salary in 1987; he was making $27,742.00 gross. Despite the fact that he was working more than full time, had more than 15 years experience, and required an advanced degree to hold the position, he was making less than $28,000 per year.

Even though he begged the county to make the position full time; they declined to do so until 1996 or 1997. His pay increased as a part timer, but not anything close to what someone with similar experience.

Legally, this isn't a good argument, but morally, maybe the county should give him the difference between the cost of the investigation and payment for the work he actually did. I'd have a feeling, he'd end up ahead of the game.

 

[ggbliss]

I did see that, and one poster has tried to link the two, but there are a lot of differences.


(snipped)

3. Most importantly, Mr. Glasgow was spotted by several independent witnesses several weeks after he vanished. The dog detected his scent trail at the location the witnesses reported; that was physical evidence of his presence.

J.J., I just have to correct one thing: there was only one person that reported seeing "John" at the Waffle House near the time of his disappearance, although that person was uncertain of the date. Only one of the three dog teams searched in Russellville, and their dog did positively "hit" on the Waffle House. Any other sightings were ruled out when videos were viewed or when physical descriptions did not match. What other sightings were you referring to? You said "several."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J., I just have to correct one thing: there was only one person that reported seeing "John" at the Waffle House near the time of his disappearance, although that person was uncertain of the date. Only one of the three dog teams searched in Russellville, and their dog did positively "hit" on the Waffle House. Any other sightings were ruled out when videos were viewed or when physical descriptions did not match. What other sightings were you referring to? You said "several."

According to the program, the convenience store. A witness reported seeing Mr. Glasgow pumping gas there; the dog detected his scent there. Is that correct?

"Several" would be more than one. "Independent" would be that the witnesses didn't communicate with other prior to reporting. There are "independent" witnesses in the Gricar case in Lewisburg and Wilkes-Barre.

 

[arielilane]

J. J. in Phila, your posts are so interesting to read. Thank you for your many informative posts.

Do you know if Ray had filed his 2004 tax return. I suppose he did, however, I don't want to assume.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Do you know if Ray had filed his 2004 tax return. I suppose he did, however, I don't want to assume.

Yes, he did. That was one of my questions.

His daughter (presumably) filed his 2005 return.

RFG had no debt; except for his personal possessions, he had no physical property. He paid for the Mini, drove it almost exclusively, was photographed with it, but put it in PEF's name. His accounts were held jointly with his daughter.

It might have been an attempt at estate planning; he was 59 years old at the time.

(We will be needing a new thread soon.)

 

[twinkiesmom]

I want to say, in answering this question, that I am not convinced RFG walked away, by a long shot.



The very first thing that I want to say is that it breaks absolutely no law to voluntarily leave your life. If Mr. Gricar walked away, his action was perfectly legal. It would no longer be a police matter.

{snipped}

Legally, this isn't a good argument, but morally, maybe the county should give him the difference between the cost of the investigation and payment for the work he actually did. I'd have a feeling, he'd end up ahead of the game.

I understand that it's not illegal to disappear...and when I said resources, I was thinking of personnel time as well as monetary resources. He had to know that the sitting district attorney disappearing would have to be investigated.....If he walked away, he left them with (the potential of) a crime to investigate. It's hard to reconcile the thought process involved with disappearing with someone likely so devoted to crime victims.

It sucks that he was so underpaid.....wonder if burnout had set in?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I understand that it's not illegal to disappear...and when I said resources, I was thinking of personnel time as well as monetary resources. He had to know that the sitting district attorney disappearing would have to be investigated.....If he walked away, he left them with (the potential of) a crime to investigate. It's hard to reconcile the thought process involved with disappearing with someone likely so devoted to crime victims.

It sucks that he was so underpaid.....wonder if burnout had set in?

I should be clear; the county made the DA position full time in 1996-7, so his salary went up (basically doubling).

He could however have thought that, because he was so poorly paid for all those years, that the county was still getting a deal.

If RFG walked away, he didn't ask anyone to look for him; he didn't give any indication that he was a crime victim or suicidal. He certainly never asked me to blog about him. My only true concern is that he didn't walk away.

RFG was about 8 1/2 months from retirement and not planning to practice law; if he was burnt out, he could have retired and collected his pension.

 

[ggbliss]

According to the program, the convenience store. A witness reported seeing Mr. Glasgow pumping gas there; the dog detected his scent there. Is that correct?

"Several" would be more than one. "Independent" would be that the witnesses didn't communicate with other prior to reporting. There are "independent" witnesses in the Gricar case in Lewisburg and Wilkes-Barre.

"Several" means "an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many," according to wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn.

You are correct that a person reported seeing "John" at the convenience store, but when that person was interviewed, they described seeing a shorter person than John, who is 6' tall.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"Several" means "an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many," according to wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn.

I would use "several" as "separate or distinct from one another." http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/several.html I didn't want to list a definite number, because I wasn't sure.

You are correct that a person reported seeing "John" at the convenience store, but when that person was interviewed, they described seeing a shorter person than John, who is 6' tall.

The description is not the key; I don't expect witnesses to be perfect in all details. He did identify the person as Mr. Glasgow and the dog detected his skin rafts at the sight.