PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8

[J. J. in Phila]

Not at all true. High-level LE officers, prosecutors, and judges are all accountable to someone, as the judges who participated in the scheme to make money by sending kids to for-profit juvenile detention centers found out. If he was turning in his computer, he would need to remove personalmcata from it--just as no one should ever donate or give away a computer that might have data that can be mined from its hard drive.

For something like what you can and can't do with an office computer, he was completely in charge.

Either RG was a guy who thought he was above the law (like so many people in authority or prestigious positions do) or he was what he seemed to be, and would have held himself to appropriate computer use (within reason, such as checking home email). That's really the question at the heart of the case.

He made personal phone calls on his county cell phone and used his county issue laptop as a home computer. Not absolutely perfect, but exactly terrible either.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

That's not what I mean. it is almost impossible for people not to make personal calls or use office computers, especially laptops, for some "personal" stuff. For example, it probably benefits an employer if an employee does some online banking from the office, rather than leaving the office to physically go to the bank. Certainly, RG was responsible for establishing office protocols for personal use of computers, phones, etc. All of that really goes without saying.

What I am focusing on is the reason for RG inquiring about destroying or wiping a hard drive. Such an inquiry could be motivated by professional interest, as I note above and which you dispute. If, as you say, his inquiry results from his own computer use (what is on his laptop, presumably), then either that use was personal and "innocent," involving stuff like online banking, Amazon purchases, normal personal emails to friends and families, etc., or that use was nefarious and potentially illegal.

Either way, his interest in destroying a hard drive (and inquiries about that) may have nothing to do with the fact that the laptop and hard drive were separated and the hard drive destroyed. Even a dimwit could figure out that throwing a computer or other electronics in the river would destroy them, so I don't see why RG would need to make public inquiries about it if he figured to just chuck the drive in the river. RG's interest in wiping the drive or destroying it or its data might have had nothing to do with his disappearance or what happened to his computer. Or someone who knew what was on the computer (work wise) or knew RG had talked about wiping hard drives might be behind
his disappearance.

The issue regarding the computer is whether RG was a decent, dedicated professional with integrity who needed to get personal data off a laptop (or had some other appropriate reason for his inquiry)
or was someone trying to hide something sleazy or illegal.

I'm willing to believe and concede that all humans are complex and at some level unknowable. And
that people are often surprised to find out the secrets those with positive public images are hiding
(Schwarzneggar, Edwards, Paterno come to mind). So was RG what he seemed to be, an honorable prosecutor, a good father, a decent man (although capable of error and misjudgment, like the rest of us) or was he something else? Because if he was hiding criminality by trying to destroy his work computer, covering up the PS mess, and walking away from people who love him with no explanation--he was not a good guy.

And that, for me, goes against YEARS of evidence to the contrary.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That's not what I mean. it is almost impossible for people not to make personal calls or use office computers, especially laptops, for some "personal" stuff. For example, it probably benefits an employer if an employee does some online banking from the office, rather than leaving the office to physically go to the bank. Certainly, RG was responsible for establishing office protocols for personal use of computers, phones, etc. All of that really goes without saying.

What I am focusing on is the reason for RG inquiring about destroying or wiping a hard drive. Such an inquiry could be motivated by professional interest, as I note above and which you dispute. If, as you say, his inquiry results from his own computer use (what is on his laptop, presumably), then either that use was personal and "innocent," involving stuff like online banking, Amazon purchases, normal personal emails to friends and families, etc., or that use was nefarious and potentially illegal.

Well, I'm not ruling professional documentation out, but why was he concerned about only his laptop and his office desktop. I would add that it would be suspicious if he wanted to destroy things that were related to a case.

Either way, his interest in destroying a hard drive (and inquiries about that) may have nothing to do with the fact that the laptop and hard drive were separated and the hard drive destroyed. Even a dimwit could figure out that throwing a computer or other electronics in the river would destroy them, so I don't see why RG would need to make public inquiries about it if he figured to just chuck the drive in the river.

Actually, I would have had no way of knowing tossing a drive into water would have been so "fatal" until I researched the issue. I've also been consistently surprised at how much data can be recovered even after battering a drive.

RG's interest in wiping the drive or destroying it or its data might have had nothing to do with his disappearance or what happened to his computer. Or someone who knew what was on the computer (work wise) or knew RG had talked about wiping hard drives might be behind
his disappearance.

I think it is very likely that the reason for the computer being in Lewisburg that day was because RFG wanted to destroy the data. That may or may not be tied to his disappearance.

I can easily understand why a person who wanted to remove innocuous data would toss his hard drive into a river.

The issue regarding the computer is whether RG was a decent, dedicated professional with integrity who needed to get personal data off a laptop (or had some other appropriate reason for his inquiry)
or was someone trying to hide something sleazy or illegal.

With respect, I don't that is the issue, at least at this point. It provides a good answer for why RFG took the computer to Lewisburg. It does not tell us why he felt that he wanted to destroy the data, and does not come close to explaining why the laptop ended up in the river.

I'm willing to believe and concede that all humans are complex and at some level unknowable. And
that people are often surprised to find out the secrets those with positive public images are hiding
(Schwarzneggar, Edwards, Paterno come to mind). So was RG what he seemed to be, an honorable prosecutor, a good father, a decent man (although capable of error and misjudgment, like the rest of us) or was he something else? Because if he was hiding criminality by trying to destroy his work computer, covering up the PS mess, and walking away from people who love him with no explanation--he was not a good guy.

Well, if there was something related to Sandusky, it is unlikely it would be solely on the laptop and would likely have been in a file. Even in the 1998 incident, other staffers had at least heard vaguely about the case. So far, there is no suggestion that he was looking at it in 2005.

I think that when you assume that by walking away, "he was not a good guy," you impose your personal standards on RFG. If he walked away, he provided financially for his daughter, perhaps much more greatly that if he stayed, for example.

And that, for me, goes against YEARS of evidence to the contrary.

Especially if this was murder, we may have to look at the contrary. Saints are rarely martyred anymore. Sinners tend to get murdered.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

JJ, you and I will never, ever agree that it was a kind, loving or even neutral act if, indeed, RG walked away and left his daughter with money but without a father. Yes, indeed, that is a value judgment, as is your judgment that a "good" father would do such as thing. So there is no point in the two of us annoying other posters by revisiting this issue.

There would be no need to heave the laptop or hard drive in the river when, as you say, it
could be found and perhaps restored. If he was disappearing, he could just take the laptop with him. It's not like Disappearing RG (as opposed to RG, Murder Victim) would care if he stole state property, as Disappearing RG didn't care about all the wasted investigative resources or committing whatever kind of fraud was necessary to enhance his daughter's take of his retirement (that is, bending the rules or the law that would apply if he were known to be alive).

Finally, murder and martyrdom are not the same thing. Innocent children are murdered; mobsters are murdered; middle-aged housewives who are decent people are murdered. The bad person would be the murderer, not the victim (although, as I clearly state above, we are all imperfect beings). RG could be a decent man, good father, exemplary prosecutor and still have been a murder victim.

You make a good point about the laptop ending up in the river, separated from the hard drive. That, to my mind, is the act of the murderer who killed RG but then had to figure out what to do with the car and the laptop. If the killer was concerned about the contents of the hard drive, it would make sense to separate the two and hope neither was found and identified with RG, but hedge the bet by tossing laptop and hard drive in different spots. Like cutting up a body and scattering the body parts.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, you and I will never, ever agree that it was a kind, loving or even neutral act if, indeed, RG walked away and left his daughter with money but without a father. Yes, indeed, that is a value judgment, as is your judgment that a "good" father would do such as thing. So there is no point in the two of us annoying other posters by revisiting this issue.

It is not important if you or I disagree. It is only important if you and RFG agree. From his standpoint, leaving his daughter substantially more money could be a very good motive. I try, at least, not to make moral judgments about something that doesn't involve my life. I will point out that it is not illegal to walk away.

There would be no need to heave the laptop or hard drive in the river when, as you say, it
could be found and perhaps restored.

The time frame was quite short and if RFG tossed the drive, and then returned home, no one else would even know he's tossed it. I will readily concede that the searches and the data may not be at all related to RFG's disappearance. It could have been incidental to his trip to Lewisburg.

If he was disappearing, he could just take the laptop with him. It's not like Disappearing RG (as opposed to RG, Murder Victim) would care if he stole state property, as Disappearing RG didn't care about all the wasted investigative resources or committing whatever kind of fraud was necessary to enhance his daughter's take of his retirement (that is, bending the rules or the law that would apply if he were known to be alive).

The problem is that his Internet address, the IP address, might still be traceable. Likewise, they might be able to trace something specifically to the drive.

Point blank, it isn't fraud, if RFG does not tell his daughter. He in no way misled anyone, if he walked away. No crime scene, even a staged one, and no suicide note.

Finally, murder and martyrdom are not the same thing. Innocent children are murdered; mobsters are murdered; middle-aged housewives who are decent people are murdered. the bad person would be the murderer, not the victim (although, as I clearly state above, we are all i perfect beings). RG could be a decent man, good father, exemplary prosecutor and still have been a murder victim.

Most of the people murdered, at least in my area, have some criminal involvement (excluding those killed in the crossfire). A good and decent man might walk away from his life; many do. A good an decent man might be murdered. The odds that a good and decent man would be murdered, on a planned trip, 50 miles from home, in an area where he is less easily recognized, when he tells no one where he is going, go down a bit, unfortunately.

 

[TallCoolOne]

Wouldn't it be fraud though to allow it ruled that you are dead, when you aren't and allowing others to profit from that death?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Let's see: the news is full of women murdered by spouses and boyfriends, children murdered by parents and sex predators, and innocent folks cut down in gang drive-bys. We just had a police officer shot and killed in Allegheny County and if I recall correctly, 7 LE officers killed in Western PA in 2 1/2 years. So RG doesn't have to be a criminal to be a murder victim.

You are splitting hairs on the fraud question, because someone who would game the system that way is at least ethically dubious. "Disappeared RG" might not end up in jail for it, but it makes him someone who would essentially cheat the state out of money that the families of other non-cheaters would not get with a "dead" loved one.

Disappeared RG could keep the laptop, buy a new hard drive, and have a new IP address with a new internet provider. Because he is "Disappeared RG" and not using his former internet provider....if LE can't find Disappeared RG, they wouldn't find the laptop either.

People are murdered in their own homes, at work, while walking the dog, or while on a short trip.

We don't know that RG didn't tell anyone about his trip. For all we know, he had a bat phone or he called someone from a pay phone or he dropped in and surprised someone or a meeting was set up in person, in advance. If someone was targetting RG, that person might have followed him or he might have been meeting someone and it went wrong. We don't know who knew about his trip or who might have seen it an an opportunity.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wouldn't it be fraud though to allow it ruled that you are dead, when you aren't and allowing others to profit from that death?

I don't think so.

Here is the definition in general:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

The basic definition is: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

It would arguably be LG's "legal injury," presuming that she does not know if he is alive (I will make that presumption).

The cite also gives a definition of what the components of fraud are:

(1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

RFG didn't leave a suicide note, or talk to anyone about suicide; he didn't make the Mini look like a crime scene. There is no "false statement" or false indication of a material fact.

Let's face it, if RFG walked away, he didn't do anything to make it look like foul play or suicide.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

JJ, the "legal injury" would be to the pension system paying out money that LG would not be entitled to if her father was known to be alive --and which RG would know she was not really entitled to. The person failing to reveal or disclose a material fact would be Disappeared RG, who by the conduct of staging a disappearance and failing to come forward when a search was launched was "concealing what should have been disclosed." It's not LG who is defrauding anyyone; it's the putative Disappeared RG. That's why I say that how we interpret this case is all about what kind of man RG is or was.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Let's see: the news is full of women murdered by spouses and boyfriends, children murdered by parents and sex predators, and innocent folks cut down in gang drive-bys. We just had a police officer shot and killed in Allegheny County and if I recall correctly, 7 LE officers killed in Western PA in 2 1/2 years. So RG doesn't have to be a criminal to be a murder victim.

The killed in the cross fire victims are noted, but a lot of murders are people that may not have been "on the up and up." It is something that might have to be considered.

You are splitting hairs on the fraud question, because someone who would game the system that way is at least ethically dubious. "Disappeared RG" might not end up in jail for it, but it makes him someone who would essentially cheat the state out of money that the families of other non-cheaters would not get with a "dead" loved one.

Well, he met the legal requirements. We can start talking about how poorly he was paid for about 11 years as a reason why RFG might have found it as an equalizer. If you want to start going into that area, it will not be pretty.

Disappeared RG could keep the laptop, buy a new hard drive, and have a new IP address with a new internet provider. Because he is "Disappeared RG" and not using his former internet provider....if LE can't find Disappeared RG, they wouldn't find the laptop either.

Or, if he needs a laptop, he can buy one, without the county serial numbers on it.

We don't know that RG didn't tell anyone about his trip. For all we know, he had a bat phone or he called someone from a pay phone or he dropped in and surprised someone or a meeting was set up in person, in advance. If someone was targetting RG, that person might have followed him or he might have been meeting someone and it went wrong. We don't know who knew about his trip or who might have seen it an an opportunity.

I wouldn't call the Fornicola house "stately Wayne Manor," so I think we can rule out the Batphone.

The trip to Lewisburg looks planned. We can rule out the drop in visit.

Luring is possible, but what could lure RFG to Lewisburg and cause him not to reveal his plans to his girlfriend and/or co-workers. Where is the communication that took him there? Where, if this is a case, is the case file?

There is another possibility, that it wasn't case related. We can rule out the "old friend from college," or something like that, because he would have told PEF or someone on staff. There is a lot there that we cannot rule out.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, the "legal injury" would be to the pension system paying out money that LG would not be entitled to if her father was known to be alive --and which RG would know she was not really entitled to.

The injury would be to LG, since she'd have to give the money back. He met the requirements for the presumption of death. It is basically, "RFG hasn't contacted us, we don't know where he is, and we've looked." (I actually think all of those statements are true.)

The person failing to reveal or disclose a material fact would be Disappeared RG, who by the conduct of staging a disappearance and failing to come forward when a search was launched was "concealing what should have been disclosed."

Of course not. Nothing that RFG did, in any way, make it looked like he did anything but leave voluntarily.

It's not LG who is defrauding anyyone; it's the putative Disappeared RG. That's why I say that how we interpret this case is all about what kind of man RG is or was.

Again, how? He didn't do anything to make anyone think he is dead, if he is in fact out there. The evidence indicates he was in Lewisburg, but not that he was a victim of a crime while there or that he committed suicide while there. He very easily could have staged either.

RFG was a good lawyer for the most part; he'd know this.

 

[cj327]

Is there any indication that RFG would have been concerned about how much his daughter got post-disappearance? I mean, from what little I know it seems like she is capable of earning a living herself. From what little I have heard about RFG (probably not he whole story), it sounds like he was not exactly the type of person to worry over financial planning.

Are talking here about how much she receives now that he is declared dead? Just speculating, but it seems like, for RFG, the emotional toll of intentionally disappearing from his own family would far outweigh his calculations of the pension benefit that his daughter would get.

On a slightly related note, what DO we know about RFG personality-wise. I know the basics of how he was at work - i.e., meticulous in his preparation of cases etc. - but what do we know of his personality type outside of the workplace? Was family a priority? I know he talked to his daughter frequently... The fact that he was not apparently concerned about investing etc. says something about his personality to me...albeit not much, if that is all I have to go on.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

RG is a prosecutor and eligible for a public pension. If he is alive, i.e., Disappeared RG, he would have an obligation to let the pension program know he is alive so that his pension would be distributed according to the rules for the living. As a PA citizen, I can say that all state citizens are harmed when government employees defraud the pension system. In my view, it's a mere technicality to say "he didn't do anything to make anyone think he is dead." He can read, he can Google, he knows people are looking for him. If Disappeared RG walked away knowing he would be declared dead and LG would score more pension money (while he presumably lives on Kibbles and Bits) then he is defrauding PA taxpayers. If LG had to give back the momey--eh. That's not an injured party; she would be right where she would be without the pension. Once my employer accidentally overpaid me. Then they took that money put of another pay; I felt injured, for sure, but it wasn't my money. So I had to give it back. Once he is declared legally dead, LG is in the clear, so long as she in not in a conspiracy to fake Disappeared RG's death.

None of that would excuse a prosecutor for letting the taxpayers get hosed to benefit his daughter.
The Disappeared RG believers can't hide behind this hair-splitting; walking away and letting the pension fund (and the legal system) conclude that he's dead makes a mockery of all Prosecutor RG stood for. So it doesn't matter a rat's patootie whether Disappeared RG didn't do more staging and so can act like the Wall Street bankers who crashed the economy and claim they never broke the law. If he walked with the idea that LG would score more $$$, he's a cheat. Crooked. Maybe sociopathic.

That's why I don't believe in Disappeared RG. He gives up his home, pension, Social Security, all other known accumulated assets, reputation, daughter, friends, and his integrity. The internet is now full of speculation that RG let Sandusky off the hook, for example. And for what? What does Disappeared RG gain that he couldn't get just by retiring and moving to Costa Rica? Without giving up everything? Where is there evidence that RG was this sort of person? The explanation requires too much suspension of disbelief.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Is there any indication that RFG would have been concerned about how much his daughter got post-disappearance? I mean, from what little I know it seems like she is capable of earning a living herself. From what little I have heard about RFG (probably not he whole story), it sounds like he was not exactly the type of person to worry over financial planning.

He had lobbied very publicly to go from a part time salary to a full time one, which doubled his salary. He was very much concerned about the money he was making.

Some of his public comments do indicate his wanting more money, very strongly.

When trying to write about his legacy, one comment I heard was "He made the office full time."

Are talking here about how much she receives now that he is declared dead? Just speculating, but it seems like, for RFG, the emotional toll of intentionally disappearing from his own family would far outweigh his calculations of the pension benefit that his daughter would get.

He may not think of it that way. This is a daughter who hasn't lived in the area for seven years and who has not been part of his household for 12-15 years.

On a slightly related note, what DO we know about RFG personality-wise. I know the basics of how he was at work - i.e., meticulous in his preparation of cases etc. - but what do we know of his personality type outside of the workplace? Was family a priority? I know he talked to his daughter frequently... The fact that he was not apparently concerned about investing etc. says something about his personality to me...albeit not much, if that is all I have to go on.

He was described to the former President Judge as "a hard guy to know." Reserved, aloof, standoffish might be a reasonable characterization. I saw one press report calling him "cold."

In some of cases, he tended to push hard, even to the point of judges tossing charges pretrial. There is link on this thread to a rape case against a PSU football player that he tried and lost.

(Some of this is why Sandusky is so out of character.)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RG is a prosecutor and eligible for a public pension. If he is alive, i.e., Disappeared RG, he would have an obligation to let the pension program know he is alive so that his pension would be distributed according to the rules for the living.

No he doesn't. That was all turned over to his daughter, by court order.

If LG had to give back the momey--eh. That's not an injured party; she would be right where she would be without the pension. Once my employer accidentally overpaid me. Then they took that money put of another pay; I felt injured, for sure, but it wasn't my money. So I had to give it back. Once he is declared legally dead, LG is in the clear, so long as she in not in a conspiracy to fake Disappeared RG's death.

She would be the injured party, if he'd be found.

None of that would excuse a prosecutor for letting the taxpayers get hosed to benefit his daughter.

That is your value judgment, but not necessarily his or mine.

The Disappeared RG believers can't hide behind this hair-splitting; walking away and letting the pension fund (and the legal system) conclude that he's dead makes a mockery of all Prosecutor RG stood for. So it doesn't matter a rat's patootie whether Disappeared RG didn't do more staging and so can act like the Wall Street bankers who crashed the economy and claim they never broke the law. If he walked with the idea that LG would score more $$$, he's a cheat. Crooked. Maybe sociopathic.

You don't like it; that's fine. It is not your life; neither you, nor I, get to make life choices for RFG. Walking away is perfectly legal, and I'm seeing no fraud.

That's why I don't believe in Disappeared RG. He gives up his home, pension, Social Security, all other known accumulated assets, reputation, daughter, friends, and his integrity. The internet is now full of speculation that RG let Sandusky off the hook, for example. And for what? What does Disappeared RG gain that he couldn't get just by retiring and moving to Costa Rica? Without giving up everything? Where is there evidence that RG was this sort of person? The explanation requires too much suspension of disbelief.

No home and his daughter gets the pension, which seems to be more.

The Sandusky case may or may not be related to the disappearance, and might be indirectly related.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

cj327, JJ in Phila's position is that because RG was divorced and living in a different state, And because his daughter was grown, that there is nothing for either of them to lose if he walked away--in spite of the fact that, up to that point, they spoke frequently and RG's staff had been instructed to put her through whenever she called. He argues that by walking away, RG ensured that his daughter would get a bigger payout from his pension fund. There has been semantic wrangling over what it means to be "involved" as a parent or even whether, once kids are adults, these relationships are meaningful, all of which can be found higher on this thread.

My position is that the evidence we have is that RG loved his daughter, was appropriately involved in her life (although living in different states, as often happens once offspring are
grown) and would not have walked away from that relationship with no explanation,mwhich to me points to murder as the explanation for RG's disappearance.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

cj327, JJ in Phila's position is that because RG was divorced and living in a different state, And because his daughter was grown, that there is nothing for either of them to lose if he walked away--in spite of the fact that, up to that point, they spoke frequently and RG's staff had been instructed to put her through whenever she called. He argues that by walking away, RG ensured that his daughter would get a bigger payout from his pension fund. There has been semantic wrangling over what it means to be "involved" as a parent or even whether, once kids are adults, these relationships are meaningful, all of which can be found higher on this thread.

It is my position, as well as a matter of fact that RFG was not involved in LG's day to day life for a decade.

No, I've said that the way it worked out, LG has gotten a larger inheritance. I do posit that this might have been one motive for either walkaway or suicide. I would also state that, in either case, he did provide for his daughter.

My position is that the evidence we have is that RG loved his daughter, was appropriately involved in her life (although living in different states, as often happens once offspring are
grown) and would not have walked away from that relationship with no explanation,mwhich to me points to murder as the explanation for RG's disappearance.

Or RFG could feel that he would be doing a greater good by providing financially for his daughter.

Again, it comes down to trying read RFG's mind. A good parent may wish to be with his offspring. A good parent may wish to provide for his offspring. Good parents seldom agree on the mix between goal.

 

[cj327]

I guess there were two things that I was a little unclear on.

From the Disappeared episode, and perhaps from a quote I saw elsewhere, one of RG's friends (Sloan?) talked about what little interest he had in investing for retirement. JJ may have a blog entry on this too. That seems strange to me, in light of what is noted in post #554 above by JJ. He was very interested mainly in getting a higher salary? Or did he just think that the DA workload warranted a full time position? If he was only interested in a higher salary, how does this fit with his interest at an earlier time in his life to be a stay-at-home dad (if I recall correctly..)? I am a part-time stay at home dad right now, and it's great but does not pay well. I understand how he could have always maintained a strong work ethic (whether full time, part time, or no time), but as has been discussed earlier, there is a lot of mystery around his personal finances (at least for non-LE). To put it more simply, it seems strange that he was interested in earning but not in investing or saving (if it's true he only had $100K at age 59).

The second thing that I am a little unclear on still is his relationship with his daughter. I was under the impression that they had always spoken regularly (weekly or more often). Do we know otherwise?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I guess there were two things that I was a little unclear on.

From the Disappeared episode, and perhaps from a quote I saw elsewhere, one of RG's friends (Sloan?) talked about what little interest he had in investing for retirement. JJ may have a blog entry on this too. That seems strange to me, in light of what is noted in post #554 above by JJ. He was very interested mainly in getting a higher salary? Or did he just think that the DA workload warranted a full time position?

Okay, since we're going there. I think, in 1987, RFG was pushing to become "full time." He also wanted another ADA position created, as well. At one point, he offered to withdraw the request, if they just gave him the "full time" status.

All Centre County DA's had previously been part time, and stayed associated with a law firm and continued a private practice.

I found the reference: http://digitalnewspapers.libraries....%37&RefineQueryView=&StartFrom=5&ViewMode=GIF

It was January 17, 1986, 17 days after he took office. It was also an issue in the 1993 race.

If he was only interested in a higher salary, how does this fit with his interest at an earlier time in his life to be a stay-at-home dad (if I recall correctly..)? I am a part-time stay at home dad right now, and it's great but does not pay well. I understand how he could have always maintained a strong work ethic (whether full time, part time, or no time), but as has been discussed earlier, there is a lot of mystery around his personal finances (at least for non-LE). To put it more simply, it seems strange that he was interested in earning but not in investing or saving (if it's true he only had $100K at age 59).

I don't know. Remember that RFG was full time when he disappeared, and had been since 1996 or 97. He was grossing more than $100 k/year for the five years prior to vanishing.

The second thing that I am a little unclear on still is his relationship with his daughter. I was under the impression that they had always spoken regularly (weekly or more often). Do we know otherwise?

They talked several times a week, but these appeared to be very short calls.

LG said that the 4/14/05 call was saying, **I just called you up to say I love you.** RFG said, **I love you too.** (I'm not sure these are direct quotes.) That, according to LG, was the whole call.

They certainly were not estranged, but I'd question the "closeness" of the relationship.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

One think I kind of think is a bit strange about the call is that there other inquiries. Neither asked how the other was, they didn't about the other's SO. RFG didn't ask LG how school was going. LG didn't ask about her mother (which might be understandable).