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

[cj327]

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).

Is it fairly certain that other things were not mentioned and went unreported?

Different families have different ways of communicating, so I guess this could have been normal for them. Unusual for most families, yes, but I could see some people doing it that way. The fact that they communicated several times a week makes me think they must have been close. Close emotionally, that is, even if they did not talk about all of the things going on in their lives.

Edit-
RFG's daughter is the number one reason for me to think a walkaway scenario is less likely.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Is it fairly certain that other things were not mentioned and went unreported?

Well, that was LG's version, a very short call. I think she referred to it as "normal."

Different families have different ways of communicating, so I guess this could have been normal for them. Unusual for most families, yes, but I could see some people doing it that way. The fact that they communicated several times a week makes me think they must have been close. Close emotionally, that is, even if they did not talk about all of the things going on in their lives.

There may be a difference between "cared about each other" and "close," even emotionally. I have not heard any suggestion about day to day involvement in each others lives, especially since LG left for school.

Edit-
RFG's daughter is the number one reason for me to think a walkaway scenario is less likely.

It's a double edged sword. They cared about each other, but RFG knew that she would inherit, possibly more if he vanished in 2005, as opposed to 2006. It's a possible motivation, in part at least, for suicide as well.

It's one of the problems with motivation. We might be able to determine it from actions, but looking at the motivation first really just creates uncertainty.

 

[cj327]

Thinking about other MP cases as well, particularly those I read about on WS, nearly all have at least one person espousing an intentional departure scenario. Seems like everyone who goes missing has a few things in their life that point to motivation for that possibility. But I wonder what percentage of resolved cases end with intentional departures..how about cases resolved after after the person has been missing for at least one year? 5 years? 10 years? I'll bet the percentage of intentional departures goes down quite a bit over time. People who do this stuff for a living probably know the answer to that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thinking about other MP cases as well, particularly those I read about on WS, nearly all have at least one person espousing an intentional departure scenario. Seems like everyone who goes missing has a few things in their life that point to motivation for that possibility. But I wonder what percentage of resolved cases end with intentional departures..how about cases resolved after after the person has been missing for at least one year? 5 years? 10 years? I'll bet the percentage of intentional departures goes down quite a bit over time. People who do this stuff for a living probably know the answer to that.

An international departure is a possibility considering that RFG had ties to Slovenia. There are a number where the person just went to another state.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Most parents who provide for their children (in terms of inheritance) do so with estate planning, not by disappearing with an idea that they will be declared dead and so the kids will go to court, have Dad declared dead, and get an enhanced pension payout--while Dad kisses his pension, property and Social Security goodbye at age 60.

I would also suggest that a father and daughter who call just to say "I love you" might be very close indeed. In any case, we have no evidence, from family members or observers, that would lead us to believe that their relationship was not "close" in their estimation or that they did not love each other and value the connection they had.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Most parents who provide for their children (in terms of inheritance) do so with estate planning, not by disappearing with an idea that they will be declared dead and so the kids will go to court, have Dad declared dead, and get an enhanced pension payout--while Dad kisses his pension, property and Social Security goodbye at age 60.

Well, we don't know if RFG kissed everything goodbye. SS would be about the only thing. His property was minimal; he owned no real estate.

I would also suggest that a father and daughter who call just to say "I love you" might be very close indeed. In any case, we have no evidence, from family members or observers, that would lead us to believe that their relationship was not "close" in their estimation or that they did not love each other and value the connection they had.

We only have situation, geography, and the description of the last phone call, the "normal" one, to indicate the closeness.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

No, we have years of relationship, pictures in the office, testimony of co-workers as to RG's knowledge of and pride in his daughter's activities and achievements, statements that he always wanted LG's calls put through, even after she was grown up and living on her own. LE would have phone logs and records of contact via email. There were visits. There was financial support. No one is RG's life has suggested they weren't emotionally close, as they defined that.

The only reason to minimize this relationship is to bolster the walkaway theory, because (as with hundreds of other missing cases on this board) the biggest reason for people NOT to "walk away" leaving no trace and with no contact is their emotional ties to other people (partners, children, parents, siblings, nieces and nephews). Most humans would not want to cause permanent pain and heartache to friends and family members,

Watch a few episodes of Disappeared or read any book about a missing person or follow any particular case and you will see that the suffering of those left behind (whether a result of murder, suicide, or walk away) never ends. People are still talking, for example, of the impact of the suicide
of Ray's brother on the family, for one major example. In my own life, a family friend who gave me a summer job committed suicide 40 years ago and it still bothers me. I still think of how it changed everything. The only people satisfied with the house or money or cars left behind are the ones involved in the disappearance in the first place--which of course does NOT apply to LG. So those who want to argue walk away--fine. Go ahead. Where's the evidence that a 60-year old man had ever "walked away" from his relationship with his daughter? They stayed in contact for years after a divorce. To argue about "closeness" is to engage in utter speculation when the record shows he stayed in regular contact with LG--no matter how long or short their phone calls might have been. Where is there evidence that this relationship had changed in such a way that RG would walk away from it?

And as someone who just turned 60, and who has had parents, aunts, and uncles on Social Security, that is nothing to sneeze at, as is PA's state employee health insurance for retirees. Over a ten year period, SS alone would likely amount to a quarter million in income. Then there is what would have been a lifetime income payout through the pension. The insurance is literally priceless. And to walk away also renders his college education and law degree useless as a way to earn money through consulting, as many professionals retirees do, or to write based on his experience and reputation.

To minimize what Disappeared RG (Walkaway RG) walked away from is to fatally weaken that theory. Look at what he was walking away from, from the perspective of an ordinary person, and then make an argument that RG walked away. It's easy to say he "provided" for his daughter--unless you are willing to concede that "provided" means "left her money after putting her through years of pain and suffering." It's easy to say he "only" walked away from Social Security, Medicare, his lifetime state pension, state health insurance and everything we know he acculumated--if you are willing to speculate and then count on the speculation that there was a pile of money we don't know about.

The walk away theory rests on the notion that RG didn't value what he was walking away from--that he didn't need the financial resources he had put toward retirement and that he could go the rest of his life without talking to anyone from his family or to any of his friends. So to minimize what we do know about his relationships, based on a lifetime of actions, and to minimize the consequences of walking away from his retirement resources is to admit that walkaway does not stand up to real-world scrutiny.

Show me any point in the past where RG EVER cut off contact with his daughter. Show me evidence of off-shore accounts or aliases or ANY preparations to assume a new identity, sans Social Security, pension, etc. That is, remove the coulda/woulda/mighta from the equation and answer the question of what changed in a man who spent his whole life engaged with family, friends, and public service, what changed that would make him walk away from everything that normal people value, often increasingly, as they age: family, friends, accomplishments, and the resources to support themselves in old age. Then I will believe in Walkaway RG.

 

[BigCat]

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).

Did LG have children at the time of RFG's disappearance? Was she married?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, we have years of relationship, pictures in the office, testimony of co-workers as to RG's knowledge of and pride in his daughter's activities and achievements, statements that he always wanted LG's calls put through, even after she was grown up and living on her own. LE would have phone logs and records of contact via email. There were visits. There was financial support. No one is RG's life has suggested they weren't emotionally close, as they defined that.

I have not heard anything about the level of financial support. They certainly were not estranged; they loved each other. None of that implies being "close."

The only reason to minimize this relationship is to bolster the walkaway theory, because (as with hundreds of other missing cases on this board) the biggest reason for people NOT to "walk away" leaving no trace and with no contact is their emotional ties to other people (partners, children, parents, siblings, nieces and nephews). Most humans would not want to cause permanent pain and heartache to friends and family members,

It doesn't minimize anything anything; it merely states fact. And please don't speak for "most humans." There are many that would put the financial well-being ahead of the personal relationship (anyone who had to miss the school play or a birthday party because of work understands that, on some level).

And as someone who just turned 60, and who has had parents, aunts, and uncles on Social Security, that is nothing to sneeze at, as is PA's state employee health insurance for retirees. Over a ten year period, SS alone would likely amount to a quarter million in income. Then there is what would have been a lifetime income payout through the pension. The insurance is literally priceless. And to walk away also renders his college education and law degree useless as a way to earn money through consulting, as many professionals retirees do, or to write based on his experience and reputation.

It still would not go to his daughter; the amount of the benefit from the pension was given at one point to be above $300 K.

As to his reputation and education, RFG was not planning to use either. He was giving up the practice of law, and had announced that in January 2004.

To minimize what Disappeared RG (Walkaway RG) walked away from is to fatally weaken that theory. Look at what he was walking away from, from the perspective of an ordinary person, and then make an argument that RG walked away. It's easy to say he "provided" for his daughter--unless you are willing to concede that "provided" means "left her money after putting her through years of pain and suffering."

I really hate to say this, but at some point, that will be all that parent can possibly do. RFG was not immortal; he would eventually die at some point. That pain of loss is still going to be there, even if he happily retured in 2006.

The walk away theory rests on the notion that RG didn't value what he was walking away from--that he didn't need the financial resources he had put toward retirement and that he could go the rest of his life without talking to anyone from his family or to any of his friends. So to minimize what we do know about his relationships, based on a lifetime of actions, and to minimize the consequences of walking away from his retirement resources is to admit that walkaway does not stand up to real-world scrutiny.

No, actually, as I have indicated, the motivation is speculative and has little or no value. It is to the point where I've said, if RFG walked away, I won't ask why he did it.

As for the money, as pointed out, LE is looking.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Did LG have children at the time of RFG's disappearance? Was she married?

No, and no.

She had an SO, that RFG had met, and whom she eventually married.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I think it is not a stretch to say that most humans would not choose to cause loved ones permanent, life-changing pain if it could be avoided simply by picking up a phone , leaving a forwarding address, etc. RG could relocate with all assets and maintain the relationship with his daughter as it had been going on and in due time, she would inherit his estate. If he loved his daughter, as you acknowledge, why would he walk away? We're back to that. It isn't going away.

I think in some ways it is easy to speak for "most humans," because most of us do not walk away from family, from retirement resources, from our homes and jobs. Lots of younger males don't support their children or participate in their lives--and clearly do not "love" them by any means. Or people divorce and have a second family and the first set of kids falls by the wayside. But RG was 60--who he was and how he treated people was well established by that time as predictable. observable life patterns. His connection to his daughter was not broken by divorce. They loved each other. So why would he hurt her in this way? Or hurt himself in this way? It just doesn't add up.

I don't see how people "give up" their reputation and experience. And in this economy, the ability to make money into one's seventies is a significant thing. Many attorneys and accountants have small practices well after retirement (my last 2 tax guys were both in their 70s). If RG wasn't planning to work immediately, he always had his expertise to fall back on if things changed. And the walkaway scenario leaves him with no income and no way to earn except in the underground economy (no ss#, no references, no work history).

So given all he had to walk away from, to give up, I wouldn't give walkaway a minute's thought without some motive--an uber-rich lover willing to support a guy in his 60s? evidence of a secret life (evidence, not speculation)? some indication that he was sick of the people around him and wanted out? A very smart psychologist told me once that most people have some sort of cost-benefit analysis going, even when they do stupid and irrational things, e.g.: The person on a diet eating the ice cream has traded long-range goals for short-term pleasure while another person would make the opposite choice. Even with denial and bargaining thrown in, there is some weighing of "what I get" vs "what I risk or give up." A person as old and smart as RG would have to do a lot of weighing before throwing away 60 years, his retirement security, a family, and his personal and professional identity. Even his family name. So what would he GET for giving those things up? I don't see any benefit, since he could get all of the "benefits" of walking away (if that is what they are) just by relocating (new sights, new place to live, no ties on a daily basis) or buying a Winnebago. And he'd have money to spend, medical insurance, and contact with his family when he wanted it. It would be a lot easier to start over in a new place as RG. All he had to do was retire and go wherever he wanted to go. But I am just repeating what I've said a hundred times.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think it is not a stretch to say that most humans would not choose to cause loved ones permanent, life-changing pain if it could be avoided simply by picking up a phone , leaving a forwarding address, etc. RG could relocate with all assets and maintain the relationship with his daughter as it had been going on and in due time, she would inherit his estate. If he loved his daughter, as you acknowledge, why would he walk away? We're back to that. It isn't going away.

I think a number would put a high value on being a provider.

As pointed out, if RFG walked away, not telling his daughter would make sense. She was polygraphed. If his whereabouts were discovered, and he told his daughter, she could be convicted of perjury.

Now, those things are possible, even if you don't like them.

I don't see how people "give up" their reputation and experience. And in this economy, the ability to make money into one's seventies is a significant thing. Many attorneys and accountants have small practices well after retirement (my last 2 tax guys were both in their 70s).

He was not interested in the least. He could hang out a shingle if he'd want; he did not want to. BB told him that he could teach him how to do disability cases in an afternoon. RFG declined.

Whether or not you don't see something does not mean that RFG didn't see it. Here we are relying on his own public statements. He wasn't going to run for another office, he wasn't going to join a law firm, and he wasn't going to open up his own office.

I know active attorneys into their 90's, literally, including of one in Pittsburgh. RFG did want want to be one of them. That was his choice and both your and my opinion of what he could have or should have done is completely irrelevant

If RG wasn't planning to work immediately, he always had his expertise to fall back on if things changed. And the walkaway scenario leaves him with no income and no way to earn except in the underground economy (no ss#, no references, no work history).

If this is a walkaway, money, which we have discussed, is probably available.

So given all he had to walk away from, to give up, I wouldn't give walkaway a minute's thought without some motive--an uber-rich lover willing to support a guy in his 60s?

You start out with a wrong assumption and continue down the wrong path from there. Do really think that a guy with no mortgage, alimony, car payments, direct rent, not known to extravagant, with minimal business expenses, whose daughter's mother makes more than he does, could blow through $40-$60 K a year? In Bellefonte? Really?

I really should talking about RFG and money; we can if you'd like. I will note that there was a demonstrable interest on the part of RFG of doubling his initial salary.

 

[cj327]

I think it is not a stretch to say that most humans would not choose to cause loved ones permanent, life-changing pain if it could be avoided simply by picking up a phone , leaving a forwarding address, etc. RG could relocate with all assets and maintain the relationship with his daughter as it had been going on and in due time, she would inherit his estate. If he loved his daughter, as you acknowledge, why would he walk away? We're back to that. It isn't going away.

I think in some ways it is easy to speak for "most humans," because most of us do not walk away from family, from retirement resources, from our homes and jobs. Lots of younger males don't support their children or participate in their lives--and clearly do not "love" them by any means. Or people divorce and have a second family and the first set of kids falls by the wayside. But RG was 60--who he was and how he treated people was well established by that time as predictable. observable life patterns. His connection to his daughter was not broken by divorce. They loved each other. So why would he hurt her in this way? Or hurt himself in this way? It just doesn't add up.

I don't see how people "give up" their reputation and experience. And in this economy, the ability to make money into one's seventies is a significant thing. Many attorneys and accountants have small practices well after retirement (my last 2 tax guys were both in their 70s). If RG wasn't planning to work immediately, he always had his expertise to fall back on if things changed. And the walkaway scenario leaves him with no income and no way to earn except in the underground economy (no ss#, no references, no work history).

So given all he had to walk away from, to give up, I wouldn't give walkaway a minute's thought without some motive--an uber-rich lover willing to support a guy in his 60s? evidence of a secret life (evidence, not speculation)? some indication that he was sick of the people around him and wanted out? A very smart psychologist told me once that most people have some sort of cost-benefit analysis going, even when they do stupid and irrational things, e.g.: The person on a diet eating the ice cream has traded long-range goals for short-term pleasure while another person would make the opposite choice. Even with denial and bargaining thrown in, there is some weighing of "what I get" vs "what I risk or give up." A person as old and smart as RG would have to do a lot of weighing before throwing away 60 years, his retirement security, a family, and his personal and professional identity. Even his family name. So what would he GET for giving those things up? I don't see any benefit, since he could get all of the "benefits" of walking away (if that is what they are) just by relocating (new sights, new place to live, no ties on a daily basis) or buying a Winnebago. And he'd have money to spend, medical insurance, and contact with his family when he wanted it. It would be a lot easier to start over in a new place as RG. All he had to do was retire and go wherever he wanted to go. But I am just repeating what I've said a hundred times.

Yes but you make your point in a slightly different way each time. And I am starting to agree. This particular post says it pretty well.

I also learned about that cost-benefit stuff in the only psychology course I ever took. I think about that concept often, in normal day-to-day activity.

In addition to what you said, the things that work against walkaway for me are:
1. Timing. Other than the date coincides with that book, why choose to do this only months before a planned retirement? As noted above, why not just leave his girlfriend if that is what he wants to do.
2. The well-discussed leaving of his daughter. I'll say no more.
3. His apparent stress level prior to leaving. Wouldn't walking away be exciting and thrilling? To see if you could pull it off? Outsmart the system? To start a new life? A normal person would have to be giddy with excitement over that prospect.
4. What are the odds? I still haven't looked for stats, but the percent of disappearances that can be explained by walkaway has to be far, far less than those explained by foul play. Usually walkaway seems (to me anyway) an explanation concocted by those who don't want to face the reality that a loved one is probably dead.

I have only been following this for a month or two, so I am allowed to change my mind. Right now I am leaning more toward foul play.

 

[cj327]

I agree that a lot of money is theoretically unaccounted for. IF he was squirreling it away, then he could have easily retired in another country and never had to work again. Or that money could have been going elsewhere. If it was going elsewhere, then he would have needed the pension for sure, as he was not planning on working again apparently.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In addition to what you said, the things that work against walkaway for me are:
1. Timing. Other than the date coincides with that book, why choose to do this only months before a planned retirement? As noted above, why not just leave his girlfriend if that is what he wants to do.

Well, I think there is a monetary reason there. If he left after 1/1/06 what his daughter would collect would be substantially less.

2. The well-discussed leaving of his daughter. I'll say no more.

Well, I assume that if he walked away, RFG did not tell LG. I know people that do not make that assumption. Assuming, however, that at least part of the motive was to see that she would get greater death benefits, it would make sense. Remember that she was polygraphed.

3. His apparent stress level prior to leaving. Wouldn't walking away be exciting and thrilling? To see if you could pull it off? Outsmart the system? To start a new life? A normal person would have to be giddy with excitement over that prospect.

Or worried about carrying it out. I could very easily see him stressing out over the preparations (like me before a trip).

4. What are the odds? I still haven't looked for stats, but the percent of disappearances that can be explained by walkaway has to be far, far less than those explained by foul play. Usually walkaway seems (to me anyway) an explanation concocted by those who don't want to face the reality that a loved one is probably dead.

According to the following link, in 2010, the number one cause of adult disappearances was "other," but that excludes involuntary removal and being "endangered": http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nc...n-and-unidentified-person-statistics-for-2010

About 5/6 of the people that disappeared in 2010 were under 18. I think looking at the macro odds, voluntary departure is probably the most likely reason someone goes missing.

I have only been following this for a month or two, so I am allowed to change my mind. Right now I am leaning more toward foul play.

Last odds I did, I gave foul play 43% and walkaway 52%. The only think I don't think it was is suicide (4%).

 

[Sharyne]

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.

Can you explain to me why LG asked to have him declared dead before 7 years? Or is it that the law in PA is less years?
TIA

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Can you explain to me why LG asked to have him declared dead before 7 years? Or is it that the law in PA is less years?
TIA

The statute does permit that, once the trustee is appointed, a party with interest may petition, even if it is less than seven years. That said, there is a general provision in statute that states that the court may presume death based on seven years absence and out of contact. The statute is here: http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/decedents-estates-and-fiduciaries/00.057.001.000.html

The standard for a presumption of death, once a trustee is appointed, is basically, "We have not seen him, he hasn't contacted us, we don't where he is, and we've looked for him ("after diligent inquiry")."

I actually did a blog on it in 2010 and had to repost it in February 2011: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/18/2529829/gricar-is-alive-legally.html



The attorney said it was to provide closure. LG signed the petition on 6/17/11 and it would have taken a few days or weeks to write up the paperwork. Why LG decided she needed closure then, after 6 years and 1-2 months, is anyone guess. TG called it an "administrative declaration."

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-07-2...0110726_1_hard-drive-law-enforcement-petition

There was a lot of speculation, though, as I've indicated, I don't think RFG has been in contact with LG or PEF, and there was a "diligent inquiry," and I'm actually listed as part of it.

That was a quite involved answer to a short question.

 

[Sharyne]

The statute does permit that, once the trustee is appointed, a party with interest may petition, even if it is less than seven years. That said, there is a general provision in statute that states that the court may presume death based on seven years absence and out of contact. The statute is here: http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/decedents-estates-and-fiduciaries/00.057.001.000.html

The standard for a presumption of death, once a trustee is appointed, is basically, "We have not seen him, he hasn't contacted us, we don't where he is, and we've looked for him ("after diligent inquiry")."

I actually did a blog on it in 2010 and had to repost it in February 2011: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/18/2529829/gricar-is-alive-legally.html



The attorney said it was to provide closure. LG signed the petition on 6/17/11 and it would have taken a few days or weeks to write up the paperwork. Why LG decided she needed closure then, after 6 years and 1-2 months, is anyone guess. TG called it an "administrative declaration."

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-07-2...0110726_1_hard-drive-law-enforcement-petition

There was a lot of speculation, though, as I've indicated, I don't think RFG has been in contact with LG or PEF, and there was a "diligent inquiry," and I'm actually listed as part of it.

That was a quite involved answer to a short question.

Thank you so much for your reply. To me, it is obvious it wouldn't be as easily understood if it weren't an "involved" answer. So, if I understand correctly, she had to continue making some sort of administrative payments for him? Yet, she hasn't received any life insurance or other money?

And your part was that you were involved in researching the possibilities of how and why he disappeared?

Again, thanks for such a detailed explanation.

After reading various theories, I, too, go back and forth as to voluntarily walking away and foul play. At this time, I'm leaning more towards foul play, as that would answer more questions for me.

 

[BigCat]

Yes but you make your point in a slightly different way each time. And I am starting to agree. This particular post says it pretty well.

I also learned about that cost-benefit stuff in the only psychology course I ever took. I think about that concept often, in normal day-to-day activity.

In addition to what you said, the things that work against walkaway for me are:
1. Timing. Other than the date coincides with that book, why choose to do this only months before a planned retirement? As noted above, why not just leave his girlfriend if that is what he wants to do.
2. The well-discussed leaving of his daughter. I'll say no more.
3. His apparent stress level prior to leaving. Wouldn't walking away be exciting and thrilling? To see if you could pull it off? Outsmart the system? To start a new life? A normal person would have to be giddy with excitement over that prospect.
4. What are the odds? I still haven't looked for stats, but the percent of disappearances that can be explained by walkaway has to be far, far less than those explained by foul play. Usually walkaway seems (to me anyway) an explanation concocted by those who don't want to face the reality that a loved one is probably dead.

I have only been following this for a month or two, so I am allowed to change my mind. Right now I am leaning more toward foul play.

What are the odds of someone making a DA disappear without a trace? I have yet to see a theory as to who would do it, why they would do it, and how they would do it which is more plausible than a walkway. JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thank you so much for your reply. To me, it is obvious it wouldn't be as easily understood if it weren't an "involved" answer. So, if I understand correctly, she had to continue making some sort of administrative payments for him? Yet, she hasn't received any life insurance or other money?

She would have to things like pay any life insurance premiums and taxes on any interest.

And your part was that you were involved in researching the possibilities of how and why he disappeared?

My blog was actually listed as part of the media coverage. It was the idea that there was a lot of media coverage of the case.

After reading various theories, I, too, go back and forth as to voluntarily walking away and foul play. At this time, I'm leaning more towards foul play, as that would answer more questions for me.

There is not exactly a big gap between the two.