PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9

[J. J. in Phila]

I just want to add that I find it shocking that Betsy's case is 40 (yes FORTY) years old and STILL the case remains undisclosed to the public because it is still "under investigation". How lame is that? What they hey do they have to lose at this point? Why not disclose everything? They haven't moved a piece forward in 40 years and the public still has no right to see whatever scanty piece of information they have? Something's wrong. I don't know what it is but it really smells bad.

Basically everyone that was a suspect is now dead and LE usually doesn't name a dead person.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There are some problems with a murderer using 20/20 Vision as some kind of a signal.

1. In 2005, the book was just under 15 years old, had only one printing, and was not a best seller. Pam West never wrote another novel after that and an earlier novel was a better seller. The presumed killer would have to know that the book existed.

2. The book is a fictional, and has a fictional setting. Unless you knew it was based on Aardsma, it isn't clear that it's even at Penn State. Even the mountain in the book is not called Nittany and there is no reference to Pennsylvania. A killer would have had to known it was based on Aardsma. I was living in the area at the time, but I didn't know of it, in spite of being a sci-fi fan.

3. A killer would have had to have known that RFG read the book in 1990. Most of the people that he was close to in 2005 were not around in 1990. The people that could have known he had read it were RFG, his then wife, his daughter, the PSP Trooper that lent it to him (and then the one he told), and maybe the people on staff. Only MS and JKA were still on staff in 2005. I frankly don't think any of them would have killed him, or could have set him up to be in Lewisburg on 4/15.

LG said she never head of it.

20/20 Vision is either:

1. RFG sending a signal that he left voluntarily, faking his own death, hoping that someone who knew he had read it would realize the connection.

2. A coincidence.

 

[Pink Panther]

I wasn't suggesting that a murderer was using 20/20 Vision as a signal. I was suggesting that Ray might have tried to send a message to someone he thought would understand.

For example, I have read that the author of 20/20 had originally intended to write the book as non-fiction and that Ray had suggested to her that it might be best to write it as a fiction due to the fact that the perpetrator it indicated was of high standing. Perhaps, he tried simply to convey something of this sort?

Not knowing what he discussed with Pam West or what her original manuscript entailed, it's difficult to know exactly what clue he might have been trying to leave. Nonetheless, it might be worthy of investigation by those who might know.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I wasn't suggesting that a murderer was using 20/20 Vision as a signal. I was suggesting that Ray might have tried to send a message to someone he thought would understand.

For example, I have read that the author of 20/20 had originally intended to write the book as non-fiction and that Ray had suggested to her that it might be best to write it as a fiction due to the fact that the perpetrator it indicated was of high standing. Perhaps, he tried simply to convey something of this sort?

Not knowing what he discussed with Pam West or what her original manuscript entailed, it's difficult to know exactly what clue he might have been trying to leave. Nonetheless, it might be worthy of investigation by those who might know.

I've talked with Ms. West. RFG never saw a manuscript and provided her little information. Further, the "signal" would have been the day and the location; the area where I think the call was made would correspond to a passage in the book. The plot of the book involves a faked death.

No, RFG wanted West to write a non-fiction book. She didn't, because of possible litigation.

If this was a signal, it was, one that said, **I'm not really dead.** And, it really could only have been aimed at about a half dozen people.

Still, it could be coincidence.

 

[cj327]

This is an excelent read for anyone not familiar with Ray Gricar!

Sorry if it was already posted but i found it very interesting!


The Baffling Case of DA Ray Gricar

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=2641


JMO I think he took off!

From the article:
"When Stacey Parks Miller became D.A. in 2010, she commented on learning how much the public didn’t know about Gricar’s case. They’ve only been give a tip of the iceberg, and homicide seems the least likely scenario.”

Reading this again made me think that maybe one of us should run for D.A. next time....the only way to make some real progress on this case!
Sadly, I would not be qualified though.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From the article:
"When Stacey Parks Miller became D.A. in 2010, she commented on learning how much the public didn’t know about Gricar’s case. They’ve only been give a tip of the iceberg, and homicide seems the least likely scenario.”

Reading this again made me think that maybe one of us should run for D.A. next time....the only way to make some real progress on this case!
Sadly, I would not be qualified though.

That statement is a bit misleading. She said that, in regard to what was done in terms of the investigation. The police have done a lot, though they are holding a lot back.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is the original story on 20/20 Vision: http://dailyitem.com/archive/x691283790

I was familiar with the situation slightly before the story was written.

 

[cj327]

This has probably been discussed before (I have a bad memory) but..

We know:

Investigators did a lot of work, particularly in the first few years.

They are still holding a lot back from the public.

Does there also seem to be a lack of work (or little work) done on the RG disappearance investigation in recent years?

What I am wondering is this: is there an example of someone who spoke about wanting to bolster the investigation (maybe a candidate for D.A. or another office), but once they were privy to the unreleased details of the case, the person seemed not to follow through? If so, that would indicate that there is unreleased information indicating some reason for not stepping up the investigation. I am not one for conspiracy theories, so that might suggest to me that there is evidence strongly suggesting voluntary departure (i.e. no crime committed so why devote limited resources to investigating?)

What other reasons could they have for not pushing the investigation (absent any far-fetched conspiracy theory)?

 

[Gozgals]

This has probably been discussed before (I have a bad memory) but..

We know:

Investigators did a lot of work, particularly in the first few years.

They are still holding a lot back from the public.

Does there also seem to be a lack of work (or little work) done on the RG disappearance investigation in recent years?

What I am wondering is this: is there an example of someone who spoke about wanting to bolster the investigation (maybe a candidate for D.A. or another office), but once they were privy to the unreleased details of the case, the person seemed not to follow through? If so, that would indicate that there is unreleased information indicating some reason for not stepping up the investigation. I am not one for conspiracy theories, so that might suggest to me that there is evidence strongly suggesting voluntary departure (i.e. no crime committed so why devote limited resources to investigating?)

What other reasons could they have for not pushing the investigation (absent any far-fetched conspiracy theory)?

I have been following for years on another forum.
I just think at this point in time it has to do with the length of time Ray
has been missing. People lose interest as they do in other missing
persons cases. Apathy sets in when there is not any new information/information given to the public.

I feel Ray's case should be kept out in the public light, always.

thanks for your interest
Goz

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Up to the Sandusky period, there was a great deal of work being done. I've been wondering if some of the withheld information might be due to the Sandusky case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I have been following for years on another forum.
I just think at this point in time it has to do with the length of time Ray
has been missing. People lose interest as they do in other missing
persons cases. Apathy sets in when there is not any new information/information given to the public.

I feel Ray's case should be kept out in the public light, always.

thanks for your interest
Goz

Part of the problem is "legacy protection." People don't want to answer the question "What happened to Ray Gricar," if the answer might make him look bad.

For example, RFG was referred to as a "ladies' man" in an article last spring; he had been involved with several in the 5 years prior to his disappearance. There is the possibility that RFG was with a woman in Lewisburg on 4/15/05; he was seen with a woman in Lewisburg by several witnesses.

His FBI file list a woman, that we've never heard of before, that was listed as a "close personal associate," in the 1980's. Her description started on commenting on his physical appearance, which caused me to raise an eyebrow. She also noted that he was "trustworthy, reliable and discreet."

Some people don't want to look at even that possibility that he was in Lewisburg to meet a woman, because they don't like the idea that he could have been seeing another woman.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What I am wondering is this: is there an example of someone who spoke about wanting to bolster the investigation (maybe a candidate for D.A. or another office), but once they were privy to the unreleased details of the case, the person seemed not to follow through? If so, that would indicate that there is unreleased information indicating some reason for not stepping up the investigation. I am not one for conspiracy theories, so that might suggest to me that there is evidence strongly suggesting voluntary departure (i.e. no crime committed so why devote limited resources to investigating?)

What other reasons could they have for not pushing the investigation (absent any far-fetched conspiracy theory)?

Michael T Madeira, the former DA, much criticized by me for not doing more, who lost in 2009, said in the summer of 2011 that he thought RFG probably walked away. At the time, he did not know about the 1998 incident. Upon being sworn in, on 12/31/05, he said, "I just want to make sure we've done everything that we can."

On 1/10/06, he said: "From my overview of what I've seen from them today, they have done a great job looking into all information that has come in and exhausting every lead. I will say I was impressed by the level of the work that was done. They have left no stone unturned."

 

[quixote]

Part of the problem is "legacy protection." People don't want to answer the question "What happened to Ray Gricar," if the answer might make him look bad.

That can go both ways. In light of the Sandusky case, there are probably more people than previously who wonder if he "dropped the ball," failed to take a monster off the streets, or may have been unethical and disappeared for the right price. If he did walk away, and never sets the record straight, the good things that he accomplished get muddied by the uncertainty around this bombshell case. He is not unlike Joe Paterno in that way.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That can go both ways. In light of the Sandusky case, there are probably more people than previously who wonder if he "dropped the ball," failed to take a monster off the streets, or may have been unethical and disappeared for the right price. If he did walk away, and never sets the record straight, the good things that he accomplished get muddied by the uncertainty around this bombshell case. He is not unlike Joe Paterno in that way.

That happened 11/04/11. I had email from people that knew RFG, at least slightly, asking if he was bribed, within 48 hours of the story breaking. Even before that, you had few people claiming corruption, though they were like the "Ray-is-gay-'cause-he-drove-a-Mini" crowd.

So far as I know, there is no evidence of bribery. Ethics don't really come into play, because he wasn't planning to continue practicing law.

From what I've seen, and heard, most people in Centre County, especially LE, think he walked away, and thought that prior to Sandusky. If there is evidence of it, of how he got out of Lewisburg, fine. If there isn't, there is a very good chance he was murdered, but you can't get to "He was murdered," until you can get past "He didn't walk away."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not directly related, but a State Representative (Mike Fleck, R) came out yesterday. He is from a district just south of Centre County (and, ironically, includes Lake Raystown). http://www.publicopiniononline.com/...te-rep-mike-fleck-says-hes?source=most_viewed

I'm posting this because this is an area much more conservative than Centre County, and in response to the "Ray-is-gay-'cause-he-drives-a-Mini" crowd. In Centre County, it would have made much less of a difference; it has a large college age population that is fairly liberal on the issue (and was when I was there, 30 years ago). I don't buy the theory that RFG, not facing re-election, would have feared being outed if he was was gay. I do not believe he was gay, but I don't think it would make a difference.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just as a follow-up to the Fleck story, the CDT which covers neighboring Centre County, does not even have the story on its website.

Unlike RFG, Fleck is a socially conservative Republican, who has a degree from Liberty University (the school associated with Jerry Falwell). RFG was not known for supporting conservative causes, and actually would not argue for inflicting the death penalty. Even the comments in the Harrisburg Patriot-News are fairly positive.

 

[Pink Panther]

I've talked with Ms. West. RFG never saw a manuscript and provided her little information. Further, the "signal" would have been the day and the location; the area where I think the call was made would correspond to a passage in the book. The plot of the book involves a faked death.

No, RFG wanted West to write a non-fiction book. She didn't, because of possible litigation.

If this was a signal, it was, one that said, **I'm not really dead.** And, it really could only have been aimed at about a half dozen people.

Still, it could be coincidence.

So, he wanted her to write the book as non-fiction and she didn't because of possible litigation. If that is the case, could his message have been aligned with that? ..." I've been murdered by someone who is in a position of great authority/power"?

Why always to the "walk-away"? Is it impossible to think that he might have known that he was in danger and tried to leave information regarding who/what that danger was?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So, he wanted her to write the book as non-fiction and she didn't because of possible litigation. If that is the case, could his message have been aligned with that? ..." I've been murdered by someone who is in a position of great authority/power"?

I don't think that follows. West was worried about identifying a killer who wasn't a killer, and he would sue her.

Why always to the "walk-away"? Is it impossible to think that he might have known that he was in danger and tried to leave information regarding who/what that danger was?

This particular clue is walkaway, or it is coincidence, and not a clue. I absolutely would not rule out coincidence.

If he wanted to leave a clue, how about a note, or telling a friend or colleague; he could have even sent himself an e-mail. He had ample opportunity to leave a clear message.

 

[Pink Panther]

If you and your family have been threatened to the point that you think the person/people threatening you might be about to kill you, would you send yourself an email to say what was going on? Really? I'm about to be killed and family is being threatened....I'll just pop off an email to say what I know? So what if my child, girlfriend or ex-wives are also offed as a result? By that time I'll be dead anyway?

Sorry. This makes NO sense at all.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If you and your family have been threatened to the point that you think the person/people threatening you might be about to kill you, would you send yourself an email to say what was going on?

If I or my family and friends had been threatened, I would never drive down a remote county road without cell service. Certainly not unarmed. RFG did.

I would never drive 40 miles from home without leaving a clear message, or telling someone to at least look at, if something happened.

Really? I'm about to be killed and family is being threatened....I'll just pop off an email to say what I know? So what if my child, girlfriend or ex-wives are also offed as a result? By that time I'll be dead anyway?

Sorry. This makes NO sense at all.

I agree that the idea of RFG knowingly driving off to his own murder makes absolutely NO sense at all.

Let's face it, RFG certainly had trusted and loyal friends, relatives, and colleagues to whom he could have turned if the thought he was in danger. He knew the DA in Lewisburg, whose office was less than 0.35 miles away from where the car was parked.

He easily could sent an e-mail to his own account at the office about the purpose of the trip. He easily could written a note and left it at home, or at the office. He could have left his phone on so it could be traced to Lewisburg. He easily could have told one, or more, of about ten people, SS, MS, if he could have been reached, PEF, JKA, Lara, any of his two adult nephews, any one of three other ADA's, his first ex-wife, EW, or Pete Johnson, the DA in Lewisburg. Or, he could have called the police, either the BPD or the PSP.

No, according to your theory, he uses a book, that only about 4-5 people knew he read, and which has a major plot point of someone faking his own death.

This was either a coincidence, or it points to walkaway.