PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #11

[Saunterer]

I wonder what the public really knows, or cares about in regard to Ray Gricar's disappearance. Oh, I know what has been posted here and elsewhere about this and that. But, for example, how many people do you suppose actually listened to Wednesday's WKOK hour-long interview with Bob Buehner, let alone at least a half dozen other such interviews over the years?

For those reading here who actually took the time to listen, I say thank you! Bob Buehner knows far more than any of us ever will about Ray Gricar. Bob Buehner has done far more than any of us here in seeking a resolution. And, in the absense of a family member speaking out, Bob Buehner is as close to the truth as any of us will ever come.

I will choose Bob Buehner over any poster here (myself included) when it comes to driving toward a solution. He is simply remarkable, and I hope a friend. I categorically reject any post that calls Bob Buehner's assertions into question. Period!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think anyone refusing to question these statements, especially by someone not involved in the case, does a disservice to RFG.

BB insisted that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Sandusky on Victim 6. The AG and Judge Cleland disagreed, as did a jury.

There are some other examples, including from the interview.

That does not mean he's a bad guy, just that he does get it wrong at times. I think a number of us have some problems with some of what he says. I think it is with good reason. Some of it might be from being unable to bounce theories off other people before speaking.

I certainly think his heart is in the right place, but I also think some of what he says is counterproductive. I'm afraid this is one of those times.

 

[Saunterer]

I think anyone refusing to question these statements, especially by someone not involved in the case, does a disservice to RFG.

BB insisted that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Sandusky on Victim 6. The AG and Judge Cleland disagreed, as did a jury.

There are some other examples, including from the interview.

That does not mean he's a bad guy, just that he does get it wrong at times. I think a number of us have some problems with some of what he says. I think it is with good reason. Some of it might be from being unable to bounce theories off other people before speaking.

I certainly think his heart is in the right place, but I also think some of what he says is counterproductive. I'm afraid this is one of those times.

Duly noted...and (respectfully, with cause aforementioned) rejected.

Just so others can appreciate your position then...posters who have never even met Ray Gricar (like you and me) should automatically reject the assertions of someone who not only knew Ray Gricar well, but who has been publicly proactive (as well as informed) in this case since the beginning (also unlike you and me).

That is what you are saying, isn't it (of course with the obligatory "his heart is in the right place", oh)?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, by using that standard, Ray Gricar walked away because his closest friend said so. Oh, and when he first disappeared, his girlfriend said to phone home. Now, that certainly might add some weight to the premise that RFG did walk away, or those close (and closer than BB) think it is possible, but that isn't direct evidence that he did.

We can say the same thing about Weaver and the erasure of the laptop drive. He expressed an opinion that RFG erased the drive. He might be absolutely right, and his conclusion is logical, but that isn't proof.

I can state that BB's information has sometimes been inaccurate, and sometimes accurate.

 

[SuperSmith]

Well, by using that standard, Ray Gricar walked away because his closest friend said so. Oh, and when he first disappeared, his girlfriend said to phone home. Now, that certainly might add some weight to the premise that RFG did walk away, or those close (and closer than BB) think it is possible, but that isn't direct evidence that he did.

We can say the same thing about Weaver and the erasure of the laptop drive. He expressed an opinion that RFG erased the drive. He might be absolutely right, and his conclusion is logical, but that isn't proof.

I can state that BB's information has sometimes been inaccurate, and sometimes accurate.

Any of us can state this or that but at the end of the day it comes to who is more credible. Mr. Buehner is simply more credible than any of us and that now includes Sloane who quit frankly should be in jail.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sloane was a lot closer to RFG than Buehner was. BB noted the closeness, even in the interview. RFG and BB never worked together, and do not appear to have traveled together. They would see each other at conferences, but they did not have that degree of proximity that RFG and Sloane had.

Buehner also noted that the investigative panel has not talked to him. Ironically, MTM might have been closer to RFG (not that MTM did a good job in looking for him).

 

[SuperSmith]

Sloane was a lot closer to RFG than Buehner was. BB noted the closeness, even in the interview. RFG and BB never worked together, and do not appear to have traveled together. They would see each other at conferences, but they did not have that degree of proximity that RFG and Sloane had.

Buehner also noted that the investigative panel has not talked to him. Ironically, MTM might have been closer to RFG (not that MTM did a good job in looking for him).

Sloane is a convicted criminal and has done next to nothing to find his "close" friend. His credibility is in the toilet.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't agree, since all those comments easily predate the criminal activities.

Further, BB is getting all this information from people that are convicted felons that are in jail.

 

[SuperSmith]

I don't agree, since all those comments easily predate the criminal activities.

Further, BB is getting all this information from people that are convicted felons that are in jail.

Good point but that doesn't make Sloane more credible. Don't forget Sloane missed a lot of time due to medical issues. I think that put a strain on there friendship. At Least BB is keeping the case in the public view and seems to care. Sloane has done nothing but make odd ball comments and get in trouble with the law. Just because BB is getting info from an inmate doesn't mean it's not credible. FBI obviously does it a lot and they felt this particular inmate was credible enough to take him to the location. The pen pal did already help the AG. That's public record.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First, I have no problem with trying to keep the case in the public eye. I frankly have no problem keeping a foul play scenario in the public eye (and at 44%, it should be). My problem is coming up with fairly far fetched foul play theories that have a lot of problems (that I think you acknowledge) and trying to push them publicly. The public sees them, and when they become incredible, they assume all foul play scenarios are incredible.

The pen pal may, in fact, be accurately reporting what he heard, but he heard that from a convicted felon, who may not have been telling the truth.

The FBI checked it out, and ruled it out; the thing is, we would not have heard about it had the informant contacted the newspaper. Why didn't we hear about it before; because they checked and ruled it out.

I'm not sure bout what "odd ball" comments you think Sloane has made. The only thing was what the profiler asked him, and in context, Sloane thought it was odd. The "gay question" has come up, and Sloane has been firm in saying RFG wasn't gay.

Even with the story, there are problems. Why would the Hell's Angles kill someone on the behest of an ex-Hell's Angle who was known to be an informant? Why would RFG be meeting him 50 miles from home, and using a secret e-mail account, to communicate with him? Why wouldn't RFG, meeting someone with a history of violence, tell someone on staff where he was going or at least leave hard copy notes on what the meeting was about? Why would A K be very angry at RFG, who didn't prosecute the case, and who didn't succeed in giving him a stiffer sentence?

There are a lot of problems with this, far too many.

 

[SuperSmith]

First, I have no problem with trying to keep the case in the public eye. I frankly have no problem keeping a foul play scenario in the public eye (and at 44%, it should be). My problem is coming up with fairly far fetched foul play theories that have a lot of problems (that I think you acknowledge) and trying to push them publicly. The public sees them, and when they become incredible, they assume all foul play scenarios are incredible.

The pen pal may, in fact, be accurately reporting what he heard, but he heard that from a convicted felon, who may not have been telling the truth.

The FBI checked it out, and ruled it out; the thing is, we would not have heard about it had the informant contacted the newspaper. Why didn't we hear about it before; because they checked and ruled it out.

I'm not sure bout what "odd ball" comments you think Sloane has made. The only thing was what the profiler asked him, and in context, Sloane thought it was odd. The "gay question" has come up, and Sloane has been firm in saying RFG wasn't gay.

Even with the story, there are problems. Why would the Hell's Angles kill someone on the behest of an ex-Hell's Angle who was known to be an informant? Why would RFG be meeting him 50 miles from home, and using a secret e-mail account, to communicate with him? Why wouldn't RFG, meeting someone with a history of violence, tell someone on staff where he was going or at least leave hard copy notes on what the meeting was about? Why would A K be very angry at RFG, who didn't prosecute the case, and who didn't succeed in giving him a stiffer sentence?

There are a lot of problems with this, far too many.

At no point has it been said that the FBI ruled it out. Rickard indicated its going and more interviews needed to be done. Weaver's take could very well be to keep the media at bay. If you're a 6 man police department would you want the media calling every 5 minutes??? BB added credibility to the story through his take through his pen pal for which I said earlier had helped the AG close a case with a conviction. This pen pal has never asked for anything in return. This is an ongoing case that is not dead by a long shot. The HA wants immunity so for now it's a standoff. All cases have problems JJ and are rarely black/white or clear cut.

 

[SeekingJana]

As off- kilter as I find this continuing discussion of the HA threatening RG or emailing with him or about him, it did remind me of something which happened to me. I guess I blocked it out of memory since nothing bad happened to me.

A few years ago, about the time RG went missing, I was planning on flying to Rome and Greece alone for a long vacation. The plans and reservations were all made, and I DID receive a threat via email. It was probably related to that abomination called Facebook, back when I was a naïve member and before I closed my account forever.

OK, so to my Yahoo email comes a threat that my plane would be blown up in- flight. I do not know who sent the email, but the purpose was obviously to scare and deter me. Perhaps one of my old HS chums had grown into a bomb- making anarchist, IDK. Maybe one of several ex- husbands held a grudge, IDK. Maybe it was a credible threat, IDK.

So, I did just what I said in the previous post regarding RG passing emails with Hell's Angels, I called the FBI. I did not reply to the email. I called the FBI and a field agent came to my house with 2 other agents and they examined the email headers, took screen captures, etc.
They were going to take my passport and not let me fly as it was deemed a credible security risk from an unknown individual or group, but I cried and basically said they owed me security or reimbursement for everything I had paid.

They chose to provide me with security. I flew on different flights than booked and under an alias provided by the FBI, and an air marshal made contact with me after boarding all my flights. I was bumped to first class from coach and the air marshals were armed and in the rear of the plane.

The FBI gave me an alias to fly under and to use in Europe. IF I had wanted to leave the USA permanently, I probably could have stayed in Greece and gotten a fake passport as NOTHIHG in any of my travel plans reflected my true legal name. The FBI does not have international jurisdiction so I could have " gone rogue" but I never thought about doing so. I was sightseeing, not leaving MY luxurious life behind for anything.

Point being, the FBI does take email threats seriously, and I know from experience that they do protect us, even when it's a hassle to do so.

In hindsight, I know that I am very lucky my computer wasn't confiscated, my very expensive trip wasn't cancelled, and I wasn't branded as a possible terrorist myself. I never found out who threatened me or why. The FBI does NOT share its info with the potential target unless there is a continuing need to know.

I cannot prove, but swear to you on my good name, that every word of this is true and accurate and did happen the way I have described it.

 

[SuperSmith]

As off- kilter as I find this continuing discussion of the HA threatening RG or emailing with him or about him, it did remind me of something which happened to me. I guess I blocked it out of memory since nothing bad happened to me.

A few years ago, about the time RG went missing, I was planning on flying to Rome and Greece alone for a long vacation. The plans and reservations were all made, and I DID receive a threat via email. It was probably related to that abomination called Facebook, back when I was a naïve member and before I closed my account forever.

OK, so to my Yahoo email comes a threat that my plane would be blown up in- flight. I do not know who sent the email, but the purpose was obviously to scare and deter me. Perhaps one of my old HS chums had grown into a bomb- making anarchist, IDK. Maybe one of several ex- husbands held a grudge, IDK. Maybe it was a credible threat, IDK.

So, I did just what I said in the previous post regarding RG passing emails with Hell's Angels, I called the FBI. I did not reply to the email. I called the FBI and a field agent came to my house with 2 other agents and they examined the email headers, took screen captures, etc.
They were going to take my passport and not let me fly as it was deemed a credible security risk from an unknown individual or group, but I cried and basically said they owed me security or reimbursement for everything I had paid.

They chose to provide me with security. I flew on different flights than booked and under an alias provided by the FBI, and an air marshal made contact with me after boarding all my flights. I was bumped to first class from coach and the air marshals were armed and in the rear of the plane.

The FBI gave me an alias to fly under and to use in Europe. IF I had wanted to leave the USA permanently, I probably could have stayed in Greece and gotten a fake passport as NOTHIHG in any of my travel plans reflected my true legal name. The FBI does not have international jurisdiction so I could have " gone rogue" but I never thought about doing so. I was sightseeing, not leaving MY luxurious life behind for anything.

Point being, the FBI does take email threats seriously, and I know from experience that they do protect us, even when it's a hassle to do so.

In hindsight, I know that I am very lucky my computer wasn't confiscated, my very expensive trip wasn't cancelled, and I wasn't branded as a possible terrorist myself. I never found out who threatened me or why. The FBI does NOT share its info with the potential target unless there is a continuing need to know.

I cannot prove, but swear to you on my good name, that every word of this is true and accurate and did happen the way I have described it.

So you dismiss Rickards and Buehners accounts? I'm sorry but I can't do that...yet.

 

[SuperSmith]

It was pure speculation by BB regarding the possible email between RG & HA and he said that. The rest of his interview was not.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First, I don't dismiss Rickard's account, largely because he didn't give one. He said it was under investigation, and let his chief address it.

Second, let's look at Buehner's speculation. He is speculating that his source was accurate (I might agree) and that the information given to his source was accurate (I don't agree). Some of what he said is highly inaccurate, and several of us caught that.

I agree with Jana, to an extent. We should talk about it if it hasn't been discredited, but by this point, it has been.

 

[SuperSmith]

First, I don't dismiss Rickard's account, largely because he didn't give one. He said it was under investigation, and let his chief address it.

Second, let's look at Buehner's speculation. He is speculating that his source was accurate (I might agree) and that the information given to his source was accurate (I don't agree). Some of what he said is highly inaccurate, and several of us caught that.

I agree with Jana, to an extent. We should talk about it if it hasn't been discredited, but by this point, it has been.

Rickard also said there were more interviews to be conducted, it was ongoing, and FBI hasn't followed up yet.

Look if this information offends anyone I'm sorry but it does directly connect to the Gricar case. <modsnip>

 

[SeekingJana]

Never mind.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think, in terms of public perception, it convinces more people that RFG was not murdered. That does offend me a bit.

Talking about a scenario that the police have ruled and trying to translate Rickard's obviously non-committal answer somehow morphs into a different "account," isn't offensive, but doesn't make any sense. Rickard let his superior release it to the press, which is appropriate.

 

[SuperSmith]

:truce:

I think, in terms of public perception, it convinces more people that RFG was not murdered. That does offend me a bit.

Talking about a scenario that the police have ruled and trying to translate Rickard's obviously non-committal answer somehow morphs into a different "account," isn't offensive, but doesn't make any sense. Rickard let his superior release it to the press, which is appropriate.

So if this claim has been fully investigated and is a dead issue then I wonder what this untruthful inmate has to gain by going to The Altoona Mirror? I suspect more will be coming out soon and I for one can't wait!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, the inmate gains publicity, maybe public acknowledgement that he helped the police. Those would be factors.

There have been a number of these.