PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #12

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks for the link to the blog. It gave me a good laugh for the day. I did find it highly hypocritical that the writer frowned upon NG as being biased to the Walkaway theory. That is laughable being that the same writer spends most of their time for this case promoting that very theory.

An attempt I suppose to make unbiased stance. For those that read here or anywhere else I trust they will not fall for it.

Well, the writer doesn't promote walkaway. BTW, most of the people at the time also reached the same conclusion about NG.

Here is a transcript of the past one: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/25/ng.01.html It misses the visuals.

Here is one quote, pre-Sandusky:

DR. DOUG BREMNER: Well, you know, a lot of people have difficulty telling the truth. That`s not at all unusual. Maybe, you know, we could speculate on a number of things. Maybe he wasn`t happy in his relationship. Maybe there was something from his past he didn`t want to talk about. It`s not -- I`m not all that surprised that someone would deal with something that was difficult by just walking away and trying to start a new life. It seems a little bit cold in terms of his family, but --

and

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, that`s true. But you know, first of all, I think what he was telling his girlfriend was where she could find the car. He told her exactly where he was going and where the car would basically be found out. I believe he met somebody up there and that person was the one who brought him whatever documentation he needed, maybe a second passport, which you can buy if you prepare well enough. The things you need to leave the country and probably gave him a ride someplace where he could then sneak away.

I started laughing about 5 minutes into the thing.

Both are possible, but there are alternative explanations. This was pre-Sandusky, and pre-Disappeared, so I am not too optimistic.

 

[luvs2laugh]

On the Nancy Grace show -they claim the last "sighting" caught on camera of Mr. Gricar was of him going into the courthouse. WHERE are the pictures of him leaving?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, it could have been worse.

Not too much new, except there have been over 300 sightings of RFG. I would suspect most, if not all, were false.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

On the Nancy Grace show -they claim the last "sighting" caught on camera of Mr. Gricar was of him going into the courthouse. WHERE are the pictures of him leaving?

They didn't show it, but it was on Disappeared.

One thing, and I think this is something that a few of posters here can't get their heads around it, is that most people in Centre County think he walked away. A coffee shop owner in Bellefonte said, "Everybody thinks he's still alive." In talking with a few people up there, that seems to be prevalent sentiment.

I will point out again, I'm not "everybody."

 

[luvs2laugh]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I wish Nancy Grace could have got her story straight. WHY say the last picture of him was walking INTO the building and not walking out......poor journalism to say the least. I think an interview with Jerry might help.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I wish Nancy Grace could have got her story straight. WHY say the last picture of him was walking INTO the building and not walking out......poor journalism to say the least. I think an interview with Jerry might help.

The film, but the closeup of RFG's face is going to the building. What is seen of him going out is a closeup of the back of his head and then a more distant profile as he goes into his car.

The tape does exist and has been made public, and the show is only an hour long.

Yes, there were details that were wrong. The distance between where the laptop and the SoS was about 300 yards, not 2-3 miles, for example.

This didn't evolve into "The case of Ray the Walkaway," and was more balanced.

I'm not sure how interviewing Sandusky would help. He obviously wasn't a 40 year old woman and I don't know why there would be a need to meet him 50 miles from home. No one would think it would have been strange for RFG to meet with the head of a major charity, regarded as a pillar of the community, in a public place in Centre County.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/17/ng.01.html

Blog entry: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/01/18/3991452/it-wasnt-that-bad.html

 

[MysteryMaven]

I'm new to this thread, but I am familiar with this case. I am by no means an expert in the details, so forgive me if anything I bring up has been discussed already at length.
There are a some things that really bother me in this case, I don't know if anyone can shed some light here...
1. Was there really any confirmation that Ray was seen with this "attractive brunette" at the antique market? Was there ever a sketch done of her that was shown to the public? Are we to believe that a mystery woman could have helped him disappear? Someone completely unknown who has left virtually no electronic trace of herself?
2. If Ray was planning to walk away from his life, why didn't he just wait for retirement? He was approx. still 8 months away from retirement.
3. It was reported by PF that Ray was "off" leading up to his disappearance. He was sleeping a lot and she urged him to see a Dr.
What was weighing on him? Something that made him fear for his life and forced him to disappear?
4. What ever happened with the Hell's Angel informant? Total BS?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipping

1. Was there really any confirmation that Ray was seen with this "attractive brunette" at the antique market? Was there ever a sketch done of her that was shown to the public? Are we to believe that a mystery woman could have helped him disappear? Someone completely unknown who has left virtually no electronic trace of herself?

At least two witnesses (including the first one LE talked to) reported that RFG was in the SoS with this Mystery Woman in the evening of 4/15/05. The witnesses thought they were together. I am somewhat skeptical.

Without knowing who it was, it would be impossible to know about an electronic trace.

No sketch was ever produced.

2. If Ray was planning to walk away from his life, why didn't he just wait for retirement? He was approx. still 8 months away from retirement.

His heirs would inherit a substantial amount from his pension, which is exclusive of his estate. Had he retired, he could always be traced.

There is a question about the possibility of hiding funds well before he disappeared. His estate was quite low, for the amount of money he was making, even taking into account that it was held jointly with his daughter.

3. It was reported by PF that Ray was "off" leading up to his disappearance. He was sleeping a lot and she urged him to see a Dr.
What was weighing on him? Something that made him fear for his life and forced him to disappear?

Nobody knows, but there was no record of him being threatened. He didn't go to the police and didn't tell PEF, or his few friends. PEF never reported intercepting a threatening call or letter. There were no reports of e-mail threats.

Others did notice that he was "off."

4. What ever happened with the Hell's Angel informant? Total BS?

LE has said so, though they didn't use that term. The story has become increasingly convoluted as time passed.

Good questions. I wish I had better answers.

 

[MysteryMaven]

Snipping


At least two witnesses (including the first one LE talked to) reported that RFG was in the SoS with this Mystery Woman in the evening of 4/15/05. The witnesses thought they were together. I am somewhat skeptical.

Without knowing who it was, it would be impossible to know about an electronic trace.

No sketch was ever produced.



His heirs would inherit a substantial amount from his pension, which is exclusive of his estate. Had he retired, he could always be traced.

There is a question about the possibility of hiding funds well before he disappeared. His estate was quite low, for the amount of money he was making, even taking into account that it was held jointly with his daughter.



Nobody knows, but there was no record of him being threatened. He didn't go to the police and didn't tell PEF, or his few friends. PEF never reported intercepting a threatening call or letter. There were no reports of e-mail threats.

Others did notice that he was "off."



LE has said so, though they didn't use that term. The story has become increasingly convoluted as time passed.

Good questions. I wish I had better answers.

Thanks JJ.
I know you have a lot of insight into Ray's disappearance. In your opinion based on your research and everything you have come across, what do you think happened? And do you think the Penn State Scandal plays into it at all?
When Penn State broke it seemed like a logical connection to make. Ray could have feared for himself and his reputation if he was accused of a cover up, or just not even investigating the 1998 case thoroughly enough.
Now, I"m just not sure about that angle.
I'm also stuck on the destruction of the lap top and hard drive. What was on there that needed to be destroyed? Evidence of Penn State cover up? Did he fear that Sandusky was about to be caught and that he himself could have been thrown into the fray? I don't know. This was 2005, still a few years away from the world finding out about Sandusky.
It's like every time I come up with an explanation there are a million holes in it. I just hope that if Ray Gricar is still alive he can either be found or that he has the courage to come forward and reunite with his family.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll say two things about what I think happened, but they must be taken together.

1. I think RFG probably left voluntarily.

2. "Probably" is not proof.

Some aspects have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

A. RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

B. RFG planned to be in Lewisburg that day.

C. RFG did not want anyone to know the purpose of the trip at the time.

D. RFG tossed the drive.

Some things are at high level of probability, clear and convincing, but below a reasonable doubt.

E. RFG tossed the laptop off the bridge (or caused it to be done).

F. RFG wanted to be in Lewisburg at a specific time.

Now, that is not a lot, in terms of all the aspects of the case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped

And do you think the Penn State Scandal plays into it at all?

If this was a voluntary disappearance, I'd expect very little to involve the PSU Scandal. It neither illegal nor unethical to fail to prosecute a case.

RFG was not planning to run again nor practice law. While the scandal could have had a negative impact on both a re-election bit and his ability to attract clients, he would not have to worry about either.

For this to be a real problem, there would either have to have been a quid pro quo with PSU or RFG would have had to have not reported a new victim to DPW. There is no evidence of either.

I'm also stuck on the destruction of the lap top and hard drive. What was on there that needed to be destroyed? Evidence of Penn State cover up? Did he fear that Sandusky was about to be caught and that he himself could have been thrown into the fray?

He didn't have the laptop in 1998, so any Sandusky items would have had to have been transferred to it.

RFG had used the laptop as his home computer until late 2004, early 2005, so he might have wanted to get rid of personal data (like credit card numbers). The destruction of the laptop may have been coincidental to whatever happened to him.

I just hope that if Ray Gricar is still alive he can either be found or that he has the courage to come forward and reunite with his family.

That would be, unfortunately, quite problematic for his family. The money cannot be "unspent." There would be questions of collusion. Even though I do not believe anyone in his family is involved, it would be difficult. We saw some of that in the Brenda Heist case.

 

[MysteryMaven]

I appreciate the insight, JJ, as well as everyone else who has contributed. I feel there has to be more to the laptop. I read that RG had purchased software to clean the hard drive, but that didn't seem to be enough to ensure that the contents were truly erased. The internet searches combined with how the laptop was found seems to show someone went to dramatic lengths to get rid of what was on there. I guess we will never know what was there. So frustrating. It could be just a strange feature of the case that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I appreciate the insight, JJ, as well as everyone else who has contributed. I feel there has to be more to the laptop. I read that RG had purchased software to clean the hard drive, but that didn't seem to be enough to ensure that the contents were truly erased. The internet searches combined with how the laptop was found seems to show someone went to dramatic lengths to get rid of what was on there. I guess we will never know what was there. So frustrating. It could be just a strange feature of the case that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

That could have been natural. RFG was a prosecutor and probably had some idea of what could be done to recover data. He probably knew about identify theft as well.

He also had work product on it, and may have had things like personnel reports, so he might have been concerned about his staff's privacy in addition to his own.

I don't find it strange that RFG would have gone to those lengths to make the data unrecoverable.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I can fit the laptop's destruction directly with every scenario, except foul pay.

1. Assume RFG committed suicide. He may have had personal things that he didn't want to share. He may have things like employee evaluations that he didn't want spread around. He could have tossed it for those reasons.

2. Assume RFG walked away. He had his travel plans/online banking on it. He obviously wouldn't want that sitting there.

3. Assume RFG was murdered.

Okay, why would he bring the laptop in the first place?

If the murderer wanted to destroy something incriminating on it, how would he/she know that it was only on the laptop? Up to that morning, RFG could have copied or printed the data?

If the murderer wanted to read something on the laptop, how would he/she know the data was on the laptop and that RFG would bring it? Why destroy it, and not just copy it?

Just wanted to add:

4. RFG was planning to be in Lewisburg, for some other reason, and decided that it be a good opportunity to toss the drive. He does, and then he gets murdered.

In the case of #4, he is still murdered, but the murder is not related to the destruction of the drive.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

I'm new to this thread, but I am familiar with this case. I am by no means an expert in the details, so forgive me if anything I bring up has been discussed already at length.
There are a some things that really bother me in this case, I don't know if anyone can shed some light here...
1. Was there really any confirmation that Ray was seen with this "attractive brunette" at the antique market? Was there ever a sketch done of her that was shown to the public? Are we to believe that a mystery woman could have helped him disappear? Someone completely unknown who has left virtually no electronic trace of herself?
2. If Ray was planning to walk away from his life, why didn't he just wait for retirement? He was approx. still 8 months away from retirement.
3. It was reported by PF that Ray was "off" leading up to his disappearance. He was sleeping a lot and she urged him to see a Dr.
What was weighing on him? Something that made him fear for his life and forced him to disappear?
4. What ever happened with the Hell's Angel informant? Total BS?

Hi I think you need to go ask SPM on which beautifull blonde was with RG on friday morning

 

[MissJ]

JMO but if he was planning to walk away why toss the drive at all. He could take it with him.

 

[SuperSmith]

Thanks JJ.
I know you have a lot of insight into Ray's disappearance. In your opinion based on your research and everything you have come across, what do you think happened? And do you think the Penn State Scandal plays into it at all?
When Penn State broke it seemed like a logical connection to make. Ray could have feared for himself and his reputation if he was accused of a cover up, or just not even investigating the 1998 case thoroughly enough.
Now, I"m just not sure about that angle.
I'm also stuck on the destruction of the lap top and hard drive. What was on there that needed to be destroyed? Evidence of Penn State cover up? Did he fear that Sandusky was about to be caught and that he himself could have been thrown into the fray? I don't know. This was 2005, still a few years away from the world finding out about Sandusky.
It's like every time I come up with an explanation there are a million holes in it. I just hope that if Ray Gricar is still alive he can either be found or that he has the courage to come forward and reunite with his family.

Thank you for joining the discussion. I ask with the most sincerest intent that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Some of what is posted here is not that of fact even though they promote it as such.

"1. I think RFG probably left voluntarily.

You have to ask yourself why he would do this and why this writer continues to push this through this site and media blogs. To date there has been NO reason given why RG would jump ship and leave, leaving his girlfriend, daughter, and other family members in turmoil. It's ridiculous to believe he would do it so his daughter could inherit his money.

2. "Probably" is not proof.

This says it all. Someone saying they saw RG that day is not proof either.

Some aspects have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is where I challenge you to draw your own conclusions through your own untainted research.

A. RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

Car=Yes, Laptop=yes, hard drive=yes, RG=undetermined. LE has never confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that RG was in Lewisburg that weekend. Yes there is some circumstantial evidence that he was but it is going to take more than the opinion of a SAR manager to, for me at least, to say with 100% certainty that he was there. As you know the bloodhound lost his scent around the car.

B. RFG planned to be in Lewisburg that day.

The only basis for this claim is that LE found a map to Lewisburg on his work computer. Times are not specific and no idea when the map was generated but unless it was labeled "Going to Lewisburg 4/15/2005" this is just an opinion.

C. RFG did not want anyone to know the purpose of the trip at the time.

There is no indication of it being a secret. He took a day off, took a drive, perhaps with no destination in mind.

D. RFG tossed the drive.

This is a real leap. Never ever has LE confirmed this. This is the opinion of the writer who is nowhere near being an expert nor has any insider information.

Some things are at high level of probability, clear and convincing, but below a reasonable doubt.

E. RFG tossed the laptop off the bridge (or caused it to be done).

More of the same opinionated writing.

F. RFG wanted to be in Lewisburg at a specific time.

More of the same opinionated writing.



Like I said if you do your own research you will find that none of this can be proven yet. Could it be the case for some or all of this? Sure, but to responsibly investigate a case you cannot rule out very important aspects by way of someone's opinion. The aforementioned writer does not have any more of a credible opinion or answers than anyone else here.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JMO but if he was planning to walk away why toss the drive at all. He could take it with him.

It was potentially traceable, if he used it on-line.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped

Thank you for joining the discussion. I ask with the most sincerest intent that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Some of what is posted here is not that of fact even though they promote it as such.

"1. I think RFG probably left voluntarily.

You have to ask yourself why he would do this and why this writer continues to push this through this site and media blogs. To date there has been NO reason given why RG would jump ship and leave, leaving his girlfriend, daughter, and other family members in turmoil. It's ridiculous to believe he would do it so his daughter could inherit his money.

Well, because the evidence is stronger that he walked away than any of the other possibilities.

After almost nine years, no remains from suicide or murder have been discovered.

There was no crime scene. There is zero physical or eyewitness evidence that RFG was a crime victim.

His heirs did receive his substantial pension, which they would had not received had RFG died after he retired.

Perhaps a better question might be, why do a few people insist it was murder with no concrete evidence.

2. "Probably" is not proof.

This says it all. Someone saying they saw RG that day is not proof either.

It depends on the circumstances, and how many people saw him.

A. RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

Car=Yes, Laptop=yes, hard drive=yes, RG=undetermined. LE has never confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that RG was in Lewisburg that weekend. Yes there is some circumstantial evidence that he was but it is going to take more than the opinion of a SAR manager to, for me at least, to say with 100% certainty that he was there. As you know the bloodhound lost his scent around the car.

It is also a string of at least 8 witnesses, that were independent of each other that put him in Lewisburg on 4/15, including in the immediate area of where the bloodhound detected the scent.

I would trust a verified SAR person, especially when his experience jibes with what SAR websites indicate. In this case, it is also corroborated by witnesses.

B. RFG planned to be in Lewisburg that day.

The only basis for this claim is that LE found a map to Lewisburg on his work computer. Times are not specific and no idea when the map was generated but unless it was labeled "Going to Lewisburg 4/15/2005" this is just an opinion.

Actually, that is false. There is evidence, from both the search pattern and the fact that the cell call bounced of "towers," that the call was very close to Centre Hall. There is then the question of why RFG didn't delay his departure by 30-40 minutes unless he wanted to be someplace at a specific time. That also supports something planned. The sightings indicate that he went straight through to Lewisburg. The call was made around 11:30 and he was seen in Lewisburg around lunch time.

C. RFG did not want anyone to know the purpose of the trip at the time.

There is no indication of it being a secret. He took a day off, took a drive, perhaps with no destination in mind.

He didn't tell anyone where he was going, other than the map, he left no notes.

D. RFG tossed the drive.

This is a real leap. Never ever has LE confirmed this. This is the opinion of the writer who is nowhere near being an expert nor has any insider information.

He asked others how to get rid of the data on the drive and did searched on water damage to a laptop within the last 30 days prior to his disappearance.

He was seen within 75 yards of where the drive was found. A witness did see him with the laptop in Lewisburg.

Now, that is the solid stuff.


The other things, the tossing laptop itself, and something scheduled are both consistent with the evidence, but lack the direct evidence.

Like I said if you do your own research you will find that none of this can be proven yet. Could it be the case for some or all of this? Sure, but to responsibly investigate a case you cannot rule out very important aspects by way of someone's opinion. The aforementioned writer does not have any more of a credible opinion or answers than anyone else here.

Things like what the bloodhound detected, the searches, RFG's call, and what the witnesses saw are not "opinion." That is evidence.

Simply put, I don't believe those folks whose arguments are, **All the witnesses are wrong, the dog is wrong, somebody else went into his office in the Courthouse and generated the map on his password protected computer.**