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

[SuperSmith]

So much is made of Lewisburg. Was he or wasn't he there? I truly don't know. What I do know is there is there is no confirmation that he was. I've often wondered if he did make it there if perhaps he was taken on the way home. Whether on the way or on the way back how hard would it be for someone to get behind him, flash their lights to get him to pull over, flash a gun, stuff him in another car, second perp taking the Mini, and driving Ray to his eventual demise. Makes me sad to think about it. I'm sure his life didn't end quickly. The anomaly still for me is the laptop.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So much is made of Lewisburg. Was he or wasn't he there? I truly don't know. What I do know is there is there is no confirmation that he was. I've often wondered if he did make it there if perhaps he was taken on the way home. Whether on the way or on the way back how hard would it be for someone to get behind him, flash their lights to get him to pull over, flash a gun, stuff him in another car, second perp taking the Mini, and driving Ray to his eventual demise. Makes me sad to think about it. I'm sure his life didn't end quickly. The anomaly still for me is the laptop.

There is enough evidence to demonstrate that he was, both eyewitness and physical evidence..

There is no need to be sad about that prospect, because that scenario is impossible. Flashing headlight has never caused anyone to pull over, in my experience as a driver in PA of more than thirty years. It is frequently used to warn someone of some hazard ahead (including a friendly policeman with a radar gun).

Further, there is evidence that RFG drove the car in Lewisburg, and a total lack of evidence that anyone forced him off the road on the way there.

 

[SuperSmith]

There is enough evidence to demonstrate that he was, both eyewitness and physical evidence..

There is no need to be sad about that prospect, because that scenario is impossible. Flashing headlight has never caused anyone to pull over, in my experience as a driver in PA of more than thirty years. It is frequently used to warn someone of some hazard ahead (including a friendly policeman with a radar gun).

Further, there is evidence that RFG drove the car in Lewisburg, and a total lack of evidence that anyone forced him off the road on the way there.

That is your opinion for which I disagree respectfully

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That is your opinion for which I disagree respectfully

Evidence is not "opinion." Simple put, witness reported seeing RFG in Lewisburg; they are independent witnesses. RFG scent was detected by a bloodhound in the parking lot where his car was found and where several witnesses saw him driving that car. That is not opinion. It simply is.

Now someone is free to say **The bloodhound is wrong. All this witnesses are wrong.** That would be opinion and we would be free to judge that opinion based on its merits.

It may be opinion that someone flashing headlights will stop. I can speak as a licensed driver of more than 30 years, in Pennsylvania, one who had both Safety Ed in high school and Driver's Ed privately and state that neither in my experience nor in my training would indicate that the claim is accurate. I would ask that some link that would show that was either a general practice (like stopping at a stopping at a stop sign) or that RFG had a habit of stopping when he saw someone flashing headlights.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It is not merely my experience, but did, in fact, reach the PA Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing The opinion is linked.

In the cases where I have flashed, or seen a flashing of headlights, it was used as a signal of either a hazard for the approaching car or as signal to go, not to stop.

 

[SuperSmith]

It is not merely my experience, but did, in fact, reach the PA Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing The opinion is linked.

In the cases where I have flashed, or seen a flashing of headlights, it was used as a signal of either a hazard for the approaching car or as signal to go, not to stop.

Everything that is posted here is opinion based and that goes for my opinion as well. What is worked off of is media stories, quotes, and varying hunches by LE. I do not and have not recognized any authority on this case from this website. The true professionals that actually work this case, have access to the files, and report them have the authority in this case.

When has LE or the media been inaccurate? The answer is "a lot". Take the NG recent episode. She had many inaccuracies as did Chief Weaver.

This is part of the problem with this case.

Bottom line is the true professionals have not cracked the case and neither has anyone here. So we are left with opinion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Everything that is posted here is opinion based and that goes for my opinion as well. What is worked off of is media stories, quotes, and varying hunches by LE. I do not and have not recognized any authority on this case from this website. The true professionals that actually work this case, have access to the files, and report them have the authority in this case.

That is not a factual statement. Simply put, the police have said that witnesses have reported RFG in the parking lot driving the Mini. The dog did detect RFG's scent in the parking lot, again according to police. They have said it on several occasions

Now, someone can state, **I don't believe the police. I think it is a massive conspiracy,** but I certainly wouldn't. We can judge a comment like that on its merits.

When has LE or the media been inaccurate? The answer is "a lot". Take the NG recent episode. She had many inaccuracies as did Chief Weaver.

This is part of the problem with this case.

Bottom line is the true professionals have not cracked the case and neither has anyone here. So we are left with opinion.

I am not one to believe in massive conspiracy theories where there could be a few dozen people, in LE, all trying to cover up something involving another DA.

Again, on these things, either the police are deliberately lying, or this is the evidence. I do not believe successive BPD detectives, Chiefs, and two successive DA's, not mention an acting DA, and PSP are all in some sort of a massive conspiracy.

 

[SuperSmith]

That is not a factual statement. Simply put, the police have said that witnesses have reported RFG in the parking lot driving the Mini. The dog did detect RFG's scent in the parking lot, again according to police. They have said it on several occasions

Now, someone can state, **I don't believe the police. I think it is a massive conspiracy,** but I certainly wouldn't. We can judge a comment like that on its merits.



I am not one to believe in massive conspiracy theories where there could be a few dozen people, in LE, all trying to cover up something involving another DA.

Again, on these things, either the police are deliberately lying, or this is the evidence. I do not believe successive BPD detectives, Chiefs, and two successive DA's, not mention an acting DA, and PSP are all in some sort of a massive conspiracy.

I never said nor do I appreciate you insinuating things that I think. I am well aware of what LE has said. What hasn't been said is with any certainty is that he was in Lewisburg. Eyewitnesses easily can be mistaken and the scent could have come from the car.

Also never said he was forced off the road and certainly not by an on coming car. If someone comes up behind you, flashes their lights, and beeps the horn you will pull over.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I never said nor do I appreciate you insinuating things that I think. I am well aware of what LE has said. What hasn't been said is with any certainty is that he was in Lewisburg. Eyewitnesses easily can be mistaken and the scent could have come from the car.

LE has said that he was in Lewisburg on 4/15 (and 4/16). I have yet to see anything beyond the claim of one poster, with no claimed expertize, and no verifiable expertize, claim that the scent could have come from the car. I have not seen a link to a reputable site indicating that is a possibility

Conversely, I have from someone that does verified SAR training who has indicated that it would not. What he has said is at least consistent with the reported conclusion of the actual handler.

I think we can weigh the merits of both and judge accordingly.

Now, for the handler's conclusion, which has been linked previously, either that was his conclusion, or LE is not being honest about it. That would include the two detectives and two chiefs, plus presumably two DA's, who let that out, the acting DA, and presumably PSP, that reviewed the case in 2006.

Also never said he was forced off the road and certainly not by an on coming car. If someone comes up behind you, flashes their lights, and beeps the horn you will pull over.

As a rule, that would indicate speeding up. I would not pull over in such a circumstance. I might slow and let the person pass me. I might speed up, though RFG might not need to.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This is one site I found regarding scenting: http://www.jimmyryce.org/ScentCollection.html

While it does note that scent can be collected from a car, and notes that someone riding inside a car can leave a scent trail through the cars ventilation system, it does not indicate that a scent trail can come off a car.

If that claim is being made again, it should be verified.

 

[SuperSmith]

This is one site I found regarding scenting: http://www.jimmyryce.org/ScentCollection.html

While it does note that scent can be collected from a car, and notes that someone riding inside a car can leave a scent trail through the cars ventilation system, it does not indicate that a scent trail can come off a car.

If that claim is being made again, it should be verified.

That is consistent with what Dixon said in that there was NO scent trail.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

About 25 motels (excluding B and B's) within a 25 mile radius where someone could check in for an unobserved other person.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That is consistent with what Dixon said in that there was NO scent trail.

Here is what Dixon really said:

"The handler said the way the dog acted, it could have indicated [Gricar] got into another car," Dixon said. But, he continued, "We have no evidence he was planning to meet anyone in Lewisburg."

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpa...-County-DA/stories/200504220310#ixzz2rZOjsEih


That is consistent, but with fewer details with the other reports, handled while Weaver, Zaccagni and Rickard talked to the press.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Going back to 4/16/05, I looked at motels within a 20 mile radius of Lewisburg.

There were about 11 motels where RFG could have been killed and the body removed; that wouldn't account for cleaning up any mess afterward. I looked for motels outside of a populated area and where the room opens directly to the outside or into a windowless hall.


33 total where he could have been brought into a room without being seen by staff, including those 11.

Those are high, since I couldn't see the physical make-up.

 

[SuperSmith]

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/07/when-did-ray-gricar-close-his-sandusky.html?m=1

 

[J. J. in Phila]

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/07/when-did-ray-gricar-close-his-sandusky.html?m=1

Quite old news, and possibly not tied to the disappearance.

There is a thread on both the transcript, where Schreffler testified, and the 1998 incident on the Sandusky board.

Thread on 1998 Sandusky investigation: The 1998 Investigation - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



Thread on the transcript of Sandusky's trial: Sandusky Trial Transcripts Discussion - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[SuperSmith]

Quite old news, and possibly not tied to the disappearance.

There is a thread on both the transcript, where Schreffler testified, and the 1998 incident on the Sandusky board.

Thread on 1998 Sandusky investigation: The 1998 Investigation - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



Thread on the transcript of Sandusky's trial: Sandusky Trial Transcripts Discussion - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

We are supposed to believe the eyewitness accounts of Gricar that you offer as evidence yet the bloodhound did not find Gricar's scent any other place besides in the parking for which you are suggesting with your posts that Gricar got into another car.

So which pieces of evidence are we to use as concrete evidence (or beyond a reasonable doubt)? The Dog or the Eyewitnesses??

 

[SuperSmith]

Zaccagni: They found a minute amount of tobacco ash on the passenger side. Tat could have resulted from anybody leaning in and talking to Ray, maybe smoking a cigarette.

Police found two cigarette butts nearby and recovered DNA from them, but it matched nothing on file: a dead end.

They also used a bloodhound—but the dog lost Gricar’s scent 20 yards from the car.

The tracker suggested Gricar got into another vehicle, perhaps with his killer.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12756052/ns/dateline_nbc/t/missing-district-attorney/

 

[SuperSmith]

"Because human scent is easily transferred from one person or object to another, it should not be used as primary evidence. However, when used in corroboration with other evidence, it has become a proven tool that can establish a connection to the crime."

http://www.dogs4diabetics.com/wp-co...uman-Scent-in-Criminal-Investigations-FBI.pdf

Further proof that Ray Gricar wasn't necessarily in Lewisburg. Anyone driving the Mini could have transferred and cast his scent in the parking lot by simple transfer.

A perpetrator exiting the Mini and getting into another vehicle in the parking lot makes more sense to me. Plus you have the cigarette ash for which Gricar did not smoke.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Zaccagni: They found a minute amount of tobacco ash on the passenger side. Tat could have resulted from anybody leaning in and talking to Ray, maybe smoking a cigarette.

Police found two cigarette butts nearby and recovered DNA from them, but it matched nothing on file: a dead end.

They also used a bloodhound—but the dog lost Gricar’s scent 20 yards from the car.

The tracker suggested Gricar got into another vehicle, perhaps with his killer.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12756052/ns/dateline_nbc/t/missing-district-attorney/

That is certainly a possibility. The scent and witnesses indicate that he was in the parking lot, but nothing after that.

He could have been meeting someone.