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

[MissJ]

There is a tax advantage, and my understanding is that his heirs would a collect more if he died prior to retirement. Now, that could just as easily point to suicide.

As for contacts, the addresses of PA retirees, unless subject to a protection order, are public. There is also the "ex-DA" possibility. He may have been called in numerous cases after he retired; certainly, at least one ADA was called in the Sandusky investigation. I would also have no doubt that he would have been hounded by the Press.

I would also note that RFG did have an interest in the 1985 case of Hinckley, OH police chief, Mel Wiley, who the police determined left voluntarily.

Sorry but I don't think your theory holds water. One walks away from a cushy retirement so his/her child can get a tax advantage from his/her retirement? I don't know anyone who leaves their retirement for their child. Anyone. Ever.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"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.

There is other evidence, the witnesses.

Also, while the scent can be transferred to an object, that would not imply that the object can then leave a trail. The same source notes:

"Using scent-discriminating dogs in criminal investigations should be limited to
establishing a scent relationship between people and crime scene evidence."

In this case it has been limited to that.

 

[SuperSmith]

There is other evidence, the witnesses.

Also, while the scent can be transferred to an object, that would not imply that the object can then leave a trail. The same source notes:

"Using scent-discriminating dogs in criminal investigations should be limited to
establishing a scent relationship between people and crime scene evidence."

In this case it has been limited to that.

So WHICH witnesses are we to believe? Since the bloodhound only found his scent in the parking lot and not around/in the SOS which eyewitnesses are you using to go with the "possibility" that Gricar was in the lot and got in another car? Bennett is out and any other worker in the SOS.

 

[SuperSmith]

There is other evidence, the witnesses.

Also, while the scent can be transferred to an object, that would not imply that the object can then leave a trail. The same source notes:

"Using scent-discriminating dogs in criminal investigations should be limited to
establishing a scent relationship between people and crime scene evidence."

In this case it has been limited to that.

Someone other than Gricar, driving his car, could have transferred his scent the distance the dog sniffed out. So could the air or wind transferring from the drivers seat. Example of that would be the tobacco smell emanating from the car upon its opening. There was NO "trail", just his scent picked up on.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So WHICH witnesses are we to believe? Since the bloodhound only found his scent in the parking lot and not around/in the SOS which eyewitnesses are you using to go with the "possibility" that Gricar was in the lot and got in another car? Bennett is out and any other worker in the SOS.

I think rather obviously when you have several independent witnesses and physical evidence that someone was some place, it should not be questioned, unless there is actual evidence to the contrary.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Someone other than Gricar, driving his car, could have transferred his scent the distance the dog sniffed out. So could the air or wind transferring from the drivers seat. Example of that would be the tobacco smell emanating from the car upon its opening. There was NO "trail", just his scent picked up on.

Link, because that sight does not say that. There is no suggestion from that scent could be transfered to form a trail.

Had someone else sat in the seat, it is true that Gricar's scent could have transferred to that other person. That site doesn't even come close to stating that this other person could then transfer it elsewhere.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry but I don't think your theory holds water. One walks away from a cushy retirement so his/her child can get a tax advantage from his/her retirement? I don't know anyone who leaves their retirement for their child. Anyone. Ever.

The "child" was an adult living 2500 miles away. And, as for leaving, I would ask the children of Brenda Heist, and Michelle McMullens.

The question is about how much money could be out there.

There would be a tax advantage, on top of a substantial payout from his pension and life insurance. It is well into the 6 digit range.

 

[SuperSmith]

I think rather obviously when you have several independent witnesses and physical evidence that someone was some place, it should not be questioned, unless there is actual evidence to the contrary.

You didn't answer the question

 

[SuperSmith]

Link, because that sight does not say that. There is no suggestion from that scent could be transfered to form a trail.

Had someone else sat in the seat, it is true that Gricar's scent could have transferred to that other person. That site doesn't even come close to stating that this other person could then transfer it elsewhere.

There was no trail! That has already been linked and Dixon quoted.

Pretty obvious it would much like someone else's cologne or perfume.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You didn't answer the question

Yes I did. RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05, as the evidence demonstrates.

 

[SuperSmith]

Yes I did. RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05, as the evidence demonstrates.

No, you didn't I asked you WHICH eyewitnesses are we to use as evidence to go along with the bloodhounds suggestion that Gricar was in the parking lot.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There was no trail! That has already been linked and Dixon quoted.

Pretty obvious it would much like someone else's cologne or perfume.

The quoted comment was, "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."

The handler, according to Dixon, didn't say, **Oh, there is no scent.** The dog detected something that, through the dog's actions, told the handler that RFG got into another car.

Later, they expanded the explanation to detail exactly what the dog detected, which one would expect if RFG did get into another car.

What is claimed to be "pretty obvious" is not obvious to SAR professionals or the FBI. That is because what is claimed to be "pretty obvious," is not an accurate statement.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, you didn't I asked you WHICH eyewitnesses are we to use as evidence to go along with the bloodhounds suggestion that Gricar was in the parking lot.

All witnesses are evidence. In some cases they can be ruled out, or weakened.

The number of independent witnesses seeing the same thing increases their likelihood of being accurate. That is corroboration.

Where there is physical evidence consistent with what the witnesses reported, it is more than sufficient to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[SuperSmith]

The quoted comment was, "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."

The handler, according to Dixon, didn't say, **Oh, there is no scent.** The dog detected something that, through the dog's actions, told the handler that RFG got into another car.

Later, they expanded the explanation to detail exactly what the dog detected, which one would expect if RFG did get into another car.

What is claimed to be "pretty obvious" is not obvious to SAR professionals or the FBI. That is because what is claimed to be "pretty obvious," is not an accurate statement.

Ok if the dog is accurate then we can rule out Craig Bennett and all SOS workers and anyone claiming to see Gricar in the park, on a bench, or down by the river being that there was no scent or trail detected.

 

[SuperSmith]

All witnesses are evidence. In some cases they can be ruled out, or weakened.

The number of independent witnesses seeing the same thing increases their likelihood of being accurate. That is corroboration.

Where there is physical evidence consistent with what the witnesses reported, it is more than sufficient to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.

What has become weak (and always has been) is the Walkaway theory. I have not seen evidence of a plan or reason for Ray Gricar to leave his life.

Your research after all these years doesn't add up.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Ok if the dog is accurate then we can rule out Craig Bennett and all SOS workers and anyone claiming to see Gricar in the park, on a bench, or down by the river being that there was no scent or trail detected.

I'm not sure the took the dog into the SoS, or even across from the Packwood Museum. The lack of scent wouldn't preclude any witness, as noted in the cited FBI document that was previously linked.

The 4/15/05 witnesses do corroborate each other (at least those cited).

4/16/05 is another matter. We have 4 witnesses, one ruled out. The other 3 are Bennett and two of his employees.

Now, that said, LE has said that he was there on 4/16 and BB thinks he was as well. For me, it is not enough, though we could find out that there are a string of witnesses on 4/16 that are independent and corroborate each other.

 

[SuperSmith]

I'm not sure the took the dog into the SoS, or even across from the Packwood Museum. The lack of scent wouldn't preclude any witness, as noted in the cited FBI document that was previously linked.

The 4/15/05 witnesses do corroborate each other (at least those cited).

4/16/05 is another matter. We have 4 witnesses, one ruled out. The other 3 are Bennett and two of his employees.

Now, that said, LE has said that he was there on 4/16 and BB thinks he was as well. For me, it is not enough, though we could find out that there are a string of witnesses on 4/16 that are independent and corroborate each other.

Doesn't it stand to reason if they had the dogs there that they would've checked out the SOS being that several of the witnesses came from there and said he was in the company of a woman and/or anxiously waiting for someone?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What has become weak (and always has been) is the Walkaway theory. I have not seen evidence of a plan or reason for Ray Gricar to leave his life.

Your research after all these years doesn't add up.

The lack of assets is documented. That might provide both a motive and part of the means.

The interest in the Wiley, who walked away, case is known.

The trip to Lewisburg, with no stated purpose, is witnessed.

The desire to destroy the hard drive is known.

His change in demeanor is note from multiple sources.

All of those things are consistent with a voluntary act on RFG's part.

Some of those things are consistent with suicide, but not all.

None is consistent with an involuntary act, like foul play.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Doesn't it stand to reason if they had the dogs there that they would've checked out the SOS being that several of the witnesses came from there and said he was in the company of a woman and/or anxiously waiting for someone?

If they are trying to trail him, find his current location, or see where he went, it is. They know he's not in the SoS.

 

[SuperSmith]

The lack of assets is documented. That might provide both a motive and part of the means.

The interest in the Wiley, who walked away, case is known.

The trip to Lewisburg, with no stated purpose, is witnessed.

The desire to destroy the hard drive is known.

His change in demeanor is note from multiple sources.

All of those things are consistent with a voluntary act on RFG's part.

Some of those things are consistent with suicide, but not all.

None is consistent with an involuntary act, like foul play.

We'll have to agree to disagree. All those things mean little or can easily be explained by other reasoning that doesn't include him walking away from his life.

I think the Wiley case is interesting but I have no intention of leaving my life.

It's ok you've done great at keeping the case alive and that is commendable.