PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #13

[JaimeSommers]

I submit that the previous searches and questions by RFG about how to destroy data on a computer hard drive would account for about a 80% + probability that RFG disposed of the computer.

If you wish to argue that he handed handed a County owned computer to an unknown party or it was taken from him by force, you would have to admit the trip was rogue.

I'm not arguing anything, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm cautioning against stating as fact something that is not known to be fact. It may be likely, but likely isn't fact. I've been following the case since it happened (am local), and my theories are noted in the threads.

 

[Trackergd]

I'm not arguing anything, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm cautioning against stating as fact something that is not known to be fact. It may be likely, but likely isn't fact. I've been following the case since it happened (am local), and my theories are noted in the threads.

I'm sorry you took it that way, possibly poor choice of words on my part.

Specific parts of the case go hand in hand. The "if this is true, then this applies" science.

Lets look at probability:

RFG took the computer to Lewisburg "did something" then disposed of the computer.
RFG took the computer to Lewisburg and handed County Owned Property to an unknown person(s).
RFG took the computer to Lewisburg and unknown person(s) took it from him by force.

What percentage do YOU place on each, or do you have some other theory?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RS&BBM ... We don't know it was RFG that disposed of the computer and removed the hard drive. Sure, we can speculate, but we can't state it definitively because there is no proof.

Respectfully, we can say some things.

For example, no one could know that any data on the laptop had not been printed or copied prior to 4/15/05. It is an impossibility as no other person was with the laptop 24/7. We can know that the only person who would know what was on the laptop (assuming no one else peeked) was RFG.

In this case, we have RFG's stated desire to lose the data on the laptop, his searches of the method that was actually used to lose that data, witnesses putting him in the immediate area where it was done, and finally a witness who saw him with it in the Mini in Lewisburg. We know that no one, other than RFG, could be sure if that data had been duplicated. The prime motive to destroy the laptop by anyone would be to make sure the data on it would not see the light of day.

It becomes a question of if there is sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that RFG tossed the drive?

Now, I think the answer to that question is clearly yes. That doesn't prove that even though RFG did toss the drive, it is tied to his disappearance, though it could be.

There comes a point where the evidence is so overwhelming, the conclusion is warranted.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay, since we are discussing what we do know, I wanted to throw this out.

RFG had a cell phone with him. He called PEF on it around 11:30 AM. He was definitely west of Rebersburg, because there is no coverage after that; it is a dead zone.

We know that RFG, at some point, between the eastern end (the Lewisburg side) of that dead zone and when he was around Centre Hall, he turned off his phone. Had the phone been on while he was in Lewisburg, LE would have started looking there, because it would have shown that his phone was pinging the towers there.

His phone had voice mail.

Why didn't RFG check his voice mail in the later afternoon? Someone from staff might have needed to talk with him. His daughter might have called. PEF could have called about dinner plans.

Why is he not turning on the phone?

 

[Trackergd]

Okay, since we are discussing what we do know, I wanted to throw this out.

RFG had a cell phone with him. He called PEF on it around 11:30 AM. He was definitely west of Rebersburg, because there is no coverage after that; it is a dead zone.

We know that RFG, at some point, between the eastern end (the Lewisburg side) of that dead zone and when he was around Centre Hall, he turned off his phone. Had the phone been on while he was in Lewisburg, LE would have started looking there, because it would have shown that his phone was pinging the towers there.

His phone had voice mail.

Why didn't RFG check his voice mail in the later afternoon? Someone from staff might have needed to talk with him. His daughter might have called. PEF could have called about dinner plans.

Why is he not turning on the phone?

My theory - It's in the river and has not been found. Why toss the laptop and keep the phone? Works (in theory) with any of the scenarios about what happened to RFG. Walkaway, Murder, Suicide or Witness Protection.

Might prove to be an interesting scavenger hunt for someone.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

My theory - It's in the river and has not been found. Why toss the laptop and keep the phone? Works (in theory) with any of the scenarios about what happened to RFG. Walkaway, Murder, Suicide or Witness Protection.

Might prove to be an interesting scavenger hunt for someone.

The phone was found, turned off, in the Mini Cooper. It was definitely RFG's cell phone.

If the phone had been on, in Lewisburg, it should have pinged off the towers in Lewisburg.

 

[MissJ]

If you were told to tell no one, then someone knew about your investigation: your supreriors. No one told RFG to conduct a secret investigation. He was a prosecutor and elected official. He answered to the people of Centre County. Why was he conducting a rogue investigation independent of law enforcement?

In my case, TBI was the investigator and they are LE. It was an interdepartmental investigation for the state. He was not my supervisor. I was head of my own department. So no one in my department knew but me. Who is to say RFG didn't have a similar meeting? He didn't have to account for every minute of his day to taxpayers. He also didn't have to tell taxpayers about insider information on his cases. If he did he wouldn't be very effective at his job. JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In my case, TBI was the investigator and they are LE. It was an interdepartmental investigation for the state. He was not my supervisor. I was head of my own department. So no one in my department knew but me. Who is to say RFG didn't have a similar meeting? He didn't have to account for every minute of his day to taxpayers. He also didn't have to tell taxpayers about insider information on his cases. If he did he wouldn't be very effective at his job. JMO

Two points:

1. There would still be some record of contact, even if it it would be in RFG's personal files. There is no reason to hide that, because staff will not have access to his personal files.

2. What is this investigating agency going to do when RFG vanishes? There are only two real agencies that could investigate, the state AG's Office and the US Department of Justice, neither of which will take over the investigation. Even today, it is the PSP.

 

[dreampeddler]

Just watched this one on ID....can't shake that cigarette out of my head. The footage shown of him the day prior, leaving work, shows a guy smoking outside, casually watching him. Wonder who that guy was...

 

[MissJ]

Two points:

1. There would still be some record of contact, even if it it would be in RFG's personal files. There is no reason to hide that, because staff will not have access to his personal files.

2. What is this investigating agency going to do when RFG vanishes? There are only two real agencies that could investigate, the state AG's Office and the US Department of Justice, neither of which will take over the investigation. Even today, it is the PSP.

I respect your opinion but, why does there have to be a record of an investigation? Does PA Bureau of investigation not do anything? I don't see this as black and white issue. We don't know what was going on with RFG or LE. JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I respect your opinion but, why does there have to be a record of an investigation? Does PA Bureau of investigation not do anything? I don't see this as black and white issue. We don't know what was going on with RFG or LE. JMO

PA does not have a "bureau of investigation." It would be handled either by the PA Attorney General's Office (AGO) and/or the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), if done at the state level. The OAG would probably have jurisdiction and would be making the decisions. The PSP wiould basically be the people in the field.

AGO and the PSP were the two agencies that handled the recent Sandusky investigation. The current AG released a report on it, and "investigation of the investigation." A copy of it, which looks at what they did, is here: http://www.wjactv.com/images/2014_06_23_REPORT_to_AG_ON_THE_SANDUSKY_INVESTIGATION.pdf It is a good example of the paper trial that an investigation generates.

If RFG was part of some investigation by the AGO or PSP, there would be no shortage of documentation. The PSP would not have taken more than 8 1/2 years to take the investigation.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just watched this one on ID....can't shake that cigarette out of my head. The footage shown of him the day prior, leaving work, shows a guy smoking outside, casually watching him. Wonder who that guy was...

I think an employee, but I'm not sure.

Notice two things:

1. The guy was not there when RFG went in.

2. He stayed there when RFG walked to his car and drove off.

 

[dreampeddler]

I think an employee, but I'm not sure.

Notice two things:

1. The guy was not there when RFG went in.

2. He stayed there when RFG walked to his car and drove off.

I think that was time lapsed....right? Or was he in and out quickly? If so, then that is verrry interesting indeed!

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that was time lapsed....right? Or was he in and out quickly? If so, then that is verrry interesting indeed!

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

RFG was in the Courthouse on 4/14/05 from about a quarter after six until a bit after 9:00 PM (though Disappeared had it about an hour earlier). They showed him going in and then leaving.

The smoker wasn't following him.

 

[SeekingJana]

Precisely my argument. At one time I worked with the state bureau of investigation on a suspected murder. The investigation was top secret and I was told to tell no one and take no notes. Our meetings were called "lunch". I never make lunch notes. So there were no notes whatsoever on my part. I'm sure people thought we were having an affair.

YES!! What you said!!! I once dated a person in a branch of LE who worked undercover. He was as ordinary- acting as a person could be. He was like me- hours in the day didn't mean that much as long as he got his work done. Some of the SMARTEST people in terms of over- all intelligence were/ are not " note-takers", plan makers, calendar markers at all. Because they remember the things they need to remember AND DON'T WANT TO BROADCAST IT TO THE WORLD!!!!!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RFG was never "under cover," so the analogy is not there.

If he was involved in another LE agency, there would be a record of contact, and it is highly likely that the other agency would have been handling the investigation from the start.

If this the only explanation for foul play, then it was not foul play.

I think there are other foul play possibilities, that are substantially more likely.

 

[MissJ]

RFG was never "under cover," so the analogy is not there.

If he was involved in another LE agency, there would be a record of contact, and it is highly likely that the other agency would have been handling the investigation from the start.



If there was a record of contact would we know it? Not necessarily. We don't know everything about RFG or this case. As far as I can see RFG had no reason to walk away and a lot of reasons to stay. His daughter that he loved and a sizable pension are significant reasons to stay with or without PEF

 

[MissJ]

I'm not arguing anything, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm cautioning against stating as fact something that is not known to be fact. It may be likely, but likely isn't fact. I've been following the case since it happened (am local), and my theories are noted in the threads.

My sentiments exactly. The facts are few. We know for sure RFG is gone and has been declared dead. We know where his computer and hard drive ended up. We know where his car was found. We don't know the circumstances of his disappearance. My theory and yours is as good as anyone else's here. I refuse to be ridiculed or allow anyone else to be, to make us go away.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If there was a record of contact would we know it? Not necessarily. We don't know everything about RFG or this case. As far as I can see RFG had no reason to walk away and a lot of reasons to stay.

I think we would know by this point. And, I would not think that the BPD would be the lead agency for 8 1/2 years if that was the case. I also think there would be a huge paper trail with the agency was doing the investigation.

You indicated that you were part of an undercover investigation at one point. Had something happened to you during that investigation, who would have investigated that, especially if it could have been tied to that investigation? The local police, or the agency that was conducting the investigation?

His daughter that he loved and a sizable pension are significant reasons to stay with or without PEF

As his heirs would collect that pension (which would be more if RFG died while in office), that could be a motivation for a voluntary act on his part.

 

[MissJ]

I think we would know by this point. And, I would not think that the BPD would be the lead agency for 8 1/2 years if that was the case. I also think there would be a huge paper trail with the agency was doing the investigation.

You indicated that you were part of an undercover investigation at one point. Had something happened to you during that investigation, who would have investigated that, especially if it could have been tied to that investigation? The local police, or the agency that was conducting the investigation?



As his heirs would collect that pension (which would be more if RFG died while in office), that could be a motivation for a voluntary act on his part.

Probably the state bureau of investigation....because three people were alleged to have murdered a man. If they knew I had any involvement they would surely have killed me as they knew who I was and I had been to the home where the alleged murder took place. I was a government employee.

I know that you believe that giving his daughter his pension could be a motive for walkaway. I just do not see it that way. A father who loved his daughter that much, to me, would not give up that relationship. JMO