PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #14

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ... you mentioned few pages back that the Fenton sighting could have been mistaken as being on the 14th. She mentioned that she left early after a trial ended.

"I thought, 'Well, even the district attorney is taking the rest of the day off, so I don't feel so bad now,' " Fenton said.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2006/05/13/3802/missed-leads.html#storylink=cpy

If she thought that to herself, it's very clear she believed 100% that it was him. Also, anyone who has ever worked anywhere knows that skipping out early on a Friday is much more likely than skipping out on a Thursday, so I'm inclined to believe her story.

I don't think you've ever stated before that security footage ruled this out. You've generally just said LE dismissed it because it didn't meet the timeline. That's the first I've heard of security footage. Do you have a link to a source?

Also, someone with access to PA courts database (not sure if its free or if you have to pay) should check Judge Grine's docket on 4/15/2005, and see if he was presiding over a case that day. If he wasn't, then we can definitely rule out the Fenton sighting, as she alleges she went home from work early only AFTER a trial ended early.

She does believe it. Grine left early both days and PB did sit down with him and tried to make that determination.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

For those curious, here was JJ's exact quote from page 9 of this thread: "When RFG or the car did not appear on the tape, it was discounted by the BPD."

That is not true at all. The camera did not pan wide enough. It was discounted for the simple fact that it didn't fit their established timeline. A timeline that is part of a premise which may have to be completely revisited. Logic and reasoning dictate that contradictions of fact cannot exist. When they do, you must check your premise. I'm not the only one that believes that the Fenton sighting should have made LE revisit their entire premise. In my opinion, the most solid evidence we have are the cell phone records (which have been curiously inconsistent) and the Fenton sighting. Those are the only two things that would be admitted in a court of law (factual records and a highly credible eye witness account). Everything else - even the laptop - establish nothing. The laptop itself would have a hard time being admitted as evidence and would only probably be admitted inasmuch as it is another item of Ray's property ending up in the same town (the other being the Mini and the cell phone).

The car would not have been in the parking area. The camera view was shown on Disappeared and both the entrance and exit to the lot are covered. The camera didn't move. That lot is very small.

Now, Fenton could have seen him there on Thursday or parked on the street or driving past and misremembered it.

 

[SuperSmith]

My percentages have changed in lieu of current information and eyewitnesses that LE have dismissed.

95% foul play
5% forced disappearance
0% suicide

 

[wijg]

My percentages have changed in lieu of current information and eyewitnesses that LE have dismissed.

95% foul play
5% forced disappearance
0% suicide

Mine are:
50% forced disappearance (witness protection)
45% foul play
5% walk-away
0% suicide

 

[J. J. in Phila]

For me, voluntary departing includes the Witness Security Program.

 

[Trackergd]

Mine are:
45% forced disappearance
35% foul play
20% "other

To me, forced disappearance and walkaway are two different scenarios. Forced disappearance is being threatened or have loved ones threatened with legal action, exposure of social and career killing behavior, being named as a nut job to cover up sensitive information and the only option was to leave. Walkaway is cold feet for an impending wedding, unhappy with current life, unable to bring money back into the country and going to where the money was.

Forced disappearance could have morphed into foul play at some point. RG may have thought he was complying with the forced disappearance and things went wrong or the intent was to kill him from the beginning and he was drawn in by the forced disappearance option as a lure.

Other is suicide or something we have not thought of.

I am leaning more and more to this being more than one day, if even by only a few hours.

What was on the laptop is a critical part, as is the phone call to PF and the Fenton and Centere Hall sightings.

 

[Trackergd]

I will also add the witness protection would suggest that he would be called to testify or has testified before a grand jury or in open court. To the best of my knowledge or searching he has not testified in any case since he went missing and there appears to be no huge cases or grand jury investigations in the region that he would be called to testify at. He was not called during the Penn State/Sandusky case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully Snipped.

To me, forced disappearance and walkaway are two different scenarios. Forced disappearance is being threatened or have loved ones threatened with legal action, exposure of social and career killing behavior, being named as a nut job to cover up sensitive information and the only option was to leave. Walkaway is cold feet for an impending wedding, unhappy with current life, unable to bring money back into the country and going to where the money was.

A forced disappearance, that isn't directly foul play, would still be voluntary. RFG would have to make the choice that he wasn't going to stay. It would be his choice.

Something like kidnapping would be foul play, even if RFG was not killed at the end, as it is a crime.

If RFG was being blackmailed and decided to take off, or was being blackmailed into disappearing, would still be RFG's choice.

 

[Trackergd]

Respectfully Snipped.



A forced disappearance, that isn't directly foul play, would still be voluntary. RFG would have to make the choice that he wasn't going to stay. It would be his choice.

Something like kidnapping would be foul play, even if RFG was not killed at the end, as it is a crime.

If RFG was being blackmailed and decided to take off, or was being blackmailed into disappearing, would still be RFG's choice.

I see your point, but to me it's shades of grey. Blackmail is a crime. If he was being blackmailed over what was on the computer, it would be an unreported crime as he would be exiting the area to prevent backlash against his loved ones. Being threatened with life and limb and or his family being threatened with life and limb over what was on the computer would also be a crime, but depending on who was making said threats, may also be an unreported crime by his choice, or he was unable to make that choice as the event changed classification from terroristic threat to homicide.

Sorry to disagree J.J., but I don't see a forced exit as being the same as a voluntary exit. Much greater dynamics involved in the forced exit.

If this is more than a one day event (and I do think so based on the trip to Raystown Lake and my feeling that he went back to Bellefonte after Lewisburg, and possibly even back to Lewisburg again) and his worried state prior to his going missing, suicide and voluntary exit to me diminish the percentage it was suicide and to a lesser degree, going to the money (but money may have been involved).

I used to be pretty convinced it was suicide or voluntary walkaway, not so much anymore.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I see the difference as being one of motivation. There is no shortage of potential motivations.

While blackmail itself is a crime, RFG would, hypothetically, have a choice. I think we can draw the analogy with the blackmail attempt on David Letterman a few years ago.

 

[wijg]

I see your point, but to me it's shades of grey. Blackmail is a crime. If he was being blackmailed over what was on the computer, it would be an unreported crime as he would be exiting the area to prevent backlash against his loved ones. Being threatened with life and limb and or his family being threatened with life and limb over what was on the computer would also be a crime, but depending on who was making said threats, may also be an unreported crime by his choice, or he was unable to make that choice as the event changed classification from terroristic threat to homicide.

Sorry to disagree J.J., but I don't see a forced exit as being the same as a voluntary exit. Much greater dynamics involved in the forced exit.

If this is more than a one day event (and I do think so based on the trip to Raystown Lake and my feeling that he went back to Bellefonte after Lewisburg, and possibly even back to Lewisburg again) and his worried state prior to his going missing, suicide and voluntary exit to me diminish the percentage it was suicide and to a lesser degree, going to the money (but money may have been involved).

I used to be pretty convinced it was suicide or voluntary walkaway, not so much anymore.

Agree with you re: voluntary vs. forced.... It's black letter law. If an actor performs an act as a result of force, coercion, blackmail or threats of such things, then the act is not truly considered to be of one's own volition. There is definitely a distinct difference between forced and voluntary. And if "forced" seems too much like kidnapping, perhaps a good middle ground would be "under duress".

Kidnapping = forced disappearance
Leaving in order to protect one's self or others (this would include witness protection) = walking away under duress
Leaving because unhappy and/or went a fresh start = voluntary walkaway

 

[wijg]

So to clarify, my percentages are:

50% walkaway under duress
45% foul play (kidnapping, murder, etc)
5% voluntary walkaway
0% suicide

 

[Trackergd]

Using the same terminology, my percentages are:

50% walkaway under duress
40% foul play (kidnapping, murder, etc)
8% voluntary walkaway
2% suicide

With the caveat that the walkaway under duress may have turned into foul play, or at a much lower percentage, suicide.

 

[Trackergd]

Duress:

Something socially abhorrent
Something related to a case
Something related to National Security
Something financial - personal
Something of the nature of criminal activity

Most of the above are stressors and would have manifested themselves in distracted and concerned behavior.

Of one thing I am convinced, someone else within his social, personal or family circles knew what it was.

 

[wijg]

Duress:

Something socially abhorrent
Something related to a case
Something related to National Security
Something financial - personal
Something of the nature of criminal activity

Most of the above are stressors and would have manifested themselves in distracted and concerned behavior.

Of one thing I am convinced, someone else within his social, personal or family circles knew what it was.

Agree with all of this, as well as your previous post positing that "walkaway under duress" could have very well turned into foul play.

Also, I am of the opinion that someone in his social circle knew of this. I've been wondering whom. The past few days I have been wondering if it was Judge Grine. He had known Ray for a very long time. He was a police officer before he went to law school, probably the kind of "law and order" type that Ray was. He was also the judge that declared Ray legally dead in 2011 at the behest of Lara Gricar. In my witness protection theory, I stated I believed someone may have known, and then months or years later, Lara Gricar was informed to put her mind at ease. If the man who knew was Judge Grine, then it would make sense that he tried to throw off Fenton's timeline (despite Fenton being pretty damn certain, even going into detail about what she was thinking at the time) and that he was the one to rule on Lara Gricar's petition to have Ray declared dead.

 

[SuperSmith]

Excellent posts both of you

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Agree with all of this, as well as your previous post positing that "walkaway under duress" could have very well turned into foul play.

Also, I am of the opinion that someone in his social circle knew of this. I've been wondering whom. The past few days I have been wondering if it was Judge Grine. He had known Ray for a very long time. He was a police officer before he went to law school, probably the kind of "law and order" type that Ray was. He was also the judge that declared Ray legally dead in 2011 at the behest of Lara Gricar. In my witness protection theory, I stated I believed someone may have known, and then months or years later, Lara Gricar was informed to put her mind at ease. If the man who knew was Judge Grine, then it would make sense that he tried to throw off Fenton's timeline (despite Fenton being pretty damn certain, even going into detail about what she was thinking at the time) and that he was the one to rule on Lara Gricar's petition to have Ray declared dead.

Grine did not try to throw off Fenton's timeline, however. The car did not show on the tape on 4/15.

 

[SuperSmith]

Yes JJ we know Gricar didn't show up on tape on 4/15 but it doesn't mean Grines recollection wasn't purposely cloudy.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes JJ we know Gricar didn't show up on tape on 4/15 but it doesn't mean Grines recollection wasn't purposely cloudy.

Well, it is likely that Grine was not "purposely cloudy." The car wasn't where Fenton thought she saw it, at least on 4/15. Grine opened up the possibility that it was there on 4/14.

 

[wijg]

The tape was inconclusive. The camera did not pan wide enough. You know this JJ.