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

[SuperSmith]

Well, I suppose everyone can make there own judgement on that. It is light years away from fact, your interpretation, and as I said was not reported or written anywhere.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, I suppose everyone can make there own judgement on that. It is light years away from fact, your interpretation, and as I said was not reported or written anywhere.

It is written that RFG took the laptop with him. We have that from DZ and that wasn't an assumption on his part. Likewise we no witness that saw RFG with the laptop outside of the Mini in Lewisburg as per PB. That wording was quite specific.

We have also seen that LE has not released all of the witnesses. We didn't know of the Centre Hall witness until 2/2011. I am familiar with other witnesses prior to that siting, but I'm not currently at liberty to release the details (except to say that it is consistent with the Centre Hall witness).

 

[SuperSmith]

If it's written then post it is all I'm asking and please refrain from suggesting you have insider insight (LE information that has not been released) as I know you do not. What would make one witness more secretive than another. Give me a break. You're reaching.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If it's written then post it is all I'm asking and please refrain from suggesting you have insider insight (LE information that has not been released) as I know you do not. What would make one witness more secretive than another. Give me a break. You're reaching.

I actually did write a blog regarding that witness which saw RFG with the laptop. I did cite it in a blog in early 2013.

The assumption that I don't have some sources is incorrect, as has been demonstrated, repeatedly.

That said, as I have before, there was witness who saw RFG with the laptop, "fiddling" with it, in the Mini in Lewisburg. As I have indicated, I do not know which witness or which day. I have heard that there were numerous additional witnesses on 4/16/05, but I don't know the details.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The actual blog is was mention on this thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...lefonte-15-April-2005-9&p=8746477#post8746477

I was able to reread it using the Wayback Machine website.

 

[SuperSmith]

A witness that saw Gricar fiddling with the laptop in the Mini was fabricated by you and you alone. Because you wrote a blog about it changes nothing. Again there are no reports by LE that there was or is such an eyewitness. In fact over the years the few reported witnesses that have been reported have since one by one almost have been debunked. Craig Bennett and the Packwood Museum lady are all that is left. I plan to email her in the near feature as she still works there. I want to find out if she saw Ray or a red Mini.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

To the best of knowledge, none of the witnesses listed for Lewisburg on 4/14 have been "debunked." Disappeared indicated that both the multiple witnesses at the Packwood House and two witnesses that saw him, in the Mini across from the SoS. This has matched press reports. DZ said, "So we're confident he was down there." Now, he said that in 2010, when more information had come in. MR also noted the Packwood House witnesses.

While there was a witness that debunked for an account on 1:30 PM Saturday 4/16, I know of no witness from 4/15 that has been ruled out.

As for the laptop, the quotes have been given, with sourcing. It has been known for very long time that there was such a witness.

 

[SuperSmith]

Like I said everyone can make their own determination how much weight to give your statements without evidence. I've made mine.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Like I said everyone can make their own determination how much weight to give your statements without evidence. I've made mine.

Except there is evidence, the statements of DZ and MR as to the Packwood House witnesses, plus the reporting. That is simply there.

Personally, I try not to toss out evidence simply because it does not fit a theory. I've lost a few theories that way, but it is worth it.

 

[SuperSmith]

DZ's and PB's statements do not directly indicate a witness as seeing Ray in the Mini with the laptop. That is fact. If you want to further their statements with your own assumptions to fit your walkaway theory that is your business. That said it is irresponsible and a shame for you to post your assumptions as fact when discussing the case. Readers here are now aware. I'm not here to shoot anyone's theories down based upon facts only the ones that jump to assumptions to fit their theory and further cloud the case.

I apologize if my posts seem prickly but I do want others to see that the most prolific poster on this case does not post gospel. I will leave it at that and leave this thread knowing I tried. It's up to others to come to a conclusion. Good luck all. God bless

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped

DZ's and PB's statements do not directly indicate a witness as seeing Ray in the Mini with the laptop. That is fact. If you want to further their statements with your own assumptions to fit your walkaway theory that is your business. That said it is irresponsible and a shame for you to post your assumptions as fact when discussing the case. Readers here are now aware.

It is not an assumption. It was something someone familiar with the evidence told me. Those statements from DZ and PB simply support it. That is why it was in the blog.

Further, it does not specifically support walkaway. Knowing that RFG was interested in getting rid of the data on the laptop (which is reasonable for someone retiring), can explain why RFG, in DZ's words, "... made a conscious decision to go upstairs, take the laptop out of the case, get into his car and leave." It may indicate that the laptop was not related to what happened to RFG.

It also could point to suicide, RFG, being a private person, deciding that he didn't want private data disclosed.

Now, it could indicate that his financial records or travel plans were there as well, but that is not the only reason.

What it does is to weaken or eliminate several theories, including that RFG needed the laptop to read data someone was bringing him (which was one of mine) or that RFG wasn't in Lewisburg, at least on 4/15/05.

 

[SuperSmith]

True to form there is no evidence of this and now you are deflecting. There is no witness on record indicating Ray was seen in his car with the laptop in Lewisburg. You other posters feel free to prove me wrong. I thought we were sifting through facts here and not opinions or statements indicating "a friend of a friend" told me.

Likewise there is no woman on record as having found the hard drive. Likewise there are no fisherman on record as having found the laptop. Something to think about.

 

[Trackergd]

True to form there is no evidence of this and now you are deflecting. There is no witness on record indicating Ray was seen in his car with the laptop in Lewisburg. You other posters feel free to prove me wrong. I thought we were sifting through facts here and not opinions or statements indicating "a friend of a friend" told me.

Likewise there is no woman on record as having found the hard drive. Likewise there are no fisherman on record as having found the laptop. Something to think about.

I know there is a timeline somewhere with regards to the known facts. It probably would help to have the "facts" with notations on each where they came from and how they were substantiated.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

True to form there is no evidence of this and now you are deflecting. There is no witness on record indicating Ray was seen in his car with the laptop in Lewisburg. You other posters feel free to prove me wrong. I thought we were sifting through facts here and not opinions or statements indicating "a friend of a friend" told me.

Likewise there is no woman on record as having found the hard drive. Likewise there are no fisherman on record as having found the laptop. Something to think about.

The point that this would point to walkaway was not made by me. I have not gone out of my way to raise it.

I have several sources familiar with the case, and one gave me the information; that said, it was indirectly referred to by DZ and PB. Again, that is not an "opinion." It is a witness report.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I know there is a timeline somewhere with regards to the known facts. It probably would help to have the "facts" with notations on each where they came from and how they were substantiated.

In a few cases, I cannot reveal sources, at the present time. Much like what happened December of 2013, I can relay the iinformation and out will turn out to be verified.

 

[SuperSmith]

<modsnip> Walkaway is the only scenario you have consistently explored which is your right to do so <modsnip>

Maybe you do have insight that has yet to be released by LE however until it is "verified" it is not evidence that can be used for anyone's theory. That includes, but not limited, to a witness that saw RG in the Mini, with laptop, in Lewisburg.

Unverifiable accounts are just that.

 

[SuperSmith]

Totally agree

 

[Song in My Heart]

Except there is evidence, the statements of DZ and MR as to the Packwood House witnesses, plus the reporting. That is simply there.

Personally, I try not to toss out evidence simply because it does not fit a theory. I've lost a few theories that way, but it is worth it.

Alas, I am experiencing another one of those senior moments. Too bad there isn't an icon of a light bulb with a slash over it, 'cause that would show how I feel. . .:crazy:

Who is MR?

 

[Song in My Heart]

I know there is a timeline somewhere with regards to the known facts. It probably would help to have the "facts" with notations on each where they came from and how they were substantiated.

That would sure be helpful to everyone. If someone locates the timeline/facts and could post, I would print that out in a flash so I could refer to it as I read along here with all of you. Thanks very much!

 

[SuperSmith]

Thank you for posting and I agree to totally! Your posts would be a breathe of fresh air! Have a great day!