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

[J. J. in Phila]

So do believe they were tossed from the bridge?

The laptop, minus the drive, yes. I think the drive was tossed from the bank across from the Packwood House.

 

[SuperSmith]

Don't you find that a bit odd no matter what theory?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Don't you find that a bit odd no matter what theory?

No, not at all. I think it is quite reasonable that RFG, who was known to have wanted that data gone would use that method.

It basically fits with all three main scenarios.

When the information on the searches came out, it didn't change the odds at all. Why? We already knew he had asked other people about getting rid of the data.

 

[SuperSmith]

That's not what I mean. Who ever tossed the pieces separated the two and went to two different locations to toss them but still within a 100 yard range. Makes no sense.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That's not what I mean. Who ever tossed the pieces separated the two and went to two different locations to toss them but still within a 100 yard range. Makes no sense.

It would if he was worried about the computer being found, which again plays into all three scenarios.

Assume that RFG was planning to come back from Lewisburg and this was not walkaway or suicide. RFG wanted that data to be unrecoverable, which is consistent with his statements to others and with the searches on his home computer. He decides that the best way is to report the laptop destroyed; he can reimburse the county for the cost of a used laptop that isn't even manufactured anymore.

One problem is that the laptop itself has identifying serial numbers on it, and a tag saying that it belongs to Centre County. Another problem is that he doesn't know when (or if) it will be found. If he drops the intact laptop, someone may find it in a few weeks, return it, and the county might decide salvage the data.

So, to prevent that, he removes the drive and tosses it in separately. The drive has no identifiers. If it found first, it just looks like someone's discarded drive and nobody goes to the trouble of trying to get the data. If the laptop is found first, everyone assumes the drive dropped out, and if anyone is looking for it, is looking in the wrong place. Either way, the data is lost.

 

[SuperSmith]

I understand what your trying to say but throwing it in the proximity where he was supposedly seen by several people, in close proximity to where his car was located, and where he supposedly (by your theory) had mapped a destination for, wasn't the most intelligent thing to do if what you say is true. If he wanted to get rid if the data why not dispose of it in a better location where it was certain to never be found for a long time if at all? It was shear bad luck or luck for who tossed it that it wasn't found when the divers searched the river. RG was smarter than that. If it was him that ditched the laptop and harddrive it would've been a better move to ditch the laptop in the dumpster at a Walmart and toss the drive somewhere other than where LE put their main focus. Like I said prior it doesn't make sense for it to have been RG who tossed them unless it is a suicide for which it wouldn't have mattered. This is why I believe the laptop and drive were stage props. It keeps you looking in Lewisburg.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RFG was seen in the area by several people, where he could have tossed the drive, but he wasn't seen tossing it.

The map, as noted, would only show up when they checked his search history and Lewisburg is a big destination when your are talking about something the size of a drive. Remember that the drive doesn't have to stay in the water forever to destroy it. It only has stay submerged for maybe 2 weeks.

Assuming RFG was planning to return, no one would even know it was missing until he reported it. He reports that he dropped it in the water, by accident, and that there was nothing too important on it.

If he wasn't planning to come back:

1. He'd have to be reported missing.

2. Then his presence in Lewisburg would have to be discovered.

3. Then the absence of the laptop would have to discovered.

4. Then the laptop would have to be discovered, minus drive.

5. Then the drive woould have to be discovered.

A lot has to happen.

 

[Trackergd]

I get both opinions with regard to the drive and computer. Just going by gut, tossing the computer and drive within 100 yards of each other "appears" to be odd.

 

[Trackergd]

TRACKER- please take a look at this article by Centre County Times reporter Pete Bozak (he has been mentioned recently).

http://www.centredaily.com/2006/05/13/3802/missed-leads.html

The investigation was botched from the beginning. Why was Fenton's eyewitness account (who knew Gricar well) dismissed when she swears she saw him in a different car in the courthouse parking lot at 3pm on the 15th? Why? It was their most credible witness!!! I have no idea why he would be in a different car but this sighting has always stuck with me. So if Fentons account is so easily dismissed then how can we take any eyewitness account reported at face value when they did not even know Gricar? Anxious for your thoughts on this Tracker. Have a good night.

I have to digest all this for a bit. This also "appears" to point a direct finger at RG's finances and LG comment explains why the second side of the tax return was sealed by court order at LG's request.

I am very interested in the information that he was seen in a different car and the time he was seen in it.

The article also confirms RG's approximate income, had no investments, did not like 401k's or IRA's, owned no property, was living in PF's home and owed nothing to two ex-wives.

LG's comment "That's nobody's business" is very interesting to me. I am passing this on to the accountant. It is possible that RG "gifted" large sums of cash to LG and PF in larger sums that the 5 grand increments that don't appear on the IRS radar and that neither one want's that information public. But it seems odd that RG would not have kept a tidy sum for retirement, even with the pension.

 

[Trackergd]

I did a search yesterday and today on how to destroy a drive. Water immersion appeared last on the list and also required more than just throwing it into water. There were at least five better methods of which at least three were within RG's ability. If RG was really serious about getting rid of the data, this was not the ideal method. The sites also noted the two top reasons for destroying data on a drive. I will let you all guess or research what they were.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

One is physical destruction of the disk, but it is easier said than done. I actually tried driving a nail through one, and I bend several nails.

There are two other factors:

1. Some method, like pounding a nail through it, are noisy and attract attention.

2. Some methods clearly cannot be written off as an accident.

 

[SuperSmith]

Exactly Tracker and why search specifically for "water damage" to a hard drive? Also how to "fry" a hard drive is not a term I can readily see RG using. He also had software to wipe the drive. Box for it was found. Windows washer I believe LE said. Are you starting to see why I believe the laptop and hard drive were props? They and the car keep you in Lewisburg.

 

[Trackergd]

Exactly Tracker and why search specifically for "water damage" to a hard drive? Also how to "fry" a hard drive is not a term I can readily see RG using. He also had software to wipe the drive. Box for it was found. Windows washer I believe LE said. Are you starting to see why I believe the laptop and hard drive were props? They and the car keep you in Lewisburg.

From what I have read and talked to our IT people about, to "fry" a drive is to either burn it or microwave the internal disc(s). For water immersion, you need to put it into a tub and use an electric current.

I wonder where the software went?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From what I have read and talked to our IT people about, to "fry" a drive is to either burn it or microwave the internal disc(s). For water immersion, you need to put it into a tub and use an electric current.

I wonder where the software went?

My guess that the software would be in the river.

As for water damage, it takes a while without using electrolysis. However, exposure of two weeks will be effective.

 

[SuperSmith]

Judging by several photos of the laptop the CD drawer was separated from the laptop as well. Was it separated prior to the river, did police separate it, was the disk possibly in the laptop prior to the water and washed away to never be found? Good question for sure.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Judging by several photos of the laptop the CD drawer was separated from the laptop as well. Was it separated prior to the river, did police separate it, was the disk possibly in the laptop prior to the water and washed away to never be found? Good question for sure.

It could have become separated on impact with the water. If it's like my CD drawer (desktop), it is flimsy.

 

[SuperSmith]

Problem with that is if it was separated on impact it is unlikely that it would've been found with the laptop. It would've been a light piece and May even floated.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Problem with that is if it was separated on impact it is unlikely that it would've been found with the laptop. It would've been a light piece and May even floated.

It may not have completely separated or was resting under the laptop.

 

[SeekingJana]

I was talking to my high tech- oriented spouse some time ago about the conundrum about the laptop- that Mr. Gricar had asked how to erase the HD for some time before his disappearance, had purchased a " wiping" program, then the old thing was found in two separated sections in the shallow river ( the HD actually in mud, so probably shoreline).

He pointed out to me that it was most likely amateur staging. A person like my spouse, who can remove the partitioning and formatting of a hard drive or drives and completely overwrite all data with his own code and reformat it to factory new quickly and easily sees things differently from the rest of us.

One thing he strongly felt was that the talk about the hard drive or a hard drive, then the river being searched and no computer found, then the two parts being found separated and by two different anonymous sources is fishy. He said it could possibly be likened to the hand washing of Lady McBeth- an undoing OCD type behavior or a big red cartoon type arrow pointing to the computers in Mr. Gricar's life. His opinion, without knowing anything else about the case, was that either the man had something really bad, as in illegally bad on the laptop that he didn't want to be found, and " destroyed" the computer two different ways, or that someone with knowledge of something extremely bad, as in possibly illegal, was pointing out the computer in a very staged and clumsy way that surely would get the attention of LE ( in most areas of the country).

He was sure that for people without extreme apprehension about their hard drive contents, a wiping program or his own simple 10 minute writing over the hard drive and then restoring it to factory new if they knew how, would be sufficient.
His conclusion as a very logical- thinking person, is that the laptop being dumped is in itself a clue to look closely at the missing man's computers which remain for content of an illegal nature. Of course, either that has been done by now and we don't know the results, or it wasn't done and there's nothing left to search now after 10 years.
He also said some data might be recoverable from the HD now if it has been stored properly ( which I doubt).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You and your hubby is right. One of the problems was improper storage and the earlier attempts to recover the data made the latter attempts more difficult.