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

[SuperSmith]

Fenton and Grine have separate accounts. The fact that Grine couldn't recall the day does not affect Fentons account. Neither does the fact the camera did not pan far enough to see the car Gricar was supposedly in. On that note even if the car was captured it is unlikely a positive ID could have been ascertained. Still, Fenton is the most credible witness.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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

The camera view covered the parking lot. Had another car entered that lot, it should have been on the tape. Only if RFG had pulled up to the entrance on the west (left) side and then backed into the street would it not have been recorded.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Fenton and Grine have separate accounts. The fact that Grine couldn't recall the day does not affect Fentons account. Neither does the fact the camera did not pan far enough to see the car Gricar was supposedly in. On that note even if the car was captured it is unlikely a positive ID could have been ascertained. Still, Fenton is the most credible witness.

See the above post. The camera is fixed; it doesn't pan. Grine supported the Fenton sighting, but wasn't sure of the day.

I am not saying that Fenton didn't see RFG on 4/15. I am saying that RFG was not in the spot where Fenton reported seeing RFG. There was not even a vehicle there.

 

[SuperSmith]

Surveillance footage shows Fenton leaving the courthouse at the time she remembers, but cameras did not pan wide enough to catch the car she said was driven by Gricar.

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

It is not that Fenton was incorrect it is the camera didn't pan wide enough to catch the car. Stop twisting info please.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Surveillance footage shows Fenton leaving the courthouse at the time she remembers, but cameras did not pan wide enough to catch the car she said was driven by Gricar.

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

It is not that Fenton was incorrect it is the camera didn't pan wide enough to catch the car. Stop twisting info please.

The tape from that camera, on 4/14.05 was on disappeared. It covers the parking lot. Had a car been in the lot, it would have showed up on the tape. Again Fenton might not have seen the car actually in the lot, but it was not in the parking lot when she was there on 4/15. It could have been on the street and she misremembered; it could have been 4/14.

I would add that RFG aquiring a second, unknown vehicle would strongly indicate voluntary departure.

I looked at it again. According to Fenton the car was leaving the parking lot. It would have had to be in the lot to be leaving it.

 

[wijg]

The first photo is from the security camera from the very episode of Disappeared that you were referring to. The second is an aerial view from Google Earth. As you can see, there are four parking spots that are out of sight from the camera (two to the left, two to the right). The entrance to the lot on the left is not captured well by the camera either. Ray could have gone west on E High, bared left into the lot, and parked in the spot furthest to his right against the courthouse, and the camera would not have picked it up.

Once again, the camera is inconclusive. It didn't rule out anything. All it did was confirm that Fenton left at the time that she stated 4/15, further corroborating her story.

 

[wijg]

And I do agree that Gricar acquiring a second vehicle would be very indicative of a voluntary departure.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

View attachment 74823View attachment 74824

The first photo is from the security camera from the very episode of Disappeared that you were referring to. The second is an aerial view from Google Earth. As you can see, there are four parking spots that are out of sight from the camera (two to the left, two to the right). The entrance to the lot on the left is not captured well by the camera either. Ray could have gone west on E High, bared left into the lot, and parked in the spot furthest to his right against the courthouse, and the camera would not have picked it up.

Once again, the camera is inconclusive. It didn't rule out anything. All it did was confirm that Fenton left at the time that she stated 4/15, further corroborating her story.

Note the two exits to the lot, however. One is completely on camera, the other is less than a car length out of shot. It would still be on camera.

I would not rule out the street, however.

 

[DeDee]

Please pardon me for interrupting the parking lot debate.

It's just that I viewed several videos over the weekend. I cannot eliminate RG's demise from what became the damaging Sandusky Penn State Scandal.

Would someone explain to me why the Penn State matter is not a viable option for Ray Gricar's demise? After all, the Second Mile was able to operate for years after Gricar's initial investigation when he chose to not prosecute. Look at all of the young boy's lives who were damaged due to that refusal.

One of the videos made a correlation to Gricar's missing nearby a bridge over water in a similar manner in which his brother committed suicide. Perhaps the perp was aware of that personal bit of information and used it to make the public and LEO think RG committed suicide.

Due to the searches made on his computer for how to destroy a laptop's hard drive, it appears to me that Ray was fearful someone wanted the info contained on the DA office's laptop. And perhaps, they killed him to get it. Tossing him into the Susquehanna River could mean that the body floated to the churning waters of the dam further downstream; never to resurface again.

There was also an unusual sighting of Ray accompanied with an unidentified woman with dark hair walking among the shops in the MarketPlace. I truly don't understand the "sightings" and find them difficult to accept. I could not positively identify the DA from another county in the state in which I live. None of the sightings in the shops could show where Ray made any purchases while with the unidentified dark-haired lady.

I guess we will never know why RG had his work computer with him on a day when he decided to play hooky unless he typically carried it home at night so it was already in his vehicle for that reason. What do you guys think was the reason for Ray having his office computer with him on a day when he decided to not go to work?

JMHO after viewing online videos

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First, the laptop was generally unused, except when RFG was at conferences. It had been the sole home computer until around Christmas 2004, when RFG got a desktop. Since that time it was generally unused. It was county issued and RFG was suppose to return it when he retired. .

While RFG wanted to get rid of the data on the computer, there are some problems with someone else wanting to do the same. Nobody else knew what was on the laptop, nobody could know that data was. Further someone wanting to destroy it so it would never be seen couldn't be sure it wasn't copied to his home or office desktops, or printed out and kept on file, or copied to a CD or flash drive.

On to the PSU Scandal. Several things make it unlikely to be related. RFG's intersection with Sandusky happened just under seven years prior to his disappearance;tThat is a very large gap. There was no file on it. RFG was not working on the case; LE found no references to it when searching. The case was ended when RFG chose not to charge. Not charging someone is not a reason for the person/associates to murder him.

 

[SuperSmith]

Unless he came upon more info and was about to reopen the case. Info from the Sandusky investigation could have been on the laptop whether from back in 98 or new info.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Unless he came upon more info and was about to reopen the case. Info from the Sandusky investigation could have been on the laptop whether from back in 98 or new info.

Unlikely that any original documents from 1998 would be on there, as he didn't have the laptop then. Copies could have been, the the originals were not found.

Further, no one could know that anything Sandusky related was only on the laptop.

 

[wijg]

I don't have enough direct evidence right now to definitively connect Gricar to the Sandusky Scandal. But I have always found it curious that Steve Sloane has absolutely no recollection of the Oct. 1998 meeting at the PSU football building. That's not exactly an everyday occurrence. To give an example from my own life, I worked as a flower delivery guy in high school and college. Logged around 200,000 miles delivering thousands of floral arrangements and gift baskets. I can't recall the circumstances surrounding every delivery that I considered routine (funeral homes, normal middle class homes/neighborhoods, hospitals, downtown office buildings). But the time I delivered to the executive offices of an NFL team? Yup, I remember that. The time I went to the football offices of a major college program to deliver to the secretary of a prominent college football coach? I remember it well. (and this coach is in charge of a blue blood program... but while he's prominent, he's not nearly as prominent as Joe Paterno was).

My point is... sure, guys like Gricar and Sloane probably had 1000s of meetings in mundane/routine settings (their own offices, homes in central PA, coffee shops, etc). But how often do you think they went to the Penn State Football Offices to have a meeting? I don't buy that he can't remember that. Unless going to the PSU football office was so routine that nothing about it seemed out of the ordinary (and if that's the case, WHY was it so routine?).

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/07/when-did-ray-gricar-close-his-sandusky.html

Also, I find it curious that Sloane magically found Gricar's dictaphone years later. And even more curious that the dictaphone had a tape in it that was SEVEN years old by the time of Gricar's disappearance. To me, that seems somewhat significant.

Like I said, I can't definitively link the Sandusky scandal to Gricar's disappearance yet, but something doesn't add up, and I'd like Steve Sloane to shed some light on the circumstances surrounding how acquired Gricar's dictaphone and how he specifically stumbled upon that tape that was recorded so long ago.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that is a totally different question. What happened in 1998 probably was not related to what happened in 2005.

I think that your are correct in your assessment of Sloane. PennLive reported that he was involved in the 1998 case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipping for the photos (which are quite good):

View attachment 74823View attachment 74824

I'm not sure that Fenton would park in the lot next to the Courthouse. I think it reserved for higher ranking individuals, like the District Attorney, the judges and the commissioners. It looks like it has 18 slots.

There is a larger parking area behind that, but I don't know if it was there in 2005 (there was the county jail building in the area at the time). Could Fenton have seen RFG outside of the parking lot and just assumed that he was pulling out of the lot? She would probably be crossing the lot and not at the door.

 

[wijg]

You could be onto something there JJ (re: Fenton just assuming Gricar had pulled out of the lot).

 

[Trackergd]

You could be onto something there JJ (re: Fenton just assuming Gricar had pulled out of the lot).

Assuming for the moment that Fenton did see RFG "near" the parking lot, I am wondering if he left from the Courthouse or went back to Lewisburg. I would seem pointless to go back to Lewisburg if the computer had already been dumped and the Mini positioned to be "found".

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay, assume that the red car in the upper left corner of the parking lot in the aerial shot in the photo was in the same position as the car Fenton saw. How would you pull out? (High Street on the upper part of the photo is one way going right to left.)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Assuming for the moment that Fenton did see RFG "near" the parking lot, I am wondering if he left from the Courthouse or went back to Lewisburg. I would seem pointless to go back to Lewisburg if the computer had already been dumped and the Mini positioned to be "found".

If that was RFG, he returns to Bellefonte to drop off the person who brought him the car and then goes back to establish that he was in Lewisburg. When the police start checking, they get reports of him arriving in Lewisburg around lunch time and then in the late afternoon, early evening. LE assumes he was there all day. They are not looking for the person who brought him the car.

In that scenario, the map is searched to give the other person the drive time.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

If that was RFG, he returns to Bellefonte to drop off the person who brought him the car and then goes back to establish that he was in Lewisburg. When the police start checking, they get reports of him arriving in Lewisburg around lunch time and then in the late afternoon, early evening. LE assumes he was there all day. They are not looking for the person who brought him the car.

In that scenario, the map is searched to give the other person the drive time.

Well JJ this is what I had to think about the search on the computer that RG did hey when you cant find a street which this one was not marked with a sign post where he turned off on to the next this you do is look at a map to find it which I had to do more that once back in 2005 there were some streets that did not have street signs and he RG was not aware off but the passenger might have as many of times i have drove or being a passenger never knew of a street at that location