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

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

Well, I don't, since I have not ruled out murder. It is very unlikely that RFG would be targeted and his body hidden. That has never happened in any of these cases. In some of these cases, the perpetrator wanted to send a message, **Mess with me (or "us"), and I'll ("we'll) kill you.** That did not happen here.

So JJ what I was trying to say the only witnesses that seen RG were in lewisburg like the store owner IB also the park ones and the other place so how far away they viewed RG at these different places they are 100% sure it was him and not a stand in///// which police department interviewed these people????

 

[MissJ]

so much misinformation in this case. reminds me of the MCStay case where four people disappeared and SDSO kept saying they left voluntarily and there was no evidence of a crime. LE insisted they had witnesses that saw them in Mexico having dinner. Even produced a grainy photo of four people crossing the border. Several people chimed in that yeah they probably left cause of this or that. The now accused threw shade at the missing wife and made lots of accusations about how she may have killed her husband and fled. Four years later the four were found by a dirt biker in shallow graves in the desert. Guess who had egg on their face? SBSO investigated and arrested the husband's alleged besy friend. All kinds of people sited the reasons why this family could not have been murdered, UNTIL the bodies were found. Point is they "left behind" $100,000 in the bank. They left their precious dogs outside in stormy weather. They really had no reason to run anywhere. Second point San Diego Sheriif's office was wrong. Apparently they were murdered in their home yet SDSO completely missed the boat. Everything was staged to make it appear they had left including computer searches and a car left by the border. LE WAS WRONG. THEY HAD NO REASON TO LEAVE. The perp was not even that smart. So why does anyone think it would take a genius to get rid of RFG and dispose of his body and stage it to look otherwise? This perp CM killed four people and disposed of their bodies and staged the scene....by himself.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

so much misinformation in this case. reminds me of the MCStay case where four people disappeared and SDSO kept saying they left voluntarily and there was no evidence of a crime. LE insisted they had witnesses that saw them in Mexico having dinner. Even produced a grainy photo of four people crossing the border. Several people chimed in that yeah they probably left cause of this or that. The now accused threw shade at the missing wife and made lots of accusations about how she may have killed her husband and fled. Four years later the four were found by a dirt biker in shallow graves in the desert. Guess who had egg on their face? SBSO investigated and arrested the husband's alleged besy friend. All kinds of people sited the reasons why this family could not have been murdered, UNTIL the bodies were found. Point is they "left behind" $100,000 in the bank. They left their precious dogs outside in stormy weather. They really had no reason to run anywhere. Second point San Diego Sheriif's office was wrong. Apparently they were murdered in their home yet SDSO completely missed the boat. Everything was staged to make it appear they had left including computer searches and a car left by the border. LE WAS WRONG. THEY HAD NO REASON TO LEAVE. The perp was not even that smart. So why does anyone think it would take a genius to get rid of RFG and dispose of his body and stage it to look otherwise? This perp CM killed four people and disposed of their bodies and staged the scene....by himself.

with all the females that were seen with him I am trying to see how a female would fits into this picture she would have to be smart trustworthy ,and know what she is doing but one thing could she take him down by her self or dose she have help to pinpoint the help in what form

 

[wijg]

I have to say... HowardStern... the fact that you reached such an illogical conclusion makes me wonder. Was that a freudian slip? Why would you assume SuperSmith meant LE planted it?

Very curious. No one that follows this thread would have concluded that's what he meant based on what he posted. Not even JJ.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I thought we just went over that... JJ is the only one that says there were witnesses that put Ray in the car with the laptop. I have yet to see that information from any other source, much less a reputable MSM outlet.

We have those articles cited. Bosak was MSM, as the first article quoting DZ.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

with all the females that were seen with him I am trying to see how a female would fits into this picture she would have to be smart trustworthy ,and know what she is doing but one thing could she take him down by her self or dose she have help to pinpoint the help in what form

There was only one Mystery Woman sighted.

 

[howardstern]

Who the laptop is owned by is irrelevant.

Why would that be irrelevant? If we're going to assume that the laptop/hard drive was planted, why wouldn't the people who OWN the laptop be the first people we look at, with such a lack of evidence for anyone else? Oh, it's okay for you to speculate with no actual evidence to back your theory's, but I bring up legitimate evidence and it's "irrelevant"? Gotcha.

So if it was foul play, whoever the perpetrator was would be most likely to have taken the laptop.

And the perpetrator could have very well been a part of LEO, though again, we have no evidence that there was any foul play or the like, so that's just simple speculation.

Who issued the laptop does not mean a damn thing.

Says who? You? Just because it doesn't fit your theory to an exact tee, doesn't mean it's irrelevant. I was simply answering your question of;

And to my knowledge, SuperSmith never suggested LE planted them. Why would you automatically assume that's what he was insinuating?

Which was in response to a QUESTION I had for SS, I never "automatically assumed" anything. It was based on knowledge that LEO would be the only people to have undisputed access to his laptop, since they own it. FACT: The State could take possession of their laptop at any time. OPINION: Ray could have come into contact with a person, who could have later disposed of the laptop. The only people that could logically have access to Ray's laptop, hard drive, and home computer (in order to plant false searches) would be LE -- THAT is why I brought up LEO, because there is no other people (besides Ray's family) who could have access to all three of those things, with the evidence we have.

Are you also implying law enforcement planted the laptop, hard drive and the Google searches? Why? Who, exactly? When (specifically, when would they have planted those Google searches)?

...

That does not mean it had to be law enforcement.

I never implied that; i.e why I asked "who, exactly?".

Let's keep perspective here; I'm not the one putting out theory's with "80% certainty", based on ZERO physical evidence. I was genuinely interested in Smith's/your theories, but without any actual, non-anecdotal evidence to back it up and the condescending attitude you've exhibited, I'd rather avoid it.

Edit: Wow, just saw this...

I have to say... HowardStern... the fact that you reached such an illogical conclusion makes me wonder. Was that a freudian slip? Why would you assume SuperSmith meant LE planted it?

Very curious. No one that follows this thread would have concluded that's what he meant based on what he posted. Not even JJ.

The pretentious tone you're carrying has got to go. I've noticed this behavior is kind of a habit for you. Maybe you should give me some time to respond before littering this thread with more condescending dribble.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

There was only one Mystery Woman sighted.

tyrone sos and IB is that right

 

[wijg]

We have those articles cited. Bosak was MSM, as the first article quoting DZ.

Link please???? Sorry, I'm just not in the mood to look it up. And I figure as the expert on this case, you probably have everything bookmarked and readily available. So please, provide this lazy man with a link.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

tyrone sos and IB is that right

No, because Tyrone was PEF, according to her. Butterworth did not see RFG. There were other Minis in Lewisburg.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

Link please???? Sorry, I'm just not in the mood to look it up. And I figure as the expert on this case, you probably have everything bookmarked and readily available. So please, provide this lazy man with a link.

I had to look up them words and to see what they mean and I still dont know they would be over my head

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Link please???? Sorry, I'm just not in the mood to look it up. And I figure as the expert on this case, you probably have everything bookmarked and readily available. So please, provide this lazy man with a link.

No longer on-line, but the first article article is in the "for fee" archive at the CDT, 10/29/05. I don't think it was reprinted.

You know, I'm posting the sources and dates.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Though not the original quotes, her is me referring to it six years ago.

http://www.centredaily.com/2009/09/24/2396710/the-investigation-part-15-rebooting.html

 

[wijg]

Though not the original quotes, her is me referring to it six years ago.

http://www.centredaily.com/2009/09/24/2396710/the-investigation-part-15-rebooting.html

Wild inferences and a message board poster? That's your evidence?

trollolololololololol

 

[wijg]

And I say this as someone that initially believed you JJ... When I first posted, I just assumed you knew what you were talking about, and believed you when you said there was a witness that saw RG "fidgeting with the laptop in his car". I even incorporated it into one of my initial theories.

But as my Russian wife says "Trust but verify" (Yup, Reagan stole that phrase from Soviet culture). So I started looking into your assertions myself. And I do believe you have a habit for making huge leaps in logic towards shaky conclusions, and then trying to enter those as facts into evidence, whereas if the rest of us did that, we'd be lambasted for it.

I haven't seen leaps in logic like yours since the Freeh Report.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wild inferences and a message board poster? That's your evidence?

trollolololololololol

More than that. I do have it confirmed from a source. As you can see with the message board poster, it had been getting out there for a while.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And I say this as someone that initially believed you JJ... When I first posted, I just assumed you knew what you were talking about, and believed you when you said there was a witness that saw RG "fidgeting with the laptop in his car". I even incorporated it into one of my initial theories.

But as my Russian wife says "Trust but verify" (Yup, Reagan stole that phrase from Soviet culture). So I started looking into your assertions myself. And I do believe you have a habit for making huge leaps in logic towards shaky conclusions, and then trying to enter those as facts into evidence, whereas if the rest of us did that, we'd be lambasted for it.

I haven't seen leaps in logic like yours since the Freeh Report.

Well, it iis published. And it does answer the question of how DZ knew. LE had it from the first week.

This has nothing to do with Freeh.

 

[wijg]

This has nothing to do with Freeh.

I never said it did. I was merely making a joke that I figured would be humorous to Pennsylvanians.

But it appears I struck a chord....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And I say this as someone that initially believed you JJ... When I first posted, I just assumed you knew what you were talking about, and believed you when you said there was a witness that saw RG "fidgeting with the laptop in his car". I even incorporated it into one of my initial theories.

But as my Russian wife says "Trust but verify" (Yup, Reagan stole that phrase from Soviet culture). So I started looking into your assertions myself. And I do believe you have a habit for making huge leaps in logic towards shaky conclusions, and then trying to enter those as facts into evidence, whereas if the rest of us did that, we'd be lambasted for it.

I haven't seen leaps in logic like yours since the Freeh Report.

Well, it iis published. And it does answer the question of how DZ knew. LE had it from the first week.

This has nothing to do with Freeh.

BTW: You can go back through these pages and see where I did post things that later became public.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I never said it did. I was merely making a joke that I figured would be humorous to Pennsylvanians.

But it appears I struck a chord....

Yes, because I've indicated that I've had some problems with the report.