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

[J. J. in Phila]

Wow.....and it gets deeper.

I don't know why you would claim that. One poster even claimed to sent an e-mail to one of the witnesses at the Packwood House.

 

[howardstern]

So what is your contribution Mr. Stern? Is that polite enough for your sensibilities? What is your theory and why?

I've posted the map I made regarding the case numerous times, and I addressed my theory (or lack of) on the last page - maybe you missed it.

Btw disproving someone's "opinion as fact" is par for the course.

I haven't seen much "disproving" on your part. I'm not taking sides here - I've gone through all the posts regarding RG and it's very clear there has been a rift between participants in this thread for years now. In fact, I've found posts of yours that show you doing the EXACT thing you excuse J.J of, so I don't know what to make of that. Again, I'm not here to pick sides, and I don't know the details of what you guys are arguing about quite frankly. But I DO see a pattern of inflammatory and downright insulting comments from one side, and the complete opposite from the other side.

If you had a relative missing and had a poster doing the "opinion as fact" which takes you and others away from a factual investigation how would you feel then?

I don't know if that's necessarily true. There are two sides to every argument and I'm sure J.J would have something different to say regarding this matter. Reminds me of;

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...efonte-15-April-2005-11&p=9914199#post9914199


Guess we should take your word for it, right?

In this instance JJ has had a media outlet to print his blogs for years. This has given many the false pretense that he is the goto Gricar guru.

I think people are more drawn to the fact that he handles himself in the correct manor. I don't think I'll ever see him call somebody a "trololololol" or the like, but I guess some feel the need to stoop to childish insults to somehow validate their argument.

This is going to be my last post in reference to this topic. If you guys want to spend another five pages spewing condescending remarks about a specific person, be my guess - it's only a disservice to the guests (3 right now) and the people who are actually looking for relevant info on the RG case.

 

[MissJ]

I don't know why you would claim that. One poster even claimed to sent an e-mail to one of the witnesses at the Packwood House.

I didn't claim anything

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I didn't claim anything

You claimed "It gets deeper." No, it adds a bit of detail to show why DZ said what he did. No a lot. No definite witness that saw RFG toss the drive or laptop. He probably did, but this doesn't add to it.

 

[wijg]

Actually, DZ's comment was posted here, contemporaneously: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ntral-Pennsylvania-Part-2&p=864688#post864688

Now, it is clear that DZ knew, at that point, RFG had the Mini with him. I just added the information on how he knew it.

You mean this quote? "He made a conscious decision to go upstairs, take the laptop out of the case, get into his car and leave," Zaccagni

Let me get this straight... and I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to follow you... Your logic is this: Since Zaccagni says with certainty that it was Ray who took the laptop, we can infer that someone saw Ray with the laptop. Otherwise he could not say with certainty whether Ray took the laptop.

 

[SuperSmith]

The difference is I revealed my source which was BB.

 

[SuperSmith]

I've posted the map I made regarding the case numerous times, and I addressed my theory (or lack of) on the last page - maybe you missed it.




I haven't seen much "disproving" on your part. I'm not taking sides here - I've gone through all the posts regarding RG and it's very clear there has been a rift between participants in this thread for years now. In fact, I've found posts of yours that show you doing the EXACT thing you excuse J.J of, so I don't know what to make of that. Again, I'm not here to pick sides, and I don't know the details of what you guys are arguing about quite frankly. But I DO see a pattern of inflammatory and downright insulting comments from one side, and the complete opposite from the other side.




I don't know if that's necessarily true. There are two sides to every argument and I'm sure J.J would have something different to say regarding this matter. Reminds me of;

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...efonte-15-April-2005-11&p=9914199#post9914199


Guess we should take your word for it, right?



I think people are more drawn to the fact that he handles himself in the correct manor. I don't think I'll ever see him call somebody a "trololololol" or the like, but I guess some feel the need to stoop to childish insults to somehow validate their argument.

This is going to be my last post in reference to this topic. If you guys want to spend another five pages spewing condescending remarks about a specific person, be my guess - it's only a disservice to the guests (3 right now) and the people who are actually looking for relevant info on the RG case.

I'm sorry you cannot see that someone posting opinion as fact angers those who are real trying to get to the bottom of this. I've posted one of my sources as BB. JJ has not noted his source and expects us to just believe whatever he posts. I don't have anymore answers than he does but refrain from the posting opinions as facts.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You mean this quote? "He made a conscious decision to go upstairs, take the laptop out of the case, get into his car and leave," Zaccagni

Let me get this straight... and I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to follow you... Your logic is this: Since Zaccagni says with certainty that it was Ray who took the laptop, we can infer that someone saw Ray with the laptop. Otherwise he could not say with certainty whether Ray took the laptop.

No, we can infer that RFG had the laptop with him.

I've supplied that the reason DZ made that statement.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The difference is I revealed my source which was BB.

You revealed your source about what?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm sorry you cannot see that someone posting opinion as fact angers those who are real trying to get to the bottom of this. I've posted one of my sources as BB. JJ has not noted his source and expects us to just believe whatever he posts. I don't have anymore answers than he does but refrain from the posting opinions as facts.

Smith, the actual quote from DZ was quoted on this site when it was made, and I provided a link back to that.

DZ said, in MSM, quoted directly, that RFG took the laptop with him to Lewisburg. I provided the reason, based on a source, that explained why DZ said that, but he still said it.

 

[wijg]

No, we can infer that RFG had the laptop with him.

I've supplied that the reason DZ made that statement.

Got it... and yes, that is the logical inference. And how exactly did we get from Gricar simply having the laptop (a reasonable conclusion based on the fact that it was missing) to Gricar "being seen in the Mini with the laptop"? Are those where the message board comments and blog post come in? Possibly one of your unnamed sources? Just trying to make sure I follow you so I can better understand where you're coming from.

 

[wijg]

DZ said, in MSM, quoted directly, that RFG took the laptop with him to Lewisburg.

Ok, now that's where I'm having trouble following you. The quote from the article you linked to says this:

DZ: "He made a conscious decision to go upstairs, take the laptop out of the case, get into his car and leave,"

It says nothing about taking the laptop "with him to Lewisburg". Unless there is a different quote out there you are referring to.

 

[howardstern]

Well let's take a step back here, this is where it all started.

That isn't to completely rule it out completely, but witnesses have said that they saw Ray potentially using the laptop in his car in Lewisburg, and if not, at Raystown Lake the day prior. Could these witnesses be wrong? Maybe, but it's a lot more compelling than the evidence (or lack of) we have of somebody planting the laptop/hard drive after the fact.

Let me preface by saying that I could be completely wrong here, but I could have sworn there was a witness that saw Ray in the parking lot using *possibly* using the laptop. Keep in mind I included the word "potentially", exactly for this reason, because I didn't have a source to reference at the time.

You immediately assumed I had gotten that info from J.J, but I honestly don't remember where exactly I saw it. It was probably in one of the previous RG threads, though that's neither here nor there.

It doesn't really matter in the context of my post - I was trying to prove that Ray was the last person that we absolutely KNOW used the laptop. Whether it was the day before his disappearance or in Lewisburg itself within his Mini. Anyone else getting their hands on it is speculation.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Got it... and yes, that is the logical inference. And how exactly did we get from Gricar simply having the laptop (a reasonable conclusion based on the fact that it was missing) to Gricar "being seen in the Mini with the laptop"? Are those where the message board comments and blog post come in? Possibly one of your unnamed sources? Just trying to make sure I follow you so I can better understand where you're coming from.

Well, it from my source and "Just Gricar" blog (MSM, it was by the reporter that covered the case) about the specific reference that no one saw RFG with the laptop "outside" of the Mini. Now, that does correspond to my source.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well let's take a step back here, this is where it all started.




Let me preface by saying that I could be completely wrong here, but I could have sworn there was a witness that saw Ray in the parking lot using *possibly* using the laptop. Keep in mind I included the word "potentially", exactly for this reason, because I didn't have a source to reference at the time.

You immediately assumed I had gotten that info from J.J, but I honestly don't remember where exactly I saw it. It was probably in one of the previous RG threads, though that's neither here nor there.

It doesn't really matter in the context of my post - I was trying to prove that Ray was the last person that we absolutely KNOW used the laptop. Whether it was the day before his disappearance or in Lewisburg itself within his Mini. Anyone else getting their hands on it is speculation.

Just for the record, I don't know of any witness that saw the laptop at Raystown. I do know of a witness that saw RFG, while he was in the Mini, in Lewisburg.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Ok, now that's where I'm having trouble following you. The quote from the article you linked to says this:

DZ: "He made a conscious decision to go upstairs, take the laptop out of the case, get into his car and leave,"

It says nothing about taking the laptop "with him to Lewisburg". Unless there is a different quote out there you are referring to.

Did someone see him take the laptop to the car and leave? Well, I don't know of anyone. Would he have had to have taken the laptop to the car if he was seen in Lewisburg with it? Yes.

 

[wijg]

Well, it from my source and "Just Gricar" blog (MSM, it was by the reporter that covered the case) about the specific reference that no one saw RFG with the laptop "outside" of the Mini. Now, that does correspond to my source.

Ok, but just because "no one saw him with the laptop outside of the Mini" does not mean someone saw him with the laptop INSIDE the Mini. You cannot infer that from that statement. And that's what I was trying to get at. Now, if you have an unnamed witness or source, then that's entirely different, and we can only take you at your word on that. But DZ never stated publicly that "he took the laptop to Lewisburg" or that he "was seen in the mini with the laptop".

I'm not doubting you have a source that told you that. But trying to corroborate your source's information by trying to spin what DZ said is disingenuous.

 

[wijg]

Did someone see him take the laptop to the car and leave? Well, I don't know of anyone. Would he have had to have taken the laptop to the car if he was seen in Lewisburg with it? Yes.

Yes... but WE CAN'T BE CERTAIN HE WAS SEEN WITH IT IN LEWISBURG. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Ok, but just because "no one saw him with the laptop outside of the Mini" does not mean someone saw him with the laptop INSIDE the Mini. You cannot infer that from that statement. And that's what I was trying to get at. Now, if you have an unnamed witness or source, then that's entirely different, and we can only take you at your word on that. But DZ never stated publicly that "he took the laptop to Lewisburg" or that he "was seen in the mini with the laptop".

I'm not doubting you have a source that told you that. But trying to corroborate your source's information by trying to spin what DZ said is disingenuous.

It does when a source says that they was him inside the Mini with the laptop.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes... but WE CAN'T BE CERTAIN HE WAS SEEN WITH IT IN LEWISBURG. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

We do have multiple witnesses and physical evidence he was there. Why would that not be sufficient.