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

[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 is consistent with the source.

 

[SuperSmith]

I'm guilty of posting various things that was given to me by a source. That source was BB. I'll let others decide on his credibility. Not naming a source is difficult to enter as fact

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm guilty of posting various things that was given to me by a source. That source was BB. I'll let others decide on his credibility. Not naming a source is difficult to enter as fact

And BB has been my source on some things, and has been wrong on some occasions, most notably the Wilkes-Barre sighting.

I prefer to have things from several different sources, prior to posting, or one published source. In the case of the witness to the laptop we had, published, DZ and PB, for some corroboration.

 

[wijg]

It is consistent with the source.

And you are correct. It is consistent. But it is not corroboration. There's a big difference between something being "consistent" and something being "corroborated". And it's a very important distinction.

 

[SuperSmith]

And you are correct. It is consistent. But it is not corroboration. There's a big difference between something being "consistent" and something being "corroborated". And it's a very important distinction.

Totally agree and the things I've used BB as a source for are not as big as a witness to Gricar in Lewisburg with the laptop. I used him for background information. For example the fact that Lara Gricar had a fondness for horses. Those type things

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And you are correct. It is consistent. But it is not corroboration. There's a big difference between something being "consistent" and something being "corroborated". And it's a very important distinction.

In this case, it is.

 

[SuperSmith]

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

This is where we differ. I admit that there are things that one may conclude that Ray was definitely in Lewisburg. There's the map, the Mini, the laptop, the eyewitness reports, and his scent around the Mini. Those circumstantial things make you conclude he was definitely there thus you post them as fact. I could argue successfully each thing I listed as to why he wasn't there. My point is that all those items are circumstantial evidence and not 100% concrete as say a video, a time stamped photo, a traceable phone call, or a receipt. LE has reported all these things but I'm certain they would be the first to tell you that it all is circumstantial evidence and does not point to one theory or the other.

You stating there is "physical evidence" of Gricar being in Lewisburg is a mass assumption by not just you but a lot of LE as well. Guess what? LE has been wrong plenty and obviously they are not on the right track with this case hence the 10 years running.

Being that you have had a public forum and now this thread to post your observations, theories, and opinions, I feel you need to be more responsible with your wordings and postings of mediocre evidence as factual information. Remember even if LE has eluded to certain things that it is also their opinion as well. A better trained opinion I'll give you but as I said not definitive. LE use hunches or gut feelings or instinct that can and have been wrong. You have a responsibility to be precise and sharp here. Leave no doubt so we don't have to spend 5 pages arguing your posts. There are those here that do buy your every word. I as you know am not one of them and it's not because of your walkaway theory but rather an injustice to Ray Gricar you've perpetuated. Ray Gricar deserved(s) better as a public servant of 20 yrs, a colleague, a significant other, a friend, and a father.

 

[SuperSmith]

I think it is also important to remember that DZ was not a lead detective until the Gricar case and quit frankly it was obvious he was under qualified and overwhelmed by this case.

Also P. Bosak was a mere small town reporter reporting a small town beat cops first lead investigation.

 

[SeekingJana]

This topic has been shut down multiple times because of arguing. It makes me really sad to see the fussing happen again.
The facts as we have them come from a few TV shows featuring Mr. Gricar's disappearance, and possibly some old news articles that can be retrieved.
There is NO new news. It seems to me that people get discontented when things are stagnant. This case is so stagnant it literally does have layers of dust and dirt on the case files, according to the PSP.

How a person interprets the case info, which MAY or MAY NOT be accurately reported from LE to the public, varies widely.
It's very tempting to say " This was a murder" because no body has ever been recovered. But nothing else actually is evidentiary to point towards murder. Nothing about the day, the supposed place he went, the suspected things he did based upon some witness statements, nothing about the laptop and hard drive point to murder, either. There is no weapon, no DNA, no signs of a struggle or a crime, nothing disturbed or out of the ordinary at the time of Mr. Gricar's disappearance, unless you believe the laptop and separate hard drive were in the river from the day he disappeared ( which I do not believe is the case). So, the laptop may or may not be evidentiary. I tend to think not.. but we each have opinions.

Then we have " walkaway". Were there signs that this man was unhappy with his life and wanted to live in the rain forest and subsist on rice, beans, fruit and rain water? No, there is no evidence that a mid- sized county DA months from retirement wanted out of his life, or out of his girlfriend's life or his daughter's life. As I understand it, he is a grandfather now. I believe he would move heaven and earth to see his grandchild if he could do so.

Third scenario is " Suicide". There is a category of suicide known as " impulsive suicide" that is, as it says, impulsive and usually, the intent is to escape from a severe and sudden emotional hurt or shock. Some people who survive impulsive suicide attempts relate that they are very glad that they lived.. Some people are depressed people by inclination, seeing the glass as half empty, not believing in the good in people or life, and it's usually not a surprise when the chronically depressed person attempts or successfully commits suicide. I's tragic, always tragic. And there is a body recovered in all but maybe a few cases of suicide.
IMO, Ray Gricar didn't show signs of depression. Worry, perhaps, but it has been said that Patty told a bit of a fish tale when describing his physical and mental health status in the days and weeks before he disappeared in order for there to be easier, faster access to his health records. His health records are said to not show any ill health, including mental health.
I don't believe he committed suicide, either.

Accidental death with remains being accidentally covered or inaccessible is also a theory. IDK, any of us could be walking about tomorrow, step in a small hole, and sever the spinal cord at C-2, which is a common way that " hangman's fractures" occur in adults ( but not children).
If one of us suffered this fate in a rural, wooded area or a marshy area, we would die within 3 minutes because we would stop breathing when the spinal cord was severed. The person would be conscious for a brief period of time, possibly. Lots of " possiblys" in this scenario, although I've known 3 people personally who were high level ( C-2 level) quadriplegics who died soon afterward from doing just what I said- stepping in a shallow hole such as a small wild animal makes and jarring the spine so hard that the spinal cord was severed at the place where it is most lethal- near the opening of the brain. It is actually the hard skull which severs the spinal cord at the C-2 level. All of the people I knew had witnesses who administered CPR and called for help, of course.
Point being, we can't rule out anyone's accidental death on any day from any cause, but for it to go undetected for 10 years in a natural way is very unusual.
The largest category of middle aged adults who die accidentally and are not found for many years are said to be those who end up in a deep body of water inside their vehicle. Sonar can find some of them in small bodies of water, but we have major waterways in the USA where there are likely partial skeletal remains inside a rusting remnant of a car from decades ago.

I have my own idea about what happened and why. It's not something I have seriously considered prior to some things falling into place.. However, due to the very nature of the theory that I have, there can be no direct evidence. Therefore, under the rules that some of you have imposed upon the posters at large, I can't discuss my theory because I do not have factual evidence to back it up. We used to discuss theories as just that- theories, and not cold hard facts. This was a GREAT topic for Ray's case for a long time, and many creative ideas with merit were discussed, but they aren't discussed now.

The facts are old, they are cold, they are few and sometimes, they are conflicting. Respectful discussion which encourages creative thinking should not be discouraged in a 10 year old case where the subject has been declared legally dead for several years, IMO. We are not protecting a family by not discussing theories as long as we are respectful within the TOS for WS and label a theory as theoretical and not factual.
Does anyone feel that we should be able to discuss theoretical aspects and post theories, or is this " Just the facts" which number less than probably 100 total facts known to the public and provable about the case in ten long years?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit.

This is where we differ. I admit that there are things that one may conclude that Ray was definitely in Lewisburg. There's the map, the Mini, the laptop, the eyewitness reports, and his scent around the Mini. Those circumstantial things make you conclude he was definitely there thus you post them as fact. I could argue successfully each thing I listed as to why he wasn't there. My point is that all those items are circumstantial evidence and not 100% concrete as say a video, a time stamped photo, a traceable phone call, or a receipt. LE has reported all these things but I'm certain they would be the first to tell you that it all is circumstantial evidence and does not point to one theory or the other.

First, there should be a correction. Eyewitness testimony is not "circumstantial evidence." It is "direct evidence." Things like fingerprints, DNA, some possession found is circumstantial evidence. Now, I will agree that direct evidence can be unreliable, but the rate of unreliability is known.

So, lets look at the actual evidence.

1. Witnesses that put RFG in Lewisburg. In most cases, there are multiple independent witnesses that put RFG in Lewisburg, including the parking lot. He hand enough time to reach Lewisburg and be spotted by these witnesses.

2. The Mini was found in the parking lot. There is no evidence that anyone else drove it. No unknown DNA or unknown fingerprints. No physical or eyewitness evidence of anyone else driving the Mini.

3. RFG's scent found in the parking lot. To get a false positive is rare.

4. DNA in the water bottle was RFG. He was known to keep the car pristine, so it is unlikely to have been left there. No killer could know whose DNA, or if anyone's DNA, was in the water bottle.

5. The timing of the initial Lewisburg sightings. No killer could have known what someone else would see, in route, or if RFG would call from the route. Yet RFG was spotted with enough time to have arrived in Lewisburg and be spotted.

6. We've been discussing the laptop.

7. The map. Well, it does show interest in going to Lewisburg on RFG's part.

That is the evidence that RFG went to Lewisburg. It is impossible for a murderer to plant or fake all of it.

So what is the evidence to the contrary, that RFG was not in Lewisburg? None.

One premise seems to be "The evidence doesn't fit the theory, so through out the evidence." I prefer "When the evidence does not support the theory, through out the theory."

 

[MissJ]

This topic has been shut down multiple times because of arguing. It makes me really sad to see the fussing happen again.
The facts as we have them come from a few TV shows featuring Mr. Gricar's disappearance, and possibly some old news articles that can be retrieved.
There is NO new news. It seems to me that people get discontented when things are stagnant. This case is so stagnant it literally does have layers of dust and dirt on the case files, according to the PSP.

How a person interprets the case info, which MAY or MAY NOT be accurately reported from LE to the public, varies widely.
It's very tempting to say " This was a murder" because no body has ever been recovered. But nothing else actually is evidentiary to point towards murder. Nothing about the day, the supposed place he went, the suspected things he did based upon some witness statements, nothing about the laptop and hard drive point to murder, either. There is no weapon, no DNA, no signs of a struggle or a crime, nothing disturbed or out of the ordinary at the time of Mr. Gricar's disappearance, unless you believe the laptop and separate hard drive were in the river from the day he disappeared ( which I do not believe is the case). So, the laptop may or may not be evidentiary. I tend to think not.. but we each have opinions.

Then we have " walkaway". Were there signs that this man was unhappy with his life and wanted to live in the rain forest and subsist on rice, beans, fruit and rain water? No, there is no evidence that a mid- sized county DA months from retirement wanted out of his life, or out of his girlfriend's life or his daughter's life. As I understand it, he is a grandfather now. I believe he would move heaven and earth to see his grandchild if he could do so.

Third scenario is " Suicide". There is a category of suicide known as " impulsive suicide" that is, as it says, impulsive and usually, the intent is to escape from a severe and sudden emotional hurt or shock. Some people who survive impulsive suicide attempts relate that they are very glad that they lived.. Some people are depressed people by inclination, seeing the glass as half empty, not believing in the good in people or life, and it's usually not a surprise when the chronically depressed person attempts or successfully commits suicide. I's tragic, always tragic. And there is a body recovered in all but maybe a few cases of suicide.
IMO, Ray Gricar didn't show signs of depression. Worry, perhaps, but it has been said that Patty told a bit of a fish tale when describing his physical and mental health status in the days and weeks before he disappeared in order for there to be easier, faster access to his health records. His health records are said to not show any ill health, including mental health.
I don't believe he committed suicide, either.

Accidental death with remains being accidentally covered or inaccessible is also a theory. IDK, any of us could be walking about tomorrow, step in a small hole, and sever the spinal cord at C-2, which is a common way that " hangman's fractures" occur in adults ( but not children).
If one of us suffered this fate in a rural, wooded area or a marshy area, we would die within 3 minutes because we would stop breathing when the spinal cord was severed. The person would be conscious for a brief period of time, possibly. Lots of " possiblys" in this scenario, although I've known 3 people personally who were high level ( C-2 level) quadriplegics who died soon afterward from doing just what I said- stepping in a shallow hole such as a small wild animal makes and jarring the spine so hard that the spinal cord was severed at the place where it is most lethal- near the opening of the brain. It is actually the hard skull which severs the spinal cord at the C-2 level. All of the people I knew had witnesses who administered CPR and called for help, of course.
Point being, we can't rule out anyone's accidental death on any day from any cause, but for it to go undetected for 10 years in a natural way is very unusual.
The largest category of middle aged adults who die accidentally and are not found for many years are said to be those who end up in a deep body of water inside their vehicle. Sonar can find some of them in small bodies of water, but we have major waterways in the USA where there are likely partial skeletal remains inside a rusting remnant of a car from decades ago.

I have my own idea about what happened and why. It's not something I have seriously considered prior to some things falling into place.. However, due to the very nature of the theory that I have, there can be no direct evidence. Therefore, under the rules that some of you have imposed upon the posters at large, I can't discuss my theory because I do not have factual evidence to back it up. We used to discuss theories as just that- theories, and not cold hard facts. This was a GREAT topic for Ray's case for a long time, and many creative ideas with merit were discussed, but they aren't discussed now.

The facts are old, they are cold, they are few and sometimes, they are conflicting. Respectful discussion which encourages creative thinking should not be discouraged in a 10 year old case where the subject has been declared legally dead for several years, IMO. We are not protecting a family by not discussing theories as long as we are respectful within the TOS for WS and label a theory as theoretical and not factual.
Does anyone feel that we should be able to discuss theoretical aspects and post theories, or is this " Just the facts" which number less than probably 100 total facts known to the public and provable about the case in ten long years?

We have not said that theories or opinions can't be posted! That is what websleuths is all about. We have not said "just the facts". What we have said is that one should not be able to post something as a fact, claim that it is factual, but state "I'm not at liberty to give my source", or give a poster on another board as proof; then we have a right to doubt the veracity of the poster and his posts. I don't accept every word a poster says is fact if there is no named source. Why would I? I don't accept circular reasoning as proof either. For instance, it has been said that RFG did no retirement planning (401K or annuity) therefore he had been planning to walk away. Or that RFG has "missing money".
That is opinion not fact. Yet that is what is going on here. Lots of people (IMO)work in government just for retirement benefit because it usually is a lot more generous than the private sector. They call that "retirement planning".

I've had my opinions (stated as opinion) adamantly labeled as wrong by another poster, and their opinion offered as the right theory. Since we don't know what did happen ( to RFG) no opinion can really be wrong. Neither do I have to provide a source or link for how I arrived at that opinion. Yet another poster asked for just that. I don't accept opinion and misinformation as fact. I'm sorry if that makes some posters uncomfortable. But I won't be intimidated into swallowing any poster's every word as factual just because he/she has set themselves up as an authority on all things RFG.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfuly snipped

We have not said that theories or opinions can't be posted! That is what websleuths is all about. We have not said "just the facts". What we have said is that one should not be able to post something as a fact, claim that it is factual, but state "I'm not at liberty to give my source", or give a poster on another board as proof; then we have a right to doubt the veracity of the poster and his posts. I don't accept every word a poster says is fact if there is no named source. Why would I? I don't accept circular reasoning as proof either. For instance, it has been said that RFG did no retirement planning (401K or annuity) therefore he had been planning to walk away. Or that RFG has "missing money".
That is opinion not fact. Yet that is what is going on here. Lots of people (IMO)work in government just for retirement benefit because it usually is a lot more generous than the private sector. They call that "retirement planning".

I think we are at liberty to say, "The police said this, and here is why they said it." That is the case here.

I think we can also say that, "The estate filing that the estate had less than X amount of money. For someone making Y amount of money, that is a low amount." Now, those things are not opinions or unsourced. They simply are.

Those things are not opinion.

A few things on the finances. First, I generally use the term "unaccounted for money." It basically that we don't know what happened to his money. Did RFG make some bad investments and lose it? Did he do some estate planning? Did he move it offshore? All of those things, and probably more, are possible and have been discussed. The could be circumstantial evidence of different things.

Second, we have had some claims that if RFG walked away, he'd have to living as a pauper. Since we don't know where the money went, we can't reach that conclusion. We can say that he did did not have a huge savings or assets and that the money is unaccounted for at present.

 

[SeekingJana]

We have not said that theories or opinions can't be posted! That is what websleuths is all about. We have not said "just the facts". What we have said is that one should not be able to post something as a fact, claim that it is factual, but state "I'm not at liberty to give my source", or give a poster on another board as proof; then we have a right to doubt the veracity of the poster and his posts. I don't accept every word a poster says is fact if there is no named source. Why would I? I don't accept circular reasoning as proof either. For instance, it has been said that RFG did no retirement planning (401K or annuity) therefore he had been planning to walk away. Or that RFG has "missing money".
That is opinion not fact. Yet that is what is going on here. Lots of people (IMO)work in government just for retirement benefit because it usually is a lot more generous than the private sector. They call that "retirement planning".

I've had my opinions (stated as opinion) adamantly labeled as wrong by another poster, and their opinion offered as the right theory. Since we don't know what did happen ( to RFG) no opinion can really be wrong. Neither do I have to provide a source or link for how I arrived at that opinion. Yet another poster asked for just that. I don't accept opinion and misinformation as fact. I'm sorry if that makes some posters uncomfortable. But I won't be intimidated into swallowing any poster's every word as factual just because he/she has set themselves up as an authority on all things RFG.

Miss J, I'm trying to create a neutral or even friendly place for those of us who have an interest in this case to post without being judged against " poster XYZ" as happened recently.
Each of us has something positive to contribute.
I believe it is very important to state " IMO", or " this is my opinion" if something posted is a theory. If it is a case fact from LE, then it's easy to post a note such as" Factually stated by ............. " with the source provided.
I'm advocating for transparency on this thread because people are getting polarized and negatively opinionated in general. Not you in particular, really. I know that the entire " tone" of the thread changes when a poster has unexpressed anger and expresses it in a passive- aggressive way against another poster. The personal dynamics should go out the door the minute a poster enters a sentence on this or any other WS thread. This is not about any of US, it's about Ray Gricar. People all over the internet read here to find out what's going on.

Each of us has to decide to put differences and so forth aside and post about what really matters in this case, which is, what happened to Ray Gricar, or what we each think happened to Ray Gricar.
I've spent 9 years posting on Ray's case, and I have many unexpressed ideas and opinions which come from facts. I just want the case forum to be conducive to discussion in a way that furthers case discussion rather than hinders it.

Again, this is how I feel in general, and it is not a statement for or against any poster here. It is a general statement about the aspect of being welcoming and supportive in our posts to others.
I learn quite a bit from all the case posters, and miss many who no longer come here to post... but are still on WS.
I think that if he could, Ray would say " Thank you" for caring about his whereabouts 10 years after he went missing. WS is a very special place full of very caring and intelligent posters.

 

[wijg]

I think we are at liberty to say, "The police said this, and here is why they said it." That is the case here.

No... you should still say "this is why I think they said it", or "I interpret their words to mean (whatever you believe they mean)", or "I think they worded that statement for a reason"... and you're even free to show how that would be consistent with other info.

But you cannot say "(so and so in LE) said this here is exactly why he said it" if it is not exactly clear.

You cannot say "DZ said 'no one saw Gricar with the laptop outside of the Mini', and he used the word 'outside' because someone saw RFG 'inside' the Mini with the laptop or else he would not have said 'outside'"... you cannot infer that from that statement.

However, you can say "DZ said 'no one saw Gricar with the laptop outside of the Mini' and I think he used those specific words ("outside") for a reason. I think he has a witness who saw Gricar with the laptop inside the Mini".... and you can even add "And that's consistent with a source I have, though since I can't reveal that source, take it FWIW".

 

[wijg]

And for the record JJ, I'm ok with you using unnamed sources, but you have to understand that we are free to believe or not believe you and/or your source.

In a forum that deals with completely unrelated subjects, I relayed information that I got from sources I could not name to everyone else who frequents the site. People did not initially believe me. But then the information I gave later became public. And then there was another such instance. And another. Slowly, people began to trust that I did in fact have some insider access, and when I would post "inside" info, I wasn't BSing. To put it plainly, I was validated, and I gained credibility with those who frequented the particular forum. My point is, none of the things which you've attributed to unnamed sources have ever become public knowledge. If one or two things turned out to be verifiable later on, or a few predictions came true, then we'd have reason to believe you and your sources. You'd have built credibility. But to date, there is no reason for us to believe your sources, as nothing has been verifiable. No information has come out later which would validate those sources, and no predictions have come true. So of course we are going to be skeptical. But if info ever comes out that validates something you've been saying for awhile (like DZ coming out and bluntly saying "we have a credible witness who saw RFG in the laptop with the Mini") then I think I can speak for all of us when I say we'll be much more inclined to believe your sources going forward.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No... you should still say "this is why I think they said it", or "I interpret their words to mean (whatever you believe they mean)", or "I think they worded that statement for a reason"... and you're even free to show how that would be consistent with other info.

But you cannot say "(so and so in LE) said this here is exactly why he said it" if it is not exactly clear.

You cannot say "DZ said 'no one saw Gricar with the laptop outside of the Mini', and he used the word 'outside' because someone saw RFG 'inside' the Mini with the laptop or else he would not have said 'outside'"... you cannot infer that from that statement.

However, you can say "DZ said 'no one saw Gricar with the laptop outside of the Mini' and I think he used those specific words ("outside") for a reason. I think he has a witness who saw Gricar with the laptop inside the Mini".... and you can even add "And that's consistent with a source I have, though since I can't reveal that source, take it FWIW".

I didn't say that, however. I said that DZ said that RFG left with the computer and I provided a direct quote. I have also said that it was referenced in a MSM blog (as it was) and I knew some of the back story, which I do. Now, anyone can look at my track record and see what it is. I don't force people to believe it, but I do look at if they are more concerned with a theory than with evidence.

A few posts back, I listed the evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05. I asked for evidence to the contrary. I have seen no actual evidence posted.

 

[wijg]

I didn't say that, however. I said that DZ said that RFG left with the computer and I provided a direct quote. .

I wasn't referring to that particular DZ quote. I don't dispute that. I was disputing the inference you made with regards to the quote about him "not being seen with the laptop outside the Mini", and asserting exactly what DZ meant by that statement. Sorry, if I'm having trouble explaining it, but I think you get what I'm saying. But also with regards to that quote: we still can't say the reason he said that was because he has a witness that puts him definitively IN Lewisburg WITH the laptop. Its a an assumption on his part, albeit a very reasonable one based on other evidence and circumstances (cell phone pings, map, car being found, and the reasonable assumption that Gricar is the most likely person to have access to his own house and know where the laptop is located). It does not mean explicitly that a witness saw Ray WITH the laptop in Lewisburg.

A few posts back, I listed the evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05. I asked for evidence to the contrary. I have seen no actual evidence posted

The lack of a scent trail strongly suggests he was never there (and the dog merely picked up Ray's residual scent from the Mini) or that he was only there before getting into another car. In my OPINION, the car being unlocked is also serves as evidence that he was never there, and someone else drove the car there and left it. From what we know of Ray's personality and mannerisms, it would not be like him to leave a car unlocked, even if he was intending to walk away. Even if just out of habit, he would likely have locked his car. And yes, that is just an opinion I have.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I wasn't referring to that particular DZ quote. I don't dispute that. I was disputing the inference you made with regards to the quote about him "not being seen with the laptop outside the Mini", and asserting exactly what DZ meant by that statement. Sorry, if I'm having trouble explaining it, but I think you get what I'm saying. But also with regards to that quote: we still can't say the reason he said that was because he has a witness that puts him definitively IN Lewisburg WITH the laptop. Its a an assumption on his part, albeit a very reasonable one based on other evidence and circumstances (cell phone pings, map, car being found, and the reasonable assumption that Gricar is the most likely person to have access to his own house and know where the laptop is located). It does not mean explicitly that a witness saw Ray WITH the laptop in Lewisburg.



The lack of a scent trail strongly suggests he was never there (and the dog merely picked up Ray's residual scent from the Mini) or that he was only there before getting into another car. In my OPINION, the car being unlocked is also serves as evidence that he was never there, and someone else drove the car there and left it. From what we know of Ray's personality and mannerisms, it would not be like him to leave a car unlocked, even if he was intending to walk away. Even if just out of habit, he would likely have locked his car. And yes, that is just an opinion I have.

Fisrt, it is not an inference. Do not miscategorize it.

Only there to get into another car is a possibility, but he was still there. The car was locked, so state that accurately.

 

[MissJ]

I have a problem with posts that state, for instance: RFG had missing money. Since we didn't live with him and have his pay stubs, we cannot know if indeed there was money missing. Yes I have posted the opinion that if RFG walked away (and no verifiable evidence) of hidden money in a bank account somewhere, that he would be walking into a life of poverty. That is my opinion. To date no one has found a hidden bank account. So my opinion is as good as any. At this point maybe a single poster's word without verification is good enough for you, fine with me. I'm not quite to that point and will continue to question any and every post stated as fact without any concrete evidence that it is indeed FACT. I'm not telling you what to post or what to believe. Its not my call. Everything I say here is opinion cause I don't claim special knowledge. At the same time don't make fun of my opinions as you spout your own as fact.

 

[wijg]

Fisrt, it is not an inference. Do not miscategorize it.

Only there to get into another car is a possibility, but he was still there. The car was locked, so state that accurately.

My apologies. And thank you for correcting me. Disregard the part about the unlocked car. The part about the scent stands.

And yes, I agree, that even if he was just there to enter another car, he was still there. However, I've never disputed whether or not he was there (I can see both arguments as to why he probably was and why he probably wasn't there), because I think it's irrelevant to the timeline that considers the Fenton sighting. What is relevant to that timeline is how long he was there.

Whether he met someone and traded cars around Madisonburg or whether he did it in Lewisburg is not relevant to the "alternative timeline" (let's start calling it the "Fenton Timeline") to which many of us subscribe. At least to me, whether he was or wasn't in Lewisburg is inconsequential. Rather the question is - if he was there - how long was he there? Because if he was there past 2:15 or so, then we have a problem with the Fenton Timeline. However, I have not seen any evidence to convince me that - if he was there - he A) left the parking lot, or B) was there past 2:00-2:15. Given how "plain-looking" Gricar's appearance was, I do not find any of the eyewitnesses that put him in the SoS credible.