PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #6

[J. J. in Phila]

Im talking about this post being cryptic. The last two sentences. "if you think it's terrible if he left voluntarily or was with another woman." Then you stopped. What would follow after that comment belongs in cyberspace because Ray may not be responsible for the ending thats missing on that sentence. I guess we will have to see if it becomes factual in the future. Yes it reminds me of Luna's computer, not as fact but just a mild possibility.

Well, if he was with another woman, that woman could have killed him. Right now, the only solid murder scenario I have is that RFG met someone, for something unofficial. It was possibly a romantic encounter.

In the Nick Francisco case we saw some of the same people that insisted he was a murder victim turn on him when it was discovered that he walked away.

Further, some people, feel that walkaway is some sort of failure on RFG's part, though those claims often ring hollow. For example, the claim that he wouldn't leave his daughter. While they had contact, RFG wasn't in her household for more than a decade; she was actually living more than 2000 miles away at the time he vanished. He'd actually remarried and divorced in that time. Children usually go out on their own and have their own lives; their parent's role in that life diminished. LG is a prime example; that's perfectly normal and possibly the sign of a healthy family relationship.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just to note some dissimilarities with the Francisco case, Francisco left a pregnant wife and two young children behind. He also left a mortgage and very little money. For those reasons, there probably would be a bit more anger directed towards him.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Nick Francisco is a guy who walked out on a pregnant wife and small children, leaving them destitute, when he had a moral and legal obligation to support them. He told his wife he was coming home to make cookies with the kids. His family lost their home. His small children lost their father. His wife was worried that he had been abducted and killed, and all the while wondered how to feed the kids and keep the electric turned on. That is why people turned on him.

If RG did walk away, I would be very disappointed that he put friends, family and constituents through such a terrible ordeal. But I would never in a million years think as badly of him as I think of Francisco. And your comparison reminds me why I don't believe RG walked away in the first place.

Again, I am not sure that '"people" at any federal agencies are following these blogs. I think they are using web crawlers and looking for key words or whatever web crawlers do. And even if feds are paying agents thousands of dollars to read what ordinary people say about cold cases like Gricar's (again, which I doubt), that would not mean they are investigating RG's finances. There is absolutely no way to connect those dots with the information you have, such as it is.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Here is an example of what I am talking about, this one connected to DEA enforcement efforts against web sites illegally selling drugs:

In an effort to combat the Web sites, the DEA said it would use Web-crawler and data-mining technology to identify and prosecute the operators of the Web sites. Walters said the administration also will pressure credit card companies and mail delivery services to deal more seriously with the illicit sale of prescription narcotics, stimulants and depressants.

http://www.google-watch.org/wp2goog.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Nick Francisco is a guy who walked out on a pregnant wife and small children, leaving them destitute, when he had a moral and legal obligation to support them. He told his wife he was coming home to make cookies with the kids. His family lost their home.HIs small children lost their father. His wife was worried that he had been abducted and killed, and all the while wondered how to feed the kids and keep the electric turned on. That is why people turned on him.

I did point that out, and the differences. RFG had an adult daughter, who was not part of his household for about 15 years and who lived more than 2000 miles away. He had home to lose and had contributed to PEF mortgage, if not paid off the balance.

Further, by being declared dead while still in office, his daughter would get a larger payment. There would also be a tax savings. In terms of the financial aspect, LG received more because of the way it turned out. The only question is if that is what RFG intended or not.

If RG did walk away, I would be very disappointed that he put friends, family and constituents through such a terrible ordeal. But I would never in a million years think as badly of him as I think of Francisco. And your comparison reminds me why I don't believe RG walked away in the first place.

In 8 1/2 months, he'd no constituents, by his choice. Again, he could have looked at the financial situation, and decided that this method would provide more for them (that could not be proven and it could just as easily point to suicide).

Again, I am not sure that '"people" at any federal agencies are following these blogs. I think they are using web crawlers and looking for key words or whatever web crawlers do. And even if feds are paying agents thousands of dollars to read what ordinary people say about cold cases like Gricars (again, which I doubt), that would not mean they are investigating RG's finances. There is absolutely no way to connect those dots with the information you have, such as it is.

Again, even if a web crawler, somebody has to set the terms. Slamdunk noted that the Treasury Department only showed up when he did a posting on the RFG case. That is not random, someone had to put the name in to get to the point where something from Treasury got to his site. Same with the other website.

I mentioned this to someone else with an LE background and there first though was looking at money transfers. Further, he wasn't getting them until after SPM took office.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is an example of what I am talking about, this one connected to DEA enforcement efforts against web sites illegally selling drugs:



http://www.google-watch.org/wp2goog.html

And again, we're not talking about DEA or its parent agency, the Department of Justice. We're talking about Treasury, Homeland Security, and Internet visits specific to RFG.

I'm also aware that the BPD does monitor message boards, or at least did through 2008.

 

[EllaMae]

I did a series on the Luna case and compared it with the Gricar case in December of 2009, around the 6th anniversary of Mr. Luna's death. There were about 10 major differences in the MO of each case, assuming each was murder.

Further, neither of their jurisdictions overlapped and as best as I could determine, they didn't know each other.

Respectfully.....that's your opinion. There could be connections that the general public does not have access to.

I get the idea that you believe that Jonathan Luna was not murdered. I think he certainly was murdered, because he died very painfully. No one does that to themselves. A suicide is almost always quick and as painless as possible.

Considering all the facts surrounding his death, I believe he was killed. I think his family also believes that.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

And again, we're not talking about DEA or its parent agency, the Department of Justice. We're talking about Treasury, Homeland Security, and Internet visits specific to RFG.

I'm also aware that the BPD does monitor message boards, or at least did through 2008.

I linked that to show that the federal government, including agencies responsible for law enforcement, use technology to monitor websites. I of course understood your point; however, I don't agree that you can infer that any agency was investigating RG's finances by the fact that someone or something visited a blog that discusses RG.

It is just as likely that Homeland Security is interested in blogs that discuss RG because they
believe (or know?) he was murdered. Or perhaps they are following certain kinds of discussions or even certain individuals who frequent those blogs. In the years after the Patriot Act, there have been many objections to HS data mining and spying on regular Americans. Without some confirmation from the agencies that they are looking into RG's supposed "missing" money, I don't see how anyone can claim that the feds are investigating his finances.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Go back and read the blog. Someone at Treasury was visiting Slamdunk's site soon after he wrote something on RFG.

As for "Luna's computer," I don't see any relevance to the Gricar case.

You don't know it was a person and not a crawler program.

You don't know, if it was a person, what or whom that person was interested in.

You don't know whether that person, if there was a person, had a professional interest or a personal one.

You don't know that the person, if there was one, wasn't preparing a case against an individual or investigating someone who had navigated to that site and thus may have had nothing to do with RG, his finances, or even the blog itself.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

Respectfully.....that's your opinion. There could be connections that the general public does not have access to.

I get the idea that you believe that Jonathan Luna was not murdered. I think he certainly was murdered, because he died very painfully. No one does that to themselves. A suicide is almost always quick and as painless as possible.

Considering all the facts surrounding his death, I believe he was killed. I think his family also believes that.

I also believe that Mr. Luna was murdered. I also agree that suicide is most certainly always as fast and painless as possible. I am studying computer forensics, and I will just say that there are many programs available to the federal government-that would help them keep an "eye" on a particular subject. That being said, it only makes sense that they are keeping an eye on the discussions of Mr. Luna and Mr. Gricar, because they were of course both government employees.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

You don't know it was a person and not a crawler program.

You don't know, if it was a person, what or who that person was interested in.

You don't know whether that person, if there was a person, had a professional interest or a personal one.

You don't know that the person, if there was one, wasn't preparing a case against an individual or investigating someone who had navigated to that site and thus may have had nothing to do with RG, his finances, or even the blog itself.

You're right. It could be a single "word".

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You don't know it was a person and not a crawler program.

You don't know, if it was a person, what or who that person was interested in.

You don't know whether that person, if there was a person, had a professional interest or a personal one.

You don't know that the person, if there was one, wasn't preparing a case against an individual or investigating someone who had navigated to that site and thus may have had nothing to do with RG, his finances, or even the blog itself.

We do know that whenever the case was mention, someone starts visiting, and not at other times. Could it an automated system, yes, but somebody had to put the name into that system. Somebody with a Treasury e-mail address located in the DC area.

Is LE looking at RFG finances? Yes. How do we know? They said so in the press. Is someone from Treasury interested? Yes. How do we know? That someone shows up on the website. Does Treasury deal with finances? Ah, well, yes.

As I've said, they are looking, but there has been no public disclosure about what they found, if anything.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

CJMAJORGIRL24, you said what I've been trying to say, but far better. Thank you.

JJ, let me say that I am puzzled at the notion that because RG's daughter had lived with her mother subsequent to the divorce, and because she was an adult living an adult life, that he could deliberately cut himself off forever from her and her from him and it would be easy. Lots of people's kids (adults or not) live far away from them, often for years--and while I am sure there are parents and children who become estranged over time, there is NOTHING in RG's history that suggests he would cut his daughter off to save a few tax dollars. What an extreme and shocking thing it is for a parent or any loved one to disappear, especially if the relationship had at that point been characterized by love and commitment--even if the family had been separated geographically.

And the fact that he was retiring, and going through an orderly process of transition for that professional change in his office would not mitigate how unprofessional it is if he simply
disappeared and left LE and the taxpayers the pain and expense of looking for him. Moreover, a responsible man who didn't want to wait could just resign, give a few week's notice, go to Florida or wherever and call his daughter once a week or once a month or on her birthday.

So the crux of the matter is: Was RG cold enough, selfish enough, unprofessional enough, screwed up enough, cruel enough to turn his back on all of his kin, his friends, and those who trusted him professionally? That's what the walkaway hypothesis means.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

We do{/i] know that whenever the case was mention, someone starts visiting, and not at other times. Could it an automated system, yes, but somebody had to put the name into that system. Somebody with a Treasury e-mail address located in the DC area.

Is LE looking at RFG finances? Yes. How do we know? They said so in the press. Is someone from Treasury interested? Yes. How do we know? That someone shows up on the website. Does Treasury deal with finances? Ah, well, yes.

As I've said, they are looking, but there has been no public disclosure about what they found, if anything.

You can't say that Treasury is interested in Rg's finances because someone or something from Treasuryvisited a blog. Treasury could be interested in the blogger, or you, for all we know.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

Pittsburghgirl-you are very welcome. Nice to know I get things right -ONCE in a very great while. lol

About the treasury department, IF I remember correctly, when Mr. Luna was murdered (my opinion) -wasn't there "missing money" involved? Now if someone could prove to me, that when Mr. Gricar vanished, that county money vanished with him, then I would have to admit they "might" be scanning the blogs for info.

It would be VERY hard for me to believe that Mr. Gricar was a thief. Or that he decided to just walk away from his daughter. I can see him walking away from his job, and his girlfriend. Never his daughter.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You can't say that Treasury is interested in Rg's finances because someone or something from Treasuryvisited a blog. Treasury could be interested in the blogger, or you, for all we know.

Well, it wasn't my blog, so looking there would not yield too much information about me.

We can, as I have said previously, say that there has been some interest from Treasury in this case.

We can say that LE has indicated that they are looking into RFG's finances.

We can say, as previously noted, friends have indicated that they thought his assets should be higher.

We can look at RFG's salary, look at the tax rates, his big ticket expenditures, and see that there isn't a publicly known explanation for why they are so low.

Now, that does not prove that there is some unaccounted for funds. It does raise the question on if there are. It does indicate that we can't say, no money is unaccounted for (as a few posters have suggested).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Pittsburghgirl-you are very welcome. Nice to know I get things right -ONCE in a very great while. lol

About the treasury department, IF I remember correctly, when Mr. Luna was murdered (my opinion) -wasn't there "missing money" involved? Now if someone could prove to me, that when Mr. Gricar vanished, that county money vanished with him, then I would have to admit they "might" be scanning the blogs for info.

There was $36,000, in cash, missing from a case that Mr. Luna handled. That money, however, was evidence in a bank robbery.

It would be VERY hard for me to believe that Mr. Gricar was a thief. Or that he decided to just walk away from his daughter. I can see him walking away from his job, and his girlfriend. Never his daughter.

Nobody is suggesting anything was stolen. It is the possibility of unaccounted for funds. That is not theft; the money was all RFG's.

Hypothetically, let's say that, after taxes, you have $100,000. You vanish. After you vanish, people (family, friends, LE) look at your expenses. Your expenses were $25,000. In the bank, you have $25,000. Where is the other $50,000? Nobody stole it, necessary; you certainly didn't steal your own money, but you might have done something with it. Nobody know what happened to it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, let me say that I am puzzled at the notion that because RG's daughter had lived with her mother subsequent to the divorce, and because she was an adult living an adult life, that he could deliberately cut himself off forever from her and her from him and it would be easy. Lots of people's kids (adults or not) live far away from them, often for years--and while I am sure there are parents and children who become estranged over time, there is NOTHING in RG's history that suggests he would cut his daughter off to save a few tax dollars. What an extreme and shocking thing it is for a parent or any loved one to disappear, especially if the relationship had at that point been characterized by love and commitment--even if the family had been separated geographically.

I am saying, bluntly, by the nature of their relationship, they were not interacting on a daily basis. He very well might have concluded that LG was an independent adult, and she was, and that she would be financially advantaged by his action, which she was. Further, it was more than tax dollars. From what I understand, if RFG were to die during his term, his heirs would get the county contributions from his pension; if he were to die afterward, his heirs would not.

Motive? Maybe. It would also be a motive for suicide, technically.

And the fact that he was retiring, and going through an orderly process of transition for that professional change in his office would not mitigate how unprofessional it is if he simply
disappeared and left LE and the taxpayers the pain and expense of looking for him.

In 8 1/2 months, he wasn't going to be in a profession; that was his choice. Further, if RFG walked away, he did nothing to indicate he did anything, except to leave voluntarily. He didn't ask LE, or me, for that matter, to look for him. He didn't leave anything that would scream for LE to investigate, and he easily could have.

Moreover, a responsible man who didn't want to wait could just resign, give a few week's notice, go to Florida or wherever and call his daughter once a week or once a month or on her birthday.

Go back reread what I posted regarding the pension. Also consider this:

If RFG contacted his daughter, she would then have to perjure herself at the hearing to declare him dead. If he did walk away, I don't think he told her. Tell me, are you the kind of person that thinks RFG would put his daughter in a position she would have to commit a felony?

So the crux of the matter is: Was RG cold enough, selfish enough, unprofessional enough, screwed up enough, cruel enough to turn his back on all of his kin, his friends, and those who trusted him professionally? That's what the walkaway hypothesis means.

As I said, you don't like the idea of him walking away, so you have to consider someone who is "unprofessional," "screwed up," and "cruel."

Now hear is the questions. Was RFG bright enough to realize that his daughter would be better provided for if he disappeared? Yes. Was RFG a good enough attorney to realize that, if he told his daughter, he'd be putting herself in a position to commit perjury? Of course. Did he realize that vanishing off the face earth, leaving not debts, or dependents, was perfectly legal. Yep. Was he bright enough to pull of a walkaway. Well, yes, and he might have enjoyed the challenge.

Do you think that a guy that wouldn't be holding public office, would not be in a public profession, and would not be in the community, would care about what some elements in the community would think? No. Did he see anything bad happening as a result of Mel Wiley's departure? No.

Did RFG walk away? Maybe. I'm not convinced he did, but if he did "cruel," "unprofessional," and "screwed up," would never be the terms I'd use to describe him.

 

[cloudbuster05]

JJ in the above post you wrote:
Again, even if a web crawler, somebody has to set the terms. Slamdunk noted that the Treasury Department only showed up when he did a posting on the RFG case. That is not random, someone had to put the name in to get to the point where something from Treasury got to his site. Same with the other website.

I mentioned this to someone else with an LE background and there first though was looking at money transfers. Further, he wasn't getting them until after SPM took office.

Okay lets take a look at the SECRET SERVICE and who they are and what role they played in the Gricar case, this might help you to understand who possibly is looking at what.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ray_Gricar
Two months later, a hard drive was recovered on the banks of the Susquehanna River about 100 yards (91.4 m) from where the laptop was found and is believed to be Gricar's; however, it was badly damaged and analysis by the FBI, U.S. Secret Service, and the firm Kroll Ontrack---

The United States Secret Service is a United States federal law enforcement agency that is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. The sworn members are divided among the Special Agents and the Uniformed Division. Until March 1, 2003, the Service was part of the United States Department of the Treasury.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/United_States_Secret_Service

JJ in the past on another Gricar blog you gave us this version:
Did anyone else realize that Homeland Security is the parent agency for Customs? (ref #4585).
The Secret Service is a agency within Homeland Security as proven above.
You came up with customs instead of what was really occurring in Gricars case. Im only talking about this because it leads the reader toward walk away, when we know by what is available to us that is not the whole version.

 

[cloudbuster05]

Here is a guy blogging about WE Won't Fly
http://wewontfly.com/homeland-security-trolling-we-wont-fly-blog

If you read the page it will explain his visits from HS and what occurred.
Hope this helps explain the visits somewhat.