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

[J. J. in Phila]

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

The MO characteristics are not opinion. JPL was found in very rural area, engine running, in a ditch; RFG's in a fairly large town, parked, in a parking lot. JPL's car had a large amount of blood in, his body was found at the scene and had numerous stab wounds; RFG's car showed no sign of violence, and his body was not at the scene.

Those things are not opinion; they are fact.

As to the jurisdictions, RFG was a county prosecutor for one county in Central PA. JPL covered a multi-county area in Maryland. Again, that is not opinion; those were their respective jurisdictions. Here is the map of the office's jurisdiction JPL covered: http://www.justice.gov/usao/md/Office/Divisions/geographic_divisions.html He didn't prosecute cases in PA; RFG was not even licensed to practice in MD.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

I don't believe that I mentioned Customs at all. I did note, correctly, that both Treasury and Homeland Security deal with domestic and foreign money transfers.

 

[cloudbuster05]

I don't believe that I mentioned Customs at all. I did note, correctly, that both Treasury and Homeland Security deal with domestic and foreign money transfers.

Yes you did. Unless that was someone else?
6-11-2011 page 115
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?293012-Ray-Gricar-Missing-DA/page115

 

[cloudbuster05]

The MO characteristics are not opinion. JPL was found in very rural area, engine running, in a ditch; RFG's in a fairly large town, parked, in a parking lot. JPL's car had a large amount of blood in, his body was found at the scene and had numerous stab wounds; RFG's car showed no sign of violence, and his body was not at the scene.

Those things are not opinion; they are fact.

As to the jurisdictions, RFG was a county prosecutor for one county in Central PA. JPL covered a multi-county area in Maryland. Again, that is not opinion; those were their respective jurisdictions. Here is the map of the office's jurisdiction JPL covered: http://www.justice.gov/usao/md/Office/Divisions/geographic_divisions.html He didn't prosecute cases in PA; RFG was not even licensed to practice in MD.

JJ EMae is not talking about facts, she is talking about possible connections that the general public is not privy to. In other words we have no access to that information.
Location has nothing to do with what she is saying.

 

[cloudbuster05]

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.

Once again in your blog on CDT, slamdunk commented that it was mostly the DOJ, department of Justice that visited his blog on RG. Why are we leaving out the DOJ? Where are you coming up with the treasury? Who exactly was visited by them? I know you asked about the treasury on another board. (reference a few posts above #4582) you asked Commonsense if she had any visits from the treasury.

 

[cloudbuster05]

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



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.

Similarities in the Luna and Gricar cases

Striking similarities are apparent in the
disappearances of both prosecutors
http://www.yardbird.com/midnight_ride_similarities_w_luna_gricar.htm
http://www.yardbird.com/midnight_ride_mark_cohen_letter_12505.htm
http://www.yardbird.com/luna.htm
Jonathan Luna - Crimeshots© True Crime Forums

JJ since 2006 you have led us toward walk away as JKA being a assistant DA said. https://sites.google.com/site/gricardisappearance/partiii:onlinediscussion
Why not look at both theories equally? Im just asking that we look at both theories on a level based on facts and not conclusions that you have come up with, without all the facts.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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.

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.


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?

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.

Many adults don't interact with parents on a daily basis; that doesn't mean that our parents would then think it is fine just to disappear and never talk to us again--no birthday, no Christmas, no support if the person was sick, nothing. No one in their right mind would think that faking a death or disappearing was a good way to maximize a child's inheritance, at the expense of the whole relationship between parent and child. None of us have any real notion of how close RG and his daughter were, but there are indications that he was a hands-on parent, even at a distance, given that his staff was told to always put her through when she called.

What bothers me about your argument is that I don't see how we can dismiss the moral and emotional elements of the walkaway hypothesis. I have no idea what prompts people to walk out of their lives, but someone who would do it to emulate another person who did it (Mel Wiley) without regard to the moral dimension of the act (Is this the right thing to do?) or the emotional impact (Will this hurt people I love and care about?) or the psychological one (Will I damage the people in my life, especially my daughter and other relatives?) would not be playing with a full deck, psychologically or emotionally. A person who could disappear like that would be missing some very important human dimensions and might in fact be either psychopathic or very depressed or someone who had lived a lifelong lie. And a person who could rationalize rejecting his daughter in the cruelest way possible by saying his daughter would get MORE money...well. Not someone I would want to know.

It's not that I don't like the walkaway hypothesis; it's that it doesn't fit with known facts, including the fact that he could have retired and walked away with all of his money and done what most people do--leave what's left to his child after he passed away.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

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



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.

If Ray Gricar vanishes, with Ray Gricar's money-the government could really care less. NOW-if there are unnacounted funds that belong to Centre County or the state of Pennsylvania missing , thats an entirely different story.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

Many adults don't interact with parents on a daily basis; that doesn't mean that our parents would then think it is fine just to disappear and never talk to us again--no birthday, no Christmas, no support if the person was sick, nothing. No one in their right mind would think that faking a death or disappearing was a good way to maximize a child's inheritance, at the expense of the whole relationship between parent and child. None of us have any real notion of how close RG and his daughter were, but there are indications that he was a hands-on parent, even at a distance, given that his staff was told to always put her through when she called.

What bothers me about your argument is that I don't see how we can dismiss the moral and emotional elements of the walkaway hypothesis. I have no idea what prompts people to walk out of their lives, but someone who would do it to emulate another person who did it (Mel Wiley) without regard to the moral dimension of the act (Is this the right thing to do?) or the emotional impact (Will this hurt people I love and care about?) or the psychological one (Will I damage the people in my life, especially my daughter and other relatives?) would not be playing with a full deck, psychologically or emotionally. A person who could disappear like that would be missing some very important human dimensions and might in fact be either psychopathic or very depressed or someone who had lived a lifelong lie. And a person who could rationalize rejecting his daughter in the cruelest way possible by saying his daughter would get MORE money...well. Not someone I would want to know.

It's not that I don't like the walkaway hypothesis; it's that it doesn't fit with known facts, including the fact that he could have retired and walked away with all of his money and done what most people do--leave what's left to his child after he passed away.

Knowing what "damage" was done to his family, when his brother commited suicide, and the pain it caused not only his nephews, but also to himself and his daughter, I have a REALLY hard time-believing he could either walk away or commit suicide.

And IF he chose to commit suicide -I believe he would have left a note.

The walkaway theory has never sat well with me. It is TOO easy.

LE made a HUGE mistake in handing over the car to PF before it was thoroughly investigated. That was only their first mistake of many in this particular case. I do believe that this case could have been solved if it wasn't for the many errors involved.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes you did. Unless that was someone else?
6-11-2011 page 115
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?293012-Ray-Gricar-Missing-DA/page115

I did there, but not in the blog. Both do deal with money transfers, though not necessarily Customs.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ EMae is not talking about facts, she is talking about possible connections that the general public is not privy to. In other words we have no access to that information.
Location has nothing to do with what she is saying.

Cloud, unless you are going to claim that Centre County is in Maryland, their jurisdictions do not overlap.

Even if you assume (and you know what happens when you assume) that both were murder, you have to look at the modus operandi in each. Here it is:

A. Mr. Gricar left from home; Mr. Luna left from the office.
B. Mr. Gricar left early to mid morning; Mr. Luna left after 11:30 PM.
C. Mr. Gricar drove about 56 miles, on a relatively direct path; Mr. Luna drove a minimum of 190 miles on a very indirect path.
D. Mr. Gricar took his cell phone; Mr. Luna left his behind in the office.
E. Mr. Gricar took the day off; Mr. Luna was suppose to fax a plea agreement that night, and was expected in court the next day.
F. Mr. Gricar phoned his girlfriend from the road; Mr. Luna had no contact with his wife or family members after he left.
G. The Mini Cooper, the car Mr. Gricar was driving, was found in a fairly densely populated area; Mr. Luna’s car was found in a rural area.
H. The Mini showed no evidence of a crime; Mr. Luna’s car had a large amount of blood.
I. The Mini was parked, engine off; Mr. Luna’s care was in a ditch, with the engine running.
J. Mr. Luna’s body was found; there was no effort to hide it. Mr. Gricar’s body was never found.

These things are not "opinion." They are circumstances in each case. You can claim that these things are similar, and that would be opinion. I would doubt that too many people would agree with you.

It was something that I looked at, in detail, as can be seen.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Many adults don't interact with parents on a daily basis; that doesn't mean that our parents would then think it is fine just to disappear and never talk to us again--no birthday, no Christmas, no support if the person was sick, nothing. No one in their right mind would think that faking a death or disappearing was a good way to maximize a child's inheritance, at the expense of the whole relationship between parent and child. None of us have any real notion of how close RG and his daughter were, but there are indications that he was a hands-on parent, even at a distance, given that his staff was told to always put her through when she called.

I frankly doubt if you can be a "hands on parent" when you are 2000 miles away.

Ah, let's be clear; RFG did not "fake his death." If he had wished to, he could have left a suicide note and walked away.

What bothers me about your argument is that I don't see how we can dismiss the moral and emotional elements of the walkaway hypothesis.

Well, first of all, RFG was a lawyer, and a good one. He looking at the world for a third of century legalistically, just by the nature of what he did. So now we have some factors.

1. RFG has a daughter, but she is out of the area and an independent adult. He does not have to look out for her.

2. RFG, legalistically, sees that, if he retires and gets hit by a bus in 2006, his daughter will not inherit as much. If he dies in 2005, she will get more.

3. RFG, knows that his daughter will, eventually, have to testify that she has not heard from him. Legalistically, he knows that if he tells her, she either can't declare him dead or commits perjury. The simplest solution is not telling her.

RFG obviously does not have to be there physically for LG; he hasn't been there in her day to day life for years. His absence does not change that.

He can contribute greater assets to her, by not being there. He knows that in 2006, by not being there, LG will not get the greater assets.

If he did walk away, he knows that by not telling LG, he protects her from committing perjury.

We know that 1 and 2 are there; those are the effects, but don't know the intent. On 3, I can very easily see any moderately good father saying, "I don't want my daughter convicted of a felony and ending up in a cell with Large Marge."

It's not that I don't like the walkaway hypothesis; it's that it doesn't fit with known facts, including the fact that he could have retired and walked away with all of his money and done what most people do--leave what's left to his child after he passed away.

Well, because, this way, she'd get more. One published account was that RFG pension was worth more than $300 K. Had he died, or vanished, after retirement, it would have been less.

The emotional/moral argument really is flimsy.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Knowing what "damage" was done to his family, when his brother commited suicide, and the pain it caused not only his nephews, but also to himself and his daughter, I have a REALLY hard time-believing he could either walk away or commit suicide.

And IF he chose to commit suicide -I believe he would have left a note.

The walkaway theory has never sat well with me. It is TOO easy.

LE made a HUGE mistake in handing over the car to PF before it was thoroughly investigated. That was only their first mistake of many in this particular case. I do believe that this case could have been solved if it wasn't for the many errors involved.

My understanding is that they did full forensics on it prior to returning it. It was not returned until the next day, though it was towed to PSP barracks that night. I even found on-line accounts of being there.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

My understanding is that they did full forensics on it prior to returning it. It was not returned until the next day, though it was towed to PSP barracks that night. I even found on-line accounts of being there.

One day might seem like a LONG time, but from what I am learning one day would not be very long, for an investigation like this one. I really think there were vital clues lost that day, and it makes me very sad.

 

[ThePhantom]

A poster recently posited the belief that it would seem unlikely Mr. Gricar would just up and leave when he was so close to retirement. But, another way to think about it is that he may have wanted to leave when it was least expected -- in other words, when his behavior/words/actions would not have generated any special notice. He simply got up one day, told his girlfriend he was going for a drive and that he wouldn't be home in time to feed the dog. Nothing about that would generate any suspicion on the part of his girlfriend or anyone else (until later that night or the next day, of course). He might have given his exit strategy quite a bit of thought, and realized that leaving when no one looking, so to speak, would be far easier than waiting for retirement (when others might be asking, "wonder what Ray is going to do now that he's retired, etc.)

What do you think?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A poster recently posited the belief that it would seem unlikely Mr. Gricar would just up and leave when he was so close to retirement. But, another way to think about it is that he may have wanted to leave when it was least expected -- in other words, when his behavior/words/actions would not have generated any special notice. He simply got up one day, told his girlfriend he was going for a drive and that he wouldn't be home in time to feed the dog. Nothing about that would generate any suspicion on the part of his girlfriend or anyone else (until later that night or the next day, of course). He might have given his exit strategy quite a bit of thought, and realized that leaving when no one looking, so to speak, would be far easier than waiting for retirement (when others might be asking, "wonder what Ray is going to do now that he's retired, etc.)

What do you think?

It would, from what I've heard, be more lucrative than retirement. LG would get more. Could that be a motivation? Yes. Is that a or, even "the," motivation. I really don't know and I don't how it could be proven.

I think the problem is dealing with motive is, unless you use the Vulcan mind meld, you can't really tell what someone is thinking, well, unless they write it down.

All the actual evidence, not the opinions of morality or emotional loss, can point to walkaway. Most of the actual evidence can also point to murder; the evidence that doesn't is not exactly strong. If all the evidence is right, he walked away. All the evidence may not be right.

There are elements that are very strong, e.g. RFG was in Lewisburg on 4/15, RFG planned to go to Lewisburg that day. There are elements that are weaker, e.g. RFG was behind the Courthouse at 3:00 PM on 4/15 in a different car, RFG was in Southfield, MI on 5/27/05.

 

[cloudbuster05]

Cloud, unless you are going to claim that Centre County is in Maryland, their jurisdictions do not overlap.

Even if you assume (and you know what happens when you assume) that both were murder, you have to look at the modus operandi in each. Here it is:

A. Mr. Gricar left from home; Mr. Luna left from the office.
B. Mr. Gricar left early to mid morning; Mr. Luna left after 11:30 PM.
C. Mr. Gricar drove about 56 miles, on a relatively direct path; Mr. Luna drove a minimum of 190 miles on a very indirect path.
D. Mr. Gricar took his cell phone; Mr. Luna left his behind in the office.
E. Mr. Gricar took the day off; Mr. Luna was suppose to fax a plea agreement that night, and was expected in court the next day.
F. Mr. Gricar phoned his girlfriend from the road; Mr. Luna had no contact with his wife or family members after he left.
G. The Mini Cooper, the car Mr. Gricar was driving, was found in a fairly densely populated area; Mr. Luna’s car was found in a rural area.
H. The Mini showed no evidence of a crime; Mr. Luna’s car had a large amount of blood.
I. The Mini was parked, engine off; Mr. Luna’s care was in a ditch, with the engine running.
J. Mr. Luna’s body was found; there was no effort to hide it. Mr. Gricar’s body was never found.

These things are not "opinion." They are circumstances in each case. You can claim that these things are similar, and that would be opinion. I would doubt that too many people would agree with you.

It was something that I looked at, in detail, as can be seen.

Once again you don't get it. Both men was on drug cases. We are not privy to
any of the information that they have. Your putting up strategic distractions from what EMae is saying.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Once again you don't get it. Both men was on drug cases. We are not privy to
any of the information that they have. Your putting up strategic distractions from what EMae is saying.

CB, you don't get it.

Assuming that both men were murdered, was there anything similar in their murders? Did the killer use a similar MO?

I think most people are going to answer no.

BTW, EMae responded to me noting different MO's and different jurisdictions.

Not every mystery is related.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

Don't they have video cameras in the Centre County Courthouse? Was Mr. Gricar captured on these cameras on April 14th? Were the phone and computer records from the evening of the 14th ever released to the public? tyvm.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Don't they have video cameras in the Centre County Courthouse?

Yes

Was Mr. Gricar captured on these cameras on April 14th?

Yes. The tape is in included in this program: Disappeared - A Family's Curse - YouTube

Note, the program says he left just after 8:00 PM; I'm told it was 9:06 PM.

There are a few details that might be off like that. The Mini might have been in a different space.

Were the phone and computer records from the evening of the 14th ever released to the public? tyvm.

No.