PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8

[SeekingJana]

No.....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hi, JJ
No, I didn't mean that Patty's phone calls were being protected. Rather, that if Ray had made phone calls to other, previously unknown female or females, it would not be a happy thing for her to know. That sort of protection of a lady's feelings.

If RFG was murdered, I wouldn't care too much about PEF's feelings. Catching a killer or just solving the mystery is more important.

I don't know a lot about PA geography. Are you saying that he may have gone somewhere other than Lewisburg, or do you mean that he perhaps took a detour of his own volition on the way to Lewisburg?

No, but he was close enough to delay his departure by 20-40 minutes to let the dog out. I think that points to something scheduled in Lewisburg.

I'm thinking that the HD or both recovered HDs may have been in the water quite a bit longer than the computer body. I've lived on the coast, and know the rate at which seawater corrodes, and used to spend a great deal of time on a yacht in a freshwater river which is much larger than the Susquehanna but has many dams to control flooding from occuring. (I' ve lived in several houses on bodies of water and have never seen a flood. It must be terrifying, judging from the videos). I know from cleaning the chrome parts of the yacht, that corrosion was extremely slow. A person had to be a slovenly first mate to allow a freshwater boat's metal become corroded.

I'm not disagreeing. The drive was found in September 2005, around the 21st, IIRC. The only thing I say for sure is that it was in the water for 4-6 weeks before that. They could have both been in tossed in on 4/15. The drive could have tossed weeks before the laptop, or even vice versa.

 

[cj327]

Thank you, and a good job overall. Okay, there was about 2.8 feet of water over that spot than in my photo.

Now, looking at these numbers, would you conclude that the river would or would not carry it to where it was found?

Wait a minute, your photos on picasa say 7/30/2009, rather than 2008.

It was 4,440 cfs or 2.5 feet on 7/30/2009.

That would make the water 2.0 feet lower in your photos than it was on 4/15/2005.

For reference, the water was at about 1.5 feet on the date the laptop was found and on the date the hard drive was found.

However, I don't have a good feel for how a gauge reading equates with what the water level actually looks like in that area...other than in your one photo:

https://picasaweb.google.com/LookingforRay/Lewisburg73009#5391774629056963602

But based on that picture, if the water was only two feet higher, I would guess the laptop would have to go into the water quite far upstream to find its way out to the SECOND bridge support, where I understand it was found.

http://picasaweb.google.com/vancouverp/RG/#5171236953140381554
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1446490258077934961zpnLmQ

I still don't know..from overhead, that second bridge support looks far out in the water, but from the park bench shot....it looks not that far. I'll have to keep looking at these photos.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wait a minute, your photos on picasa say 7/30/2009, rather than 2008.

It was 4,440 cfs or 2.5 feet on 7/30/2009.

Oh, good God, you are right! Sorry about that!:blushing:

That would make the water 2.0 feet lower in your photos than it was on 4/15/2005.

For reference, the water was at about 1.5 feet on the date the laptop was found and on the date the hard drive was found.

However, I don't have a good feel for how a gauge reading equates with what the water level actually looks like in that area...other than in your one photo:

https://picasaweb.google.com/LookingforRay/Lewisburg73009#5391774629056963602

But based on that picture, if the water was only two feet higher, I would guess the laptop would have to go into the water quite far upstream to find its way out to the SECOND bridge support, where I understand it was found.

http://picasaweb.google.com/vancouverp/RG/#5171236953140381554
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1446490258077934961zpnLmQ

I still don't know..from overhead, that second bridge support looks far out in the water, but from the park bench shot....it looks not that far. I'll have to keep looking at these photos.

Walking along the bank, it was about 75 yards to Market Street (Route 45). There is a stone wall that is part of the bridge abutment, IIRC.

The road turns there so the further out you go the more the bridge is away from you. If the river was frozen and you'd walk parallel to Market Street out into the middle of the river, the further the bridge would be away from you.

The second support would probably be 175-200 away from that spot where the photo was taken. I don't think the laptop got there by river power.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Oh, good God, you are right! Sorry about that!:blushing:



Walking along the bank, it was about 75 yards to Market Street (Route 45). There is a stone wall that is part of the bridge abutment, IIRC.

The road turns there so the further out you go the more the bridge is away from you. If the river was frozen and you'd walk parallel to Market Street out into the middle of the river, the further the bridge would be away from you.

The second support would probably be 175-200 away from that spot where the photo was taken. I don't think the laptop got there by river power.

175 -200 feet ?

 

[cj327]

Oh, good God, you are right! Sorry about that!:blushing:



Walking along the bank, it was about 75 yards to Market Street (Route 45). There is a stone wall that is part of the bridge abutment, IIRC.

The road turns there so the further out you go the more the bridge is away from you. If the river was frozen and you'd walk parallel to Market Street out into the middle of the river, the further the bridge would be away from you.

The second support would probably be 175-200 away from that spot where the photo was taken. I don't think the laptop got there by river power.

Well I won't argue that with someone who has actually been there!
My thoughts were based on the idea that if it went into the water far enough upstream, it could have found its way out to that bridge support. I don't think it could have gotten that far out if thrown from downstream of the train bridge, unless an Olympic discus thrower was there.

I still think that it is possible that they both went into the water at the same place and one drifted farther downstream than the other (thus my buoyancy calculations). But whether or not that hypothetical place of entry into the river makes sense or not (in the context of whatever else we know) is another question.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

175 -200 feet ?

yards

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well I won't argue that with someone who has actually been there!

Argue. My physics education is bad.

My thoughts were based on the idea that if it went into the water far enough upstream, it could have found its way out to that bridge support. I don't think it could have gotten that far out if thrown from downstream of the train bridge, unless an Olympic discus thrower was there.

I still think that it is possible that they both went into the water at the same place and one drifted farther downstream than the other (thus my buoyancy calculations). But whether or not that hypothetical place of entry into the river makes sense or not (in the context of whatever else we know) is another question.

I can see, doing Galileo type experiment, that if drop both at the same place and at the same time, the laptop would drift. It might float for a few seconds in the water and it sink more slowly because it will be semi-bouyant, and still drift with the current. My problem is the distance, if they both went in in the same place. 10-20 yards for the laptop would be possible, but 175-200 yards? The drive will sink like a rock.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Argue. My physics education is bad.



I can see, doing Galileo type experiment, that if drop both at the same place and at the same time, the laptop would drift. It might float for a few seconds in the water and it sink more slowly because it will be semi-bouyant, and still drift with the current. My problem is the distance, if they both went in in the same place. 10-20 yards for the laptop would be possible, but 175-200 yards? The drive will sink like a rock.

I don't think the laptop would even do 175-200 FEET

And yes, the drive is like a rock...darn near straight down.

 

[SeekingJana]

Argue. My physics education is bad.



I can see, doing Galileo type experiment, that if drop both at the same place and at the same time, the laptop would drift. It might float for a few seconds in the water and it sink more slowly because it will be semi-bouyant, and still drift with the current. My problem is the distance, if they both went in in the same place. 10-20 yards for the laptop would be possible, but 175-200 yards? The drive will sink like a rock.

It has been said that the laptop was found wedged up against a bridge pylon. If so, wouldn't the pylon first have stopped the laptop's float down the river, assuming that no human wedged the computer in at that spot?
Just wondering.

Admirable discussion about the currents and flow rate, etc.
I'm impressed.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It has been said that the laptop was found wedged up against a bridge pylon. If so, wouldn't the pylon first have stopped the laptop's float down the river, assuming that no human wedged the computer in at that spot?
Just wondering.

Admirable discussion about the currents and flow rate, etc.
I'm impressed.

I don't believe the characterization "wedged" was accurate, though I've seen the term used in the press. It wasn't in there tightly; the fishermen picked it up.

 

[AllisonS]

Allison, I hope this will be of assistance to you :

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/25/case-of-missing-pa-district-attorney-ray-gricar-baffles-police/

Specifically the following from that article :

Gricar was also recently added to the Justice Department's National Missing and Unidentified Persons System.

"NamUs has a rich dental profile for Gricar and potential matches are actively being compared," Todd Matthews, NamUs' regional system specialist, told AOL News. "There's also a complete DNA profile for Gricar in the system. Cases are added to the system on a daily basis, so they stay in a constant state of comparison."

Thank you! I was hoping NamUs was one of the databases his info was in.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Laptop and hard drive density exercise.

This was a rather silly exercise, but here is what I got:

Density of water = 0.578 oz/inch3
Density of Micron PC Transport T3000 (before water leaks into it) = 0.420 oz/inch3
Density of T3000 Hard Drive = 0.869 oz/inch3

I won't bother trying to paste my calculations into here.

The T3000 looked like the right one, or close to it anyway (2003 model).

Interestingly, all of the Transport laptops in this series said "user-removable hard drive"...not sure exactly what that means, but I assume you don't have to open it up completely to get the drive out.

Also, the drive is physically smaller than I thought it would be. I had only worked with desktop computer drives before. Laptop drives are quite small by comparison, even "back then." They are referred to as 2.5 inch drives.

Anyway, I was just trying to get an idea of which one would sink faster, and thus whether they could have been carried different distances by the current if dropped into the water in the same location.
The laptop model is big and clunky compared to its peers, with lots of air inside..it was apparently designed with extra room for upgraded components etc. I would guess it would take on water pretty fast though. If anyone wants to test this, drop an old laptop into the bathtub and see when the bubbles stop coming out!

http://web.archive.org/web/20050513195236/http://www.mpccorp.com/common/specifications/notebooks/transport_comparison.pdf

Thanks CJ on this techno info you had found. I had trouble with garnishing any info from the link you provided, but no biggie. My question is in the density of the laptop. Does that number include the hard drive, or not ?

I am not concerned about the hard drive now...just from seeing the density numbers of the HD, I think it is off the grid at this point...it sank for sure rather quickly.

Anyone have some input ?

The gist of this lies within this portion of CJ's data :

Density of water = 0.578 oz/inch3
Density of Micron PC Transport T3000 (before water leaks into it) = 0.420 oz/inch3
Density of T3000 Hard Drive = 0.869 oz/inch3

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Thank you! I was hoping NamUs was one of the databases his info was in.

Are you able to get back into the Hunt ? I take it you have access to NamUs ? I never tried, thinking it would require some authorization which I do not ! Will look for your reply, ok ?

 

[cj327]

Thanks CJ on this techno info you had found. I had trouble with garnishing any info from the link you provided, but no biggie. My question is in the density of the laptop. Does that number include the hard drive, or not ?

I am not concerned about the hard drive now...just from seeing the density numbers of the HD, I think it is off the grid at this point...it sank for sure rather quickly.

Anyone have some input ?

The gist of this lies within this portion of CJ's data :

Density of water = 0.578 oz/inch3
Density of Micron PC Transport T3000 (before water leaks into it) = 0.420 oz/inch3
Density of T3000 Hard Drive = 0.869 oz/inch3

Sorry I did not show my calculations.
The density of the laptop includes a hard drive (but the drive is actually very small, see below). I took the external dimensions of each, the weight of each, and that is how I calculated density.

For the drive calculations I used a Seagate 20 GB model from 2004 that was sold by Micron PC. Forgot the link. Weight was 100 g. Dimensions for the drive was surprisingly small, only 70 mm × 9.5 mm × 100 mm, but that is standard for laptop drives. I was used to seeing somewhat larger ones used in desktop PCs.

Anyway, I knew the drive was heavier than water, but the data show it was a lot heavier and would have sunk quickly...though it still might have been pushed along the bottom of the river for a short distance.

Laptop was lighter than I expected, but given the location of where it was found, I am thinking now it most likely did come from the bridge. But before I carefully looked at the photos of the scene and flow levels, I was thinking it might have entered the water further upstream.

I also think it is reasonable to suspect that someone who threw the laptop in the water would be concerned that they could not throw if far enough from the shore to do a decent job of disposing of it. Or maybe they knew that the water can get really shallow near shore when there is a period without rain. The laptop would have had to get way out past those trees growing near shore, otherwise it could have gotten hung up close to the shore. Thus, getting it out into the main current seems to me one reasonable explanation for someone choosing to throw the drive off of shore, but wanting to throw the laptop off the bridge.

Maybe that person threw the drive first...looked at the big laptop in their other hand (it was a large model), and reconsidered throwing the laptop from the shore.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Sorry I did not show my calculations.
The density of the laptop includes a hard drive (but the drive is actually very small, see below). I took the external dimensions of each, the weight of each, and that is how I calculated density.

For the drive calculations I used a Seagate 20 GB model from 2004 that was sold by Micron PC. Forgot the link. Weight was 100 g. Dimensions for the drive was surprisingly small, only 70 mm × 9.5 mm × 100 mm, but that is standard for laptop drives. I was used to seeing somewhat larger ones used in desktop PCs.

Anyway, I knew the drive was heavier than water, but the data show it was a lot heavier and would have sunk quickly...though it still might have been pushed along the bottom of the river for a short distance.

Laptop was lighter than I expected, but given the location of where it was found, I am thinking now it most likely did come from the bridge. But before I carefully looked at the photos of the scene and flow levels, I was thinking it might have entered the water further upstream.

I also think it is reasonable to suspect that someone who threw the laptop in the water would be concerned that they could not throw if far enough from the shore to do a decent job of disposing of it. Or maybe they knew that the water can get really shallow near shore when there is a period without rain. The laptop would have had to get way out past those trees growing near shore, otherwise it could have gotten hung up close to the shore. Thus, getting it out into the main current seems to me one reasonable explanation for someone choosing to throw the drive off of shore, but wanting to throw the laptop off the bridge.

Maybe that person threw the drive first...looked at the big laptop in their other hand (it was a large model), and reconsidered throwing the laptop from the shore.

Wow. You have done a remarkable job, and I bet you are bleary eyed at this point ! I have been trying to fathom all this a bit more clearly, by focusing on 4-15-05 info. Now yes, for comparatives, the other dates are helpful to get a better feel for what this would look like having been there.

So, minus the hard drive density, the laptop would be very much empty...in your opinion, do you see the laptop filling up quickly, to overcome the density of water (ie, its 'sinking point') ?

In the eyes of Whoever tossed the laptop, with them already having removed the hard drive, their interest is in sinking the ship, right ? I would think they would not have been concerned of closing up the back of the laptop, is that reasonable ? They would want water to consume the laptop ASAP to sink this Titanic of Laptops !!!

Before I do the bathtub test (lol), I think this laptop is going to fill up fast, thusly sinking to the bottom in short order. Again, thanks for your input here...your reply is most welcome.

 

[Maxim]

Sorry I did not show my calculations.
The density of the laptop includes a hard drive (but the drive is actually very small, see below). I took the external dimensions of each, the weight of each, and that is how I calculated density.

For the drive calculations I used a Seagate 20 GB model from 2004 that was sold by Micron PC. Forgot the link. Weight was 100 g. Dimensions for the drive was surprisingly small, only 70 mm × 9.5 mm × 100 mm, but that is standard for laptop drives. I was used to seeing somewhat larger ones used in desktop PCs.

Anyway, I knew the drive was heavier than water, but the data show it was a lot heavier and would have sunk quickly...though it still might have been pushed along the bottom of the river for a short distance.

Laptop was lighter than I expected, but given the location of where it was found, I am thinking now it most likely did come from the bridge. But before I carefully looked at the photos of the scene and flow levels, I was thinking it might have entered the water further upstream.

I also think it is reasonable to suspect that someone who threw the laptop in the water would be concerned that they could not throw if far enough from the shore to do a decent job of disposing of it. Or maybe they knew that the water can get really shallow near shore when there is a period without rain. The laptop would have had to get way out past those trees growing near shore, otherwise it could have gotten hung up close to the shore. Thus, getting it out into the main current seems to me one reasonable explanation for someone choosing to throw the drive off of shore, but wanting to throw the laptop off the bridge.

Maybe that person threw the drive first...looked at the big laptop in their other hand (it was a large model), and reconsidered throwing the laptop from the shore.[/QUOTE]

BBM

I agree with most of the bolded segment. Speculating: RG attempted to sail the lightweight HD (approx. 3.5 oz.) and it didn't go far enough, sank like a rock. He couldn't have a "Mulligan" due to brush and water. He walked onto the bridge to get the laptop farther out. That's where we part in theories.

I speculate that the laptop was not tossed, but dropped. If it had been thrown, or tossed, it could have landed flatly on the surface and floated before sinking. I believe the laptop was dropped, edge down, from the bridge; hit the water and slid down the bridge pillar. As it slid down it filled with water. The currents were parting on either side of the pillar and the laptop would have been carried a short distance from the pillar if the laptop had been tossed into the currents. The small area where the face of the pillar meets the water is where the current comes up against the pillar and would push an object against the pillar.

I suspect the laptop was dropped, was pushed against the pillar, filled with water, sank, and came to rest at the base. The opening (where the HD had been removed) provided access for water to enter speeding the sinking.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry I did not show my calculations.
The density of the laptop includes a hard drive (but the drive is actually very small, see below). I took the external dimensions of each, the weight of each, and that is how I calculated density.

For the drive calculations I used a Seagate 20 GB model from 2004 that was sold by Micron PC. Forgot the link. Weight was 100 g. Dimensions for the drive was surprisingly small, only 70 mm × 9.5 mm × 100 mm, but that is standard for laptop drives. I was used to seeing somewhat larger ones used in desktop PCs.

Anyway, I knew the drive was heavier than water, but the data show it was a lot heavier and would have sunk quickly...though it still might have been pushed along the bottom of the river for a short distance.

Laptop was lighter than I expected, but given the location of where it was found, I am thinking now it most likely did come from the bridge. But before I carefully looked at the photos of the scene and flow levels, I was thinking it might have entered the water further upstream.

I also think it is reasonable to suspect that someone who threw the laptop in the water would be concerned that they could not throw if far enough from the shore to do a decent job of disposing of it. Or maybe they knew that the water can get really shallow near shore when there is a period without rain. The laptop would have had to get way out past those trees growing near shore, otherwise it could have gotten hung up close to the shore. Thus, getting it out into the main current seems to me one reasonable explanation for someone choosing to throw the drive off of shore, but wanting to throw the laptop off the bridge.

Maybe that person threw the drive first...looked at the big laptop in their other hand (it was a large model), and reconsidered throwing the laptop from the shore.[/QUOTE]

BBM

I agree with most of the bolded segment. Speculating: RG attempted to sail the lightweight HD (approx. 3.5 oz.) and it didn't go far enough, sank like a rock. He couldn't have a "Mulligan" due to brush and water. He walked onto the bridge to get the laptop farther out. That's where we part in theories.

I speculate that the laptop was not tossed, but dropped. If it had been thrown, or tossed, it could have landed flatly on the surface and floated before sinking. I believe the laptop was dropped, edge down, from the bridge; hit the water and slid down the bridge pillar. As it slid down it filled with water. The currents were parting on either side of the pillar and the laptop would have been carried a short distance from the pillar if the laptop had been tossed into the currents. The small area where the face of the pillar meets the water is where the current comes up against the pillar and would push an object against the pillar.

I suspect the laptop was dropped, was pushed against the pillar, filled with water, sank, and came to rest at the base. The opening (where the HD had been removed) provided access for water to enter speeding the sinking.

I would suspect that the laptop, if dropped or tossed, might have floated for a few seconds, as the water filled it. It would not have sunk like a stone, but it would not have drifted 100 yards before settling on the bottom either.

 

[Maxim]

Wow. You have done a remarkable job, and I bet you are bleary eyed at this point ! I have been trying to fathom all this a bit more clearly, by focusing on 4-15-05 info. Now yes, for comparatives, the other dates are helpful to get a better feel for what this would look like having been there.

ITA, the posters here are really digging in.

So, minus the hard drive density, the laptop would be very much empty...in your opinion, do you see the laptop filling up quickly, to overcome the density of water (ie, its 'sinking point') ?

MO, it filled fairly quickly, but not instantaneously. If it hit the water with the corner of the laptop it should have submerged enough to fill and sink further.

In the eyes of Whoever tossed the laptop, with them already having removed the hard drive, their interest is in sinking the ship, right ? I would think they would not have been concerned of closing up the back of the laptop, is that reasonable ? They would want water to consume the laptop ASAP to sink this Titanic of Laptops !!!

When trying to dispose of it, they'd want it to disappear quickly.

Before I do the bathtub test (lol), I think this laptop is going to fill up fast, thusly sinking to the bottom in short order. Again, thanks for your input here...your reply is most welcome.

LOL, maybe the shallow end of the pool would better suit for an experiment. That is, unless you have a very deep tub.

 

[ladyheartfixer]

http://www.namus.gov/