Ray Gricar - Missing DA

[nittany90]

Michael Madeira was handed his first defeat by a jury in Centre County.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1285155.html

Read Masorti's quotes. They're a riot.

Now here's an embarrassment that's not funny at all, yet again coming from our local version of Cheech and Chong, the Centre County District Attorney's Office.

http://www.centredaily.com/423/story/1285157.html

The worst pitchers in baseball do not walk as many people as Madeira does.

So much for that "pristine" jury trial record. 9 minutes? Oh, sorry, MM said it took the jury 40 minutes. Are you serious? Why did MM even take it trial if he didn't even have enough evidence to keep a jury guessing for more than a few minutes. :shrug:

This political blackmark couldn't have happened to a nicer person, or at a more pivotal time.

[J. J. in Phila]

So much for that "pristine" jury trial record. 9 minutes? Oh, sorry, MM said it took the jury 40 minutes. Are you serious? Why did MM even take it trial if he didn't even have enough evidence to keep a jury guessing for more than a few minutes. :shrug:

This political blackmark couldn't have happened to a nicer person, or at a more pivotal time.

It weakens him, but only slightly. The key will be the Rogers case. He loses that, he walks into the fall with a major problem.

[nittany90]

It weakens him, but only slightly. The key will be the Rogers case. He loses that, he walks into the fall with a major problem.

That's not looking too good for MM either. The implications pointing to MM's ethics are clear, depsite the recent Court-ordered gag.

Sometimes, implications are sufficient to sway a voter. Especially those with a cumulative effect.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/breaking_news/story/1282173.html

[nittany90]

I think they would do wonders together for the criminal justice system here. Having two relentless, highly intelligent women on the same side could only mean good things for the taxpayers and serious bad news for criminals.

However this plays out, I'd very much like to see them both in the DA's office.

ITA, Willoughby.

[Politigal]

First off, it's a big firm. Second, if her team is monitoring the competitions' web sites, they know her identity, not that it matters.

lol...I'm not the "competition"....

I think she was probably reading the links on Gricar's case.

And I have communicated with SPM via email....so yes, she knows who I am.

I actually get a lot of visitors to my googlepages. I think you've been there many times.


:D

[Willoughby]

lol...I'm not the "competition"....

I think she was probably reading the links on Gricar's case.

And I have communicated with SPM via email....so yes, she knows who I am.

I actually get a lot of visitors to my googlepages. I think you've been there many times.


:D

I phrased that poorly. I meant if SPM was monitoring the competitions' sites, as in JKA and TDB, she'd know your identity. My bad for poor wording.

[Willoughby]

For what is worth, (absolutely nothing), here is my prediction for the rest of this wonderful political year.

SPM will win the Democratic nomination next week, with TDB in second, JKA a distant third.

SPM will be the next district attorney of Centre County, thanks to her own skills, ability, support and the continued bungling of cases by MM. He will try to mount a comeback, knowing full well he needs to do something to make a big, big splash. And that very well may be Gricar related, declaring Gricar an intentional disappearance, making his name as good as mud, and then blaming all of his failings on the staff hired by his predecessor.

The usual ramp-up in the number of drug busts will happen, to be sure. But he needs something bigger than that, and announcing Gricar as solved would do it. (If he manages to keep Andrew Rogers in prison or convict him again.) Claiming he is undefeated at trial is now out the window with yesterday's verdict. That would have made for great campaign literature. Oh well. While I respect MM's political ruthlessness, he's his own worst enemy now.

Well folks, there you have it, for what it's worth, my look into the political crystal ball. This has been fun. Thank you all. :seeya:

[J. J. in Phila]

For what is worth, (absolutely nothing), here is my prediction for the rest of this wonderful political year.

SPM will win the Democratic nomination next week, with TDB in second, JKA a distant third.

SPM will be the next district attorney of Centre County, thanks to her own skills, ability, support and the continued bungling of cases by MM. He will try to mount a comeback, knowing full well he needs to do something to make a big, big splash. And that very well may be Gricar related, declaring Gricar an intentional disappearance, making his name as good as mud, and then blaming all of his failings on the staff hired by his predecessor.

The usual ramp-up in the number of drug busts will happen, to be sure. But he needs something bigger than that, and announcing Gricar as solved would do it. (If he manages to keep Andrew Rogers in prison or convict him again.) Claiming he is undefeated at trial is now out the window with yesterday's verdict. That would have made for great campaign literature. Oh well. While I respect MM's political ruthlessness, he's his own worst enemy now.

Well folks, there you have it, for what it's worth, my look into the political crystal ball. This has been fun. Thank you all. :seeya:

I hope you stay.

I frankly don't know how much of a "splash" solving the RFG case will end up being. It's the one issue where he is holding all the cards.

I could also see JKA easily breaking 20% in the primary.

[Serendipitous1]

I agree with most of Willoughby's last post...which I hope will not be the "last". As much as I would like to have this case solved, I have zero confidence in MM. He cannot declare closure now without producing Gricar...or his body. It would be political suicide. And he knows it...or does he?

[J. J. in Phila]

I agree with most of Willoughby's last post...which I hope will not be the "last". As much as I would like to have this case solved, I have zero confidence in MM. He cannot declare closure now without producing Gricar...or his body. It would be political suicide. And he knows it...or does he?

If this was walkaway, MM can without producing RFG's current whereabouts, but he has to show a heck of a lot of evidence. He has to get RFG not only out of Lewisburg, but safely away from any "helper."

For suicide, he needs a body and one that wasn't dumped by a killer.

My guess is, if he has anything, it's the first one.

[Politigal]

IMO, Madeira can't prove anything in the RG case...murder, suicide or walkaway....

But of course, he could always get "creative" and just happen to find some new evidence.


:rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

IMO, Madeira can't prove anything in the RG case...murder, suicide or walkaway....

But of course, he could always get "creative" and just happen to find some new evidence.


:rolleyes:

I only of of one item in the file. It definitely doesn't point to any theory.

Your opinion and reality are two different things, but neither you nor I know the reality.

[Serendipitous1]

IMO, Madeira can't prove anything in the RG case...murder, suicide or walkaway....

But of course, he could always get "creative" and just happen to find some new evidence.

:rolleyes:The key word being "new", of course. Last month's trial balloon did not get very far off the ground before it was "modified". If any more "new" evidence comes out now (in an election year), it better be tagged with "case solved"...or else MM not only will go down, because it is the right thing to have happen based on his performance in office, but he will go down in flames. JMOO

[Politigal]

The Glasgow family has teamed with Let's Bring them Home and is offering a $100,000 reward in this unsolved case. This case is extremely similar to the case of missing DA Ray Gricar of Centre County, PA IMO. His car was found abandoned some distance from his home too...and that's where the investigation centered.

http://findjohnglasgow.com/news.shtml

Like Gricar, Glasgow went missing in the same clothing he was wearing the night before. He didn't do his usual routine the morning he disappeared...didn't shower, didn't make coffee, etc. And like Gricar, his vehicle was found abandoned with his cellphone some distance away. IMO - it's a copycat case.

[J. J. in Phila]

Article on the DA's race:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1292276.html

[Politigal]

J. Karen Arnold's message to Democrats....well worth the read



http://arnoldforda.org/8.html

[J. J. in Phila]

J. Karen Arnold's message to Democrats....well worth the read



http://arnoldforda.org/8.html

Yes it is, if you want a reason to vote for Parks Miller or De Bouf.

[J. J. in Phila]

For what is worth, (absolutely nothing), here is my prediction for the rest of this wonderful political year.

SPM will win the Democratic nomination next week, with TDB in second, JKA a distant third.



SPM won with about 58%, but TdB showing was dismal, with about 22%. JKA did not break 20% though she is close.

Unopposed, 14% of Republicans cast write-in votes against him. A bit over 20% of the Republicans abstained. Those are huge numbers.

[J. J. in Phila]

The Primary results: http://tiny.cc/1Frro

The most interesting thing was that Mike Madeira was the only one on the ballot and more than 36% of the Republican voters did not vote for him.

[Serendipitous1]

The Primary results: http://tiny.cc/1Frro The most interesting thing was that Mike Madeira was the only one on the ballot and more than 36% of the Republican voters did not vote for him.And those who went to the polls would probably be considered core county Republicans. MM now realizes the depth of his dismal situation. And it will only get worse when the registered students return. MJ (CDT) asks, (http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/1305382.html?storylink=omni_popular) "Will the candidates invest campaign energy on [PSU students], try to persuade them to the Parks Miller or Madeira view of the world of Centre County criminal justice? Or will they punt?"

This is one of MM's vulnerabilities, which SPM should most definitely exploit. And if TdB and JKA were sincere in their beliefs, they will now help get SPM elected. In a county which has, for 3-1/2 years, suffered from a general lack of leadership from (and confidence in) its DA, the choice is clear. And PSU students can be a large part of the decision, come November.

As for Gricar...SPM has publicly said she would tear the investigation files apart and that if there was anything more which could be done, she would make it a priority. I believe her. And that review should address any deficiencies in the investigation...if only for the next time (God forbid).

Yes, it will come 5 years out...and with the probability of finding undiscovered evidence perhaps bleak. But there appears to be no alternative if "new eyes" are wanted on the case. Re-electing MM would only assure that this case is abandoned...awaiting only a court declaration that Gricar is presumed to be dead.

[J. J. in Phila]

There are several factors with the student vote:

1. It was probably largely Democratic.

2. Probably 20%-30% of it has moved on by this point. They have graduated and moved.

3. What is left of it probably will not turn out in higher than normal numbers. It is a slight advantage to SPM, but not a huge one.

I am expecting more public developments in the Gricar case, but prior to the election.

[Serendipitous1]

The thing about sauntering is that one can walk the same path, over and over again, so long as there is the expectation of experiencing something new. When that expectation is not rewarded...it is time to find a new path.

So many paths...and so little time. I will finish what I started to do, so many months ago. And then (as it has always been) it is up to others to solve this mystery, if indeed it can be solved...if there are those in power who want to see it solved.

Sauntering produces its own rewards...and I am a better person for having had this experience. May God bless Ray Gricar and his loved ones.

[J. J. in Phila]

I disagree. We have learned more, even in the last 6 months. I expect to hear more in the next six months.

You might even get your your wish, and hear from you know who. :) But, be careful what you wish for, as you might get it. :biggrin:

[Politigal]

why does it always seem that you're acting like "neener neener neener" - like you know more than all the rest....

???

[J. J. in Phila]

why does it always seem that you're acting like "neener neener neener" - like you know more than all the rest....

???


Because I do know more than the chattering class here. Not a lot more, but more. Ironically, I have JKA to thank for it.:biggrin:

We saw Willoughby. He/she knew more about the political situation than anyone here, including me. Willoughby was exceptionally accurate. You, on the hand were convinced that JKA was strong candidate and that there would be "droves" of Democrats out; both statements were laughably wrong.

[Serendipitous1]

Madeira: Web play ‘added bonus’ (http://www.centredaily.com/news/politics/story/1343930.html). County site features link to district attorney news page.

MM continues to use his position and the county's web site to promote his candidacy for re-election. The "What's New" (http://www.co.centre.pa.us/) link to MM's page appears on the CC home page.

And MM's old campaign web site, madeiraforda.com (http://www.madeiraforda.com/), still goes automatically to his page on the county site...the one the taxpayers of CC are footing the bill for.

[J. J. in Phila]

Madeira: Web play ‘added bonus’ (http://www.centredaily.com/news/politics/story/1343930.html). County site features link to district attorney news page.

MM continues to use his position and the county's web site to promote his candidacy for re-election. The "What's New" (http://www.co.centre.pa.us/) link to MM's page appears on the CC home page.

And MM's old campaign web site, madeiraforda.com (http://www.madeiraforda.com/), still goes automatically to his page on the county site...the one the taxpayers of CC are footing the bill for.

It's called the power of incumbency, and one of the reason I think this will be a closer race than everyone else does.

[Serendipitous1]

The Democrat controlled county commissioners apparently did not think much of MM's shenanigans and buried his bonus web play (http://www.co.centre.pa.us/default.asp).

[J. J. in Phila]

The Democrat controlled county commissioners apparently did not think much of MM's shenanigans and buried his bonus web play (http://www.co.centre.pa.us/default.asp).

Ah, the power of incumbency. :)


BTW, if you really want to read a good blog (that I didn't write), click on Sporadic Comments.

[Serendipitous1]

The candidates are on Facebook:
Stacy Parks Miller (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stacy-Parks-Miller/89727892485#)
Michael Madeira (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Madeira/93347435442)

It seems a shame to have to choose sides...almost...well OK, NOT!!

[Serendipitous1]

...something we do not usually get to see. A tree cutter hussled down a road bank to relieve herself yesterday, and stumbled upon a human skull! Here is a picture (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090619/NEWS/906190323/-1/NEWSMAP)...of the remains, not the woman squatting. The scene: no clothing, other than boots; maybe a duffel bag and a backpack; vodka bottles; tree across the neck. --Poor soul!

[Serendipitous1]

...here is something (http://jamesrenner.wordpress.com/tag/ray-gricar/) we, unfortunately, get to see all too frequently. Yeah, if anyone would like to share their thoughts, theories, or tips about this case...do not contact police...just email JR at: clueless@mankisser4publicity.com. And did you buy his book yet? Have you "bought into" anything in his Gricar ramblings?...fools 3, 4 (et sequentia infinitus)!

And then there are the Gricar bloggers...wannabe investigators...sorting through nothingness with a pretense of somethingness...poor souls!

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, of the two bloggers I can think of, neither one is sure what happened to RFG (one hasn't published new odds after the computer searches revelation) and both are discussing methods to reinvigorate the investigation.

[SaraSidle]

Well, of the two bloggers I can think of, neither one is sure what happened to RFG (one hasn't published new odds after the computer searches revelation) and both are discussing methods to reinvigorate the investigation.

so do we hear anything going on with Mr. Gricar lately?

[J. J. in Phila]

...something we do not usually get to see. A tree cutter hussled down a road bank to relieve herself yesterday, and stumbled upon a human skull! Here is a picture (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090619/NEWS/906190323/-1/NEWSMAP)...of the remains, not the woman squatting. The scene: no clothing, other than boots; maybe a duffel bag and a backpack; vodka bottles; tree across the neck. --Poor soul!


The man has been identified as William Bishop, who lived in the area; he had been missing since 2005.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/breaking_news/story/1364240.html

[J. J. in Phila]

so do we hear anything going on with Mr. Gricar lately?


I've heard some bits and pieces, but nothing that points anywhere.

There is a blog on the subject at the local newspaper, "Sporadic Comments on the Gricar Case: http://www.centredaily.com/opinion/blogs/

In April there was a summary of the evidence. Right now, there is a series on what more can be done; that series will be concluding over the weekend.

[SaraSidle]

I've heard some bits and pieces, but nothing that points anywhere.

There is a blog on the subject at the local newspaper, "Sporadic Comments on the Gricar Case: http://www.centredaily.com/opinion/blogs/

In April there was a summary of the evidence. Right now, there is a series on what more can be done; that series will be concluding over the weekend.

thank you will keep an eye on it............sara

[J. J. in Phila]

thank you will keep an eye on it............sara


I will possibly put up an index blog again. There is a reasonably good (though I doubt complete) witness list as well.

One the more troubling aspects about it is that it took a blogger to get it out there. :( Note as well that not all witnesses necessary equal. If I was confident in Ms. Fenton's sighting, the chance of that Mr. Gricar walked away would be around 70% (I have it at 48%).

[SaraSidle]

I will possibly put up an index blog again. There is a reasonably good (though I doubt complete) witness list as well.

One the more troubling aspects about it is that it took a blogger to get it out there. :( Note as well that not all witnesses necessary equal. If I was confident in Ms. Fenton's sighting, the chance of that Mr. Gricar walked away would be around 70% (I have it at 48%).

After all I have read I am thinking walk away but I am still reading. IMO sara

[J. J. in Phila]

After all I have read I am thinking walk away but I am still reading. IMO sara


After looking at the case seriously, for nearly four years, I have concluded that there is not enough information to say that any option is more than 50% likely. :)

I am hoping (and half expecting) that more information will be forthcoming.

[Serendipitous1]

After all I have read I am thinking walk away but I am still reading. IMO saraThere is a lot of crap out there, Sara. Caveat emptor...let the "buyer" beware...charlatans, misinformation, disinformation, revisionist history, illogical conclusions...lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

[SaraSidle]

There is a lot of crap out there, Sara. Caveat emptor...let the "buyer" beware...charlatans, misinformation, disinformation, revisionist history, illogical conclusions...lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

LOL Sounds like a few others I have read. I do find it awfully strange that the laptop and hard drive were both found near each other in the same body of water....IMO sara

[J. J. in Phila]

LOL Sounds like a few others I have read. I do find it awfully strange that the laptop and hard drive were both found near each other in the same body of water....IMO sara

First, I make a distinction between tossing the drive and tossing the computer itself. We know that RFG wanted to destroy the data and looked at water damage as a method. He was also seen fairly close to the spot where the drive was found (a bit under 100 yards). Obviously, the drive was removed before the computer went into the water.

At this point, I think it is probably that RFG tossed it; we have motive, opportunity and means.

No witness actually puts RFG on the bridge or across the river, however, so it is less likely that he tossed the laptop itself.

[Serendipitous1]

LOL Sounds like a few others I have read. I do find it awfully strange that the laptop and hard drive were both found near each other in the same body of water....IMO saraNot nearly as strange as contemplating who put them there...and when. IMHO, if the locations of the finds were accurately reported, it was someone other than RG...done at a time well after the disappearance...and not on the same day (laptop and hard drive).

[J. J. in Phila]

Not nearly as strange as contemplating who put them there...and when. IMHO, if the locations of the finds were accurately reported, it was someone other than RG...done at a time well after the disappearance...and not on the same day (laptop and hard drive).

Check Renner's piece again. Some of the witnesses saw RFG carrying something across from the museum. It could have been the laptop or drive. That was within 100 yards of where the drive was found.

That does not explain the laptop itself. No witnesses put him anyplace close to crossing the bridge from east to west.

[SaraSidle]

Check Renner's piece again. Some of the witnesses saw RFG carrying something across from the museum. It could have been the laptop or drive. That was within 100 yards of where the drive was found.

That does not explain the laptop itself. No witnesses put him anyplace close to crossing the bridge from east to west.

Does he have to have a witness? the bridge is that busy?

[J. J. in Phila]

Does he have to have a witness? the bridge is that busy?

No.

However, there is evidence that RFG wanted to destroy the data, wanted to use it by tossing it into water, and witnesses that put him close to where the drive was found, in water.

The laptop, sans drive, doesn't have data. It was found on the north side of the bridge, where it could have been tossed by someone driving from the east side of the river to the west, toward Lewisburg (and Bellefonte). I don't know of any witness that puts him on the east side of the river on 4/15-4/16.

I can very easily make the argument that RFG wanted to destroy the data on 4/15. He was planning to be in Lewisburg for some other reason and thought he'd kill two birds with one stone. He arrived in Lewisburg and looked around for a spot to toss it; he decided on the spot where it was found. He removed the drive and tossed it. Then he went to complete something else.

I think it is possible that someone else tossed the laptop so RFG would not be linked to him/her.

[Serendipitous1]

No.

However, there is evidence that RFG wanted to destroy the data, wanted to use it by tossing it into water, and witnesses that put him close to where the drive was found, in water.

The laptop, sans drive, doesn't have data. It was found on the north side of the bridge, where it could have been tossed by someone driving from the east side of the river to the west, toward Lewisburg (and Bellefonte). I don't know of any witness that puts him on the east side of the river on 4/15-4/16.

I can very easily make the argument that RFG wanted to destroy the data on 4/15. He was planning to be in Lewisburg for some other reason and thought he'd kill two birds with one stone. He arrived in Lewisburg and looked around for a spot to toss it; he decided on the spot where it was found. He removed the drive and tossed it. Then he went to complete something else.

I think it is possible that someone else tossed the laptop so RFG would not be linked to him/her.Poppycock! Nonsensical gibberish!

[J. J. in Phila]

Poppycock! Nonsensical gibberish!

No, probably one with more supporting evidence; I have a feeling more might be coming. I would not focus too much on the drive itself, unless it is to support a walkaway/suicide theory.

[Serendipitous1]

No, probably one with more supporting evidence; I have a feeling more might be coming. I would not focus too much on the drive itself, unless it is to support a walkaway/suicide theory.The circumstances surrounding the hard drive which was found point toward foul play IMHO...not to suicide or walk-away. I think if you had been there in 2005 you would have a whole different perspective on the situation.

[J. J. in Phila]

The circumstances surrounding the hard drive which was found point toward foul play IMHO...not to suicide or walk-away. I think if you had been there in 2005 you would have a whole different perspective on the situation.

Perhaps, but neither of us were there on that day.

There are several things that point to RFG tossing the drive.

1. He wanted to destroy the data.

2. He was seen close to where the drive was found.

3. He had something with him, according to witnesses.

4. The timing of the witness sightings. RFG was moving around on 4/15 from just afternoon to 5:30-6:30 PM. The best, and really the only, "nonwalkaway" reason I can find is he was looking for a place to toss the drive.

[Serendipitous1]

http://www.parksmillerforda.net/index.php
http://www.madeiraforda.com/

Both have 30-second video commercials imported from YouTube (since YouTube links related videos, you can play the other candidate's commercial from either website). Both have links to their campaign sites on Facebook.

SPM lists her qualifications on her home page, as does MM...and again on his issues page (interesting that MM thinks his qualifications are "issues" - I agree). SPM has a guest book where viewers can post comments. MM has a blog which does not accept comments.

So far both candidates are keeping the gloves on...lots of glitz but not much substance. Neither lists any endorsements yet. But MM does throw in an old photo of TC, the Republican attorney general who has thus far reneged on his own campaign promise to cleanse the state House and Senate.

The Gricar disappearance flared up briefly in the primary race, but no mention so far in the general campaign. I see no scheduled debates until October...nothing but parades, fairs and festivals this summer.

[SaraSidle]

http://www.parksmillerforda.net/index.php
http://www.madeiraforda.com/

Both have 30-second video commercials imported from YouTube (since YouTube links related videos, you can play the other candidate's commercial from either website). Both have links to their campaign sites on Facebook.

SPM lists her qualifications on her home page, as does MM...and again on his issues page (interesting that MM thinks his qualifications are "issues" - I agree). SPM has a guest book where viewers can post comments. MM has a blog which does not accept comments.

So far both candidates are keeping the gloves on...lots of glitz but not much substance. Neither lists any endorsements yet. But MM does throw in an old photo of TC, the Republican attorney general who has thus far reneged on his own campaign promise to cleanse the state House and Senate.

The Gricar disappearance flared up briefly in the primary race, but no mention so far in the general campaign. I see no scheduled debates until October...nothing but parades, fairs and festivals this summer.


Thank you for the update. I hope this does not get cold......sara

[Serendipitous1]

Where are the LE endorsements?

In the last election, the Fraternal Order of Police, Bald Eagle Lodge 51 (representing "every municipal police department in Centre County"...and "Centre County law enforcement officers from the Pennsylvania Fish & Game Commissions, the Centre County Sheriff’s Office and the Centre County Probation Office") unanimously endorsed MM...long before the primary, and long before they even knew who all was in the running!
http://web.archive.org/web/20050527093146/pages.zdnet.com/mcrpdvet/pafopbaldeagle51/id24.html

That was January 2005. And what does the FOP have to say as of July (post-meeting) 2009? Nada...
http://www.mcrpdvet.pages.qpg.com/pafopbaldeagle51/id24.html

What's up with that? On the one hand I know that MM ran unopposed this time around...so maybe they are just procrastinating. But on the other hand it's been 2 months since the primary...so maybe 3-1/2 years of MM has given them pause (one can only hope so, and that they go with a winner this time).

[J. J. in Phila]

1. They are holding back to get better press.

2. Undecided.

3. They might decide that they will not endorse this year.

[J. J. in Phila]

MM's site keeps saying, "Through good days and bad... ." Something tells me the days will be getting worse.

[Serendipitous1]

MM's site keeps saying, "Through good days and bad... ." Something tells me the days will be getting worse.And have you noticed how the lovely Lisa has been given a more prominent roll this time around?
http://www.madeiraforda.com/get-involved/
One wonders why that is. Oh, wait...

"As he prepares to stand for re-election, his campaign is poised to reach out to voters using a range of media technologies never before employed for a county-level campaign."
http://www.madeiraforda.com/category/uncategorized/
OK, that must explain it...

LLM: "A facebook Page to Re-elect Michael Madeira!!!!! Yeah it is up and running... Lets go peeps...tell him some good words!!" "I just did my homework...but I wanna see the comments!!!"
RS: "so when is the election?"
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Madeira/93347435442
Good one RS...absolutely priceless!!

Lisa?...LISA!?!

[Serendipitous1]

1. They are holding back to get better press.
2. Undecided.
3. They might decide that they will not endorse this year.Does not matter. Given their unanimous endorsement of MM (in January) last time around, their silence this year speaks volumes...they have already screwed MM over. Bring on the new DA.

[J. J. in Phila]

Does not matter. Given their unanimous endorsement of MM (in January) last time around, their silence this year speaks volumes...they have already screwed MM over. Bring on the new DA.


It may not. A less than unanimous endorsement would be embarrassing, however.

[Serendipitous1]

It may not. A less than unanimous endorsement would be embarrassing, however.As I said, they have already screwed MM...any way you look at it. They are impotent now in regard to MM. They can only back SPM. Bring on the new DA, SPM.

[J. J. in Phila]

As I said, they have already screwed MM...any way you look at it. They are impotent now in regard to MM. They can only back SPM. Bring on the new DA, SPM.


Every time you pronounce someone impotent, he seems to be fathering children, metaphorically.

They could be holding back for impact. If they endorse, the name of endorsed gets in the next day's paper. Good free publicity.

[Serendipitous1]

Every time you pronounce someone impotent, he seems to be fathering children, metaphorically. They could be holding back for impact. If they endorse, the name of endorsed gets in the next day's paper. Good free publicity.You like to have the last word, JJ...all well and good. But I savor what is possible and not possible. The FOP absolutely cannot endorse MM now, or their credibility is dead. The FOP must either come out in favor of SPM or remain silent (as they have thus far). Either way, it is multiple nails in MM's coffin...so to speak.

[J. J. in Phila]

You like to have the last word, JJ...all well and good. But I savor what is possible and not possible. The FOP absolutely cannot endorse MM now, or their credibility is dead. The FOP must either come out in favor of SPM or remain silent (as they have thus far). Either way, it is multiple nails in MM's coffin...so to speak.

The FOP, in this election, is important, but from a campaign standard, saying "Endorsed unanimously by the FOP " will sway just as many voters as "Endorsed by the FOP." Reminding the voters of it in September will probably sway more voters than either.

The voter's had the last word on your last foray into a general election, IIRC.

MM is a strong candidate, but not an invulnerable one. He can no longer tout his perfect record, but he can, and does, say: "Successful – won numerous jury trials (homicide, assault, drug, vehicular death, etc.)"

http://www.madeiraforda.com/on-the-issues/

SPM is a strong candidate as well, but is she strong [i]enough?

[J. J. in Phila]

The key to MTM's success or failure will be if this race becomes a referendum on his job performance.

JKA had a fair amount of political baggage that could have made the race a referendum on her. Both she and TdB were linked to RFG, to the point where that could have become the issue.

With SPM, the issue can become MTM's job performance (which is obviously a legitimate issue).

[Serendipitous1]

<Snip>The key to MTM's success or failure will be if this race becomes a referendum on his job performance. With SPM, the issue can become MTM's job performance (which is obviously a legitimate issue).These are already givens, J.J. And SPM will not have to battle her way out of a corner...she is already standing in the middle of the room...watching MM dance the walls. It is why she was the clear choice in the primary.

[J. J. in Phila]

<Snip>These are already givens, J.J. And SPM will not have to battle her way out of a corner...she is already standing in the middle of the room...watching MM dance the walls. It is why she was the clear choice in the primary.

So far, it has not been mentioned too strongly in the campaign, as you pointed out.

I could see MM claiming, "She's too pro defendant, a liberal Democrat, et c." No substance, but stuff that works. There are no "givens." Races can be dynamic.

[J. J. in Phila]

Rogers retrial to start 10/19.

[Serendipitous1]

There is no need for SPM to go negative in the campaign...the news media is doing a fine job of highlighting the growing list of MM's questionable decisions:
First Amendment prevails (http://www.centredaily.com/opinion/story/1420407.html)
Felletter charges should not be re-filed (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/07/28/felletter_charges_should_not_b.aspx)

Still, MM does have his "kitchen cabinet" (http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs192.snc1/6452_112257335442_93347435442_2683672_6260482_n.jp g) to help "drum up" some support.

[J. J. in Phila]

'Tis a good day for the First Amendment. :)

As somebody said on July 23:

I think Mr. Madeira does need to "Reread his copy of the Constitution," especially on "inciting" charge. Mr. Shubin, according to the charge, was photographing a public event that was newsworthy. He role was as a reporter, not a participant. Mr. Madeira is basically claiming, in his charge, that Mr. Shubin should not be covering a news story happening in public.It is troubling that Mr. Madeira should support this argument that a reporter should not be covering a public event.

Judge Grine seems to understand the issues MUCH better, which is telling. I'm sure he has no sympathy for rioters, since Judge Grine was a police officer in State College before becoming an attorney. It is very telling that even when argued before a judge who is both a former district attorney and a former police officer, Mr. Madeira's claims are quickly dismissed.

[Serendipitous1]

Well "somebody", in his haste to make a point, got Shubin (defense attorney) mixed up with Felletter (defendant). But I got the gist of it anyway.

Despite Shubin's constitutional grandstanding, this case was only ever about an alleged criminal act, for which there is no immunity granted to anyone...including news media personnel. But sufficient evidence of a criminal act in this case was apparently not presented. My concern is that it was never there in the first place...but MM, for whatever reason, decided to prosecute it anyway.

Ever since he declared that every stone had been turned, I have had no confidence in MM's ability to manage the Gricar investigation. The nearly 4-year string of bad decisions since then only reinforces my opinion that Centre County needs a new DA...and not just because of Gricar.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well "somebody", in his haste to make a point, got Shubin (defense attorney) mixed up with Felletter (defendant). But I got the gist of it anyway.

Despite Shubin's constitutional grandstanding, this case was only ever about an alleged criminal act, for which there is no immunity granted to anyone...including news media personnel. But sufficient evidence of a criminal act in this case was apparently not presented. My concern is that it was never there in the first place...but MM, for whatever reason, decided to prosecute it anyway.

Ever since he declared that every stone had been turned, I have had no confidence in MM's ability to manage the Gricar investigation. The nearly 4-year string of bad decisions since then only reinforces my opinion that Centre County needs a new DA...and not just because of Gricar.

It might have been in the story; I'm not sure.

I think you might want to read the latest blog entry.

And I'll be unavailable for a bit under a fortnight.

[Serendipitous1]

It might have been in the story; I'm not sure. I think you might want to read the latest blog entry. And I'll be unavailable for a bit under a fortnight.No thanks...been there, done that. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But it is really nothing more than that, despite your vain attempts to make it appear otherwise. I disagree with many things you have posted all over the WWW.

In any event, barring some new news, my participation here is geared toward helping/hoping SPM get/s elected...and will end on November 3rd. If there is anything more which can be done, I have complete confidence that SPM will do it...polar-opposite to my confidence in MM.

[J. J. in Phila]

No thanks...been there, done that. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But it is really nothing more than that, despite your vain attempts to make it appear otherwise. I disagree with many things you have posted all over the WWW.

In any event, barring some new news, my participation here is geared toward helping/hoping SPM get/s elected...and will end on November 3rd. If there is anything more which can be done, I have complete confidence that SPM will do it...polar-opposite to my confidence in MM.

Ah, I'm afraid subtlety is lost on some posters. Pity.

[Serendipitous1]

By now everyone in Happy Valley knows that the CQ Press' 2008 edition (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/12/03/state_college_ranks_second_as.aspx) of its "City Crime Rankings" placed State College as the second safest metropolitan area in the nation. And Madeira was quick to claim a chunk of the credit...even producing a new campaign video (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=109206204729). But I wanted to know the facts...about Centre County in general. So I went to the Uniform Crime Reporting (http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/UCR/Reporting/Annual/AnnualSumArrestUI.asp) statistics.

Sure enough...reported violent offenses (per 100,000 population) in 2008 were down 8% from 2007 and 11% from 2006. And reported nonviolent offenses (per 100,000 population) in 2008 were down 12% from 2007 and 15% from 2006. Very impressive. But I wondered what part the DA’s office, under Madeira, might have played in that. So I compared the last 3 years (2006-2008) with the previous 3 years (2003-2005). Here is what I found:

Reported nonviolent offenses (per 100,000 population) for the last 3 year period were down less than 2%...and the clearance rate was up less than 2%. For nonviolent offenses, that looks like pretty much of a wash. However, although reported violent offenses (per 100,000 population) for the last 3-year period were down 5% from the previous 3-year period, the clearance rate was also down...a very significant 10%.

That tells me not only that the effectiveness of the DA’s office under Madeira has declined substantially from what it was under Gricar, but that Madeira has played no part in the more recent decline in reported offenses. In fact, the forces which have actually driven down reported offenses have had to overcome the decline in the effectiveness of the DA's office under Madeira...more reasons why I believe one-term Mike (http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs172.snc1/6452_114920045442_93347435442_2726579_6127007_n.jp g) needs to go.

[Serendipitous1]

<Snip>
Despite Shubin's constitutional grandstanding, this case was only ever about an alleged criminal act, for which there is no immunity granted to anyone...including news media personnel. But sufficient evidence of a criminal act in this case was apparently not presented. My concern is that it was never there in the first place...but MM, for whatever reason, decided to prosecute it anyway.The "picture" is coming into focus, according to today's article: Madeira files appeal notice. The Centre County DA opposes a judge’s decision to dismiss a charge against a Collegian photographer (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/08/04/madeira_files_appeal_notice.aspx). MM desperately needs LE to endorse his re-election bid, despite a very noticeable reluctance (so far) to do so. It has now been suggested that he is backing the police on this case purely because of politics...making Felleter (figuratively speaking) a "political prisoner".

MM is also struggling mightily to get out from under the Marshall fiasco, the Rogers fiasco, etc. and etc...to include the Gricar fiasco. I suggest there are way too many fires to try to put out before the election. MM cannot 'have his cake and eat it too'! The record he is trying to stand on is the very meat of his defeat. Make it so SPM.

[J. J. in Phila]

Chief Dixon just reappeared. :)

[Serendipitous1]

Chief Dixon just reappeared. :)All I see is someone who may or may not be DD...LIMPING IN on LE's side in a most perplexing case. Is there actually anyone knowledgable who is willing to take this case HEAD ON...in public...and see it through to its conclusion? DD is a poor imitator IMO.

There is not a lick of difference between MS, DD and DZ...and MM, SW and MR. But if TT ever finds his voice...we would all better listen! Too bad he has not said squat so far...unless you include his pitiful performance before Carla Baron and company.

It is sad how few people seem interested or involved. But I believe SPM is very much interested and would definitely become involved. That is one reason why I support her candidacy.

[J. J. in Phila]

Something I said struck a nerve, in all probability. I said the first 24 hours were "near perfection." Hmmm.

[Serendipitous1]

SS and 2 victim witness advocates have been subpoenaed to give testimony (http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/1438912.html?storylink=omni_popular) later this month, in the civil suit against LM, MM and the county. The county is trying to block the depositions until after a hearing on motions for dismissal, scheduled for October 19. The presiding judge is from Clearfield County.

The dismissal hearing is scheduled just 2 weeks before the election. If MM's defense is strong, that could help him. But if it is weak, there will probably be some excuse given to reschedule it. It will be interesting to see if MM also tries to block the depositions, scheduled for August 20.

It is also interesting that it was SS who was subpoenaed...given that he had a lot of praise for all of the Democratic candidates who were bidding for MM's job in the primary. And how is that 7-month criminal state investigation of LM coming along Mr. Attorney General?

[Serendipitous1]

When I think of Happy Valley, I think of Penn State, State College and the immediate environs. I do not associate Bellefonte or the rest of Centre County with Happy Valley. And I certainly do not associate Lock Haven with Happy Valley. So I found MM's editorial in the Lock Haven Express (http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512263.html?nav=5003) both humorous (with no offense intended toward Lock Haven, the LHE, or Centre or Clinton countians) and telling. Although the editorial did also appear in The Daily Collegian (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/08/07/state_college_safety_marks_mir.aspx), the chasm between MM's administration and local media support opened the month he took office...and has been widening ever since.

For the unannointed this may seem trivial...and you may wonder what this has to do with Ray Gricar. But for those of us who have followed MM and his relationship with TC (the state AG who would be Governor), the reluctance (at both the state and local level) to commit toward solving the case of RG's disappearance is quite apparent.

When SPM and company let "the hammer fly" against MM, it will be both deserved and awesome...good for Centre [but not necessarily Clinton :-)] countians...and good for the Gricar case. Stay alert all ye citizens of Centre County...do not be fooled by the inevitable (and cleverly disguised) bombardment of mailed propoganda from MM.

Search tags: Ray Gricar, Michael Madeira, Stacy Parks Miller, Lock Haven Express, Daily Collegian, Centre Daily Times.

[Serendipitous1]

As a follow-up to my recent posts, I note that there is now a tee-shirt and video design contest, with prizes, (http://www.thevalleyissafe.com/) being promoted by MM's campaign website (http://www.madeiraforda.com/category/uncategorized/), purportedly in connection with the pride Centre County residents should feel at having Happy Valley named as the second-safest metropolitan area in the USA.

But to win, you have to at least appear to be an MM supporter. I know that disenfranchises every citizen (and there are many) who, though they are certainly glad to know they live in such a safe area, understands that MM has had little (or nothing) to do with it. This contest is just another example of the political mindset that has blocked the solution to the Ray Gricar disappearance.

My suggestion to the citizens of Centre County is to enter MM's design contest (and I hope you win). Take his goodies, but vote for SPM this November because you know it is the right thing to do...good for Centre County, good for you, and (hopefully) good for solving the case MM has not in nearly 4 years.

Search tags: Ray Gricar, Michael Madeira, Stacy Parks Miller, madeiraforda.com, thevalleyissafe.com.

[Serendipitous1]

Ineresting column in yesterday's Collegian: "Stubbornness hinders prosecutor (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/08/12/stubbornness_hinders_prosecuto.aspx?print=1)", a rather scathing critique of MM.

I suppose some might consider the student author biased and/or "green". But having read some of his other columns over the years (he having covered crime and the courts for the newspaper), some of which were more charitable toward MM, I think this latest piece is equally commendable.

From the title through to the last sentence, I paused as I read...thinking about how each descriptor could also apply to MM's handling (or mishandling) of the Gricar investigation. I see many parallels. But then...I am definitely biased.

[Serendipitous1]

Politics can be ugly at times...and humorous at others. Ray Gricar was no stranger to politics, as evidenced in this article titled: "Officials feud over domestic abuse grant (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1996_jan-dec/06/06-17-96tdc/06-17-96d01-001.htm)". Those who have followed the disappearance will find additional insight in the article concerning the contentious relationship between Gricar and a particular player in the investigation. And it seems BB did not invent using a news conference as a means to and end.

This was the second in a 2-part series on the subject. If interested, the first part can be found here: "County may receive domestic abuse grant (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1996_jan-dec/04/04-24-96tdc/04-24-96d01-002.htm)".

[J. J. in Phila]

Ineresting column in yesterday's Collegian: "Stubbornness hinders prosecutor (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/08/12/stubbornness_hinders_prosecuto.aspx?print=1)", a rather scathing critique of MM.

I suppose some might consider the student author biased and/or "green". But having read some of his other columns over the years (he having covered crime and the courts for the newspaper), some of which were more charitable toward MM, I think this latest piece is equally commendable.

From the title through to the last sentence, I paused as I read...thinking about how each descriptor could also apply to MM's handling (or mishandling) of the Gricar investigation. I see many parallels. But then...I am definitely biased.

I think this will be a theme that you will see repeated.

[J. J. in Phila]

Since this came up on some other sites here are when the initial witnesses reported:

Dixon said the owner of a co-op antiques store across the street from the lot said Gricar may have been at the shop earlier Saturday. [4/16/05]

CDT, 4/17/05 http://web.archive.org/web/20050418102105/www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/11414918.htm

The only "owner" that has been reporting seeing RFG on Saturday 4/16/05 was Craig Bennett. He appears to be the second witness reporting RFG in Lewisburg on 4/15 or 4/16/05.


[i]"Law enforcement officials were seeking to put a positive spin on the events, saying the information -- that a witness reported seeing Gricar talking to a woman in a Lewisburg antique mall on April 15, 2005, [Friday]the day he disappeared -- is old news to investigators."

And:

Although Zaccagni now describes the witness report as the first credible sighting of Gricar after he went missing, he and Weaver said police were following a plethora of leads at the time and it simply did not come up in communications with the media.

CDT 5/11/06

http://tiny.cc/Firstsighting

It appears that this is the first witness to report seeing RFG.

It is also consistant with JKA's statements:

Ray's absence at that point was to my perception clearly being theorized to be volitional and likely in the company of an individual personally known to me to have had a long-standing friendship and admiration for him, and to be a smoker.

And,

This individual's description would be generally consistent with that offered of the ‘mystery woman’ in media during the past year.

And,

I left to return to Bellefonte around 11:00-11:15 AM.

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/gricardisappearance

Why the police had "theorized" that RFG was with this particular woman seems to have been based on the report of the first witness, the one that saw him with the "mystery woman" on 4/15/05. This report was prior to 11:00 AM on 4/17/05.

[Rhododendron]

One year, 3 months, after Ray Gricar disappeared, this article appeared in the Centre Daily Times. Please note the last sentence quoted. According to the article, Ray Gricar had not been seen nor heard of since the cell phone call of 04/15/05. AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE!

Gricar case stalls
Hope fades as trail goes cold again
By Pete Bosak
07/30/06

BELLEFONTE -- The family and loved ones of former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar still cling to hope that police will find out what happened to the prosecutor, who seemed to step off the face of the Earth more than a year ago.

There are no new leads.

No news.

"Not a thing, actually," said Tony Gricar, Ray Gricar's nephew and the family's spokesman.

Tony Gricar concedes his family is preparing for the possibility they will never know what happened to Ray Gricar on April 15, 2005. That day, he telephoned his live-in girlfriend, Patty Fornicola, to tell her he was taking the day off and going for a drive on state Route 192 toward Lewisburg.

His Mini Cooper was found in a Lewisburg parking lot outside an antiques mall.

He has not been seen or heard from since -- at least nothing credible.(snip)

[J. J. in Phila]

You will note that some of those articles cited were printed after that; you also might be interested in some of the articles printed before that. It will be apparent at the appropriate juncture.

The investigation itself is, shall we say, interesting.

[Rhododendron]

So . . . are you saying LE was being untruthful in the above article? Or . . . are you saying PB, the CDT reporter, was being untruthful in the above article?

If there were no credible sightings reported as of 07/30/06 (1 yr., 3 mos. after RG's disappearance), why, how, who made the sightings "credible" after that date?

[J. J. in Phila]

So . . . are you saying LE was being untruthful in the above article? Or . . . are you saying PB, the CDT reporter, was being untruthful in the above article?

If there were no credible sightings reported as of 07/30/06 (1 yr., 3 mos. after RG's disappearance), why, how, who made the sightings "credible" after that date?

LE didn't release some evidence, and still hasn't. The MW was released, but until May 2006, they never said that the first witness to report was the one that saw him with the MW.

LE knew a member of things that were not released until later, or leaked out.

At least part of the next "revelation" has been leaked, and not by me.

[Rhododendron]

I repeat:

After the cell phone call to PF on 04/15/05, "HE HAS NOT BEEN SEEN OR HEARD FROM SINCE---AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE."

As per CDT, Pete Bosak, 07/30/06.

Please note that 07/30/06 is after May 2006.

[J. J. in Phila]

I repeat:

After the cell phone call to PF on 04/15/05, "HE HAS NOT BEEN SEEN OR HEARD FROM SINCE---AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE."

As per CDT, Pete Bosak, 07/30/06.

Please note that 07/30/06 is after May 2006.

And I repeat, LE is not releasing things. We also see yarious comments from Buehner, McKnight, and DZ stating he was in Lewisburg.

Things like:

DZ: 11/16/05 : "We can definitely put him here [Lewisburg] on Saturday, too."

Comments on McKnight and Buehner, 1/1/06:

"Both Buehner and McKnight think Gricar was killed, and neither thinks it happened in Bellefonte. Buehner pointed out that Gricar's car was found in Lewisburg on April 16, the day after he disappeared. He said it's likely that whatever happened, happened there. "

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=19a90cc4a9a5e0d0b2a7d7f772d7a07a

Here is a direct quote, 4/14/06: "'It's not a Centre County case,' Clinton County District Attorney Ted McKnight said. "

And, 5/21/06:


"'The reality of this case is the center of events and sightings has been Lewisburg, and that happens to be in Union County,' McKnight said."

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=9ce98558b1ead00019e80ec2c53fcf44

[Rhododendron]

I repeat:

After the cell phone call to PF on 04/15/05, "HE HAS NOT BEEN SEEN OR HEARD FROM SINCE---AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE."

As per CDT, Pete Bosak, 07/30/06.

Please note that 07/30/06 is after May 2006.

Please note that 07/30/06 occurs after 11/16/05, 01/06/06, 04/14/06, 05/21/06, the dates of your media releases.

[J. J. in Phila]

Please note that 07/30/06 occurs after 11/16/05, 01/06/06, 04/14/06, 05/21/06, the dates of your media releases.

I note the dates, now look at these:

Gricar was eight months from a planned retirement when he took a drive through Brush Valley toward Lewisburg on April 15, 2005. He hasn’t been heard from since. 4/14/09

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/1228995.html#ixzz0OUOW5yTN

Gricar vanished April 15, 2005, and hasn’t been heard from since taking a drive through Brush Valley. 9/23/08

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/857207.html

Gricar was last heard from April 15, 2005, when he called his live-in girlfriend, and co-worker at the District Attorney's Office, to tell her he was taking a drive on Route 192 toward Lewisburg and that he would not be home at midday to walk the dog. 11/17/06

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3804.html#ixzz0OUQV8PI7

Emphasis added.

[2-B]

04/30/05, CDT, Erin Nissley


The man who thinks he saw Gricar on April 18 called police on April 22, several days after he'd seen a news report about the district attorney's disappearance. Dixon said police investigated the man's claim and found a second man who was at the Wilkes-Barre business at the same time and believed he also saw Gricar.

The Wilkes-Barre report brings the number of supposed sightings of Gricar to at least four. One person reported seeing Gricar about noon April 15 in Lewisburg, and two Lewisburg business owners said they thought they saw him a day later in an antique mall.

(no longer available online)

Looks as if two weeks post-disappearance, LE had five reported sightings: one Friday noon sighting; two Saturday sightings; two Wilkes-Barre sightings.


No mention of a Friday inside SOS sighting with or without an MW.

[J. J. in Phila]

04/30/05, CDT, Erin Nissley


The man who thinks he saw Gricar on April 18 called police on April 22, several days after he'd seen a news report about the district attorney's disappearance. Dixon said police investigated the man's claim and found a second man who was at the Wilkes-Barre business at the same time and believed he also saw Gricar.

The Wilkes-Barre report brings the number of supposed sightings of Gricar to at least four. One person reported seeing Gricar about noon April 15 in Lewisburg, and two Lewisburg business owners said they thought they saw him a day later in an antique mall.

(no longer available online)

Looks as if two weeks post-disappearance, LE had five reported sightings: one Friday noon sighting; two Saturday sightings; two Wilkes-Barre sightings.

The phrase "at least four" refers, I believe, to the questions which had already arisen regarding the noon Friday sighting.

No mention of a Friday inside SOS sighting with or without an MW.

Alvey was already in the DC (4/21); he was one of the two in the SoS on 4/15. Bennett was out on by that point as well, I think in the DC and later the CDT. One of those 4/16/05 business owners was ruled out. There was also a Jennifer Snyder from the Packwood reported on 4/29 in the CDT (no longer online), around noon.

There were also two workers from the SoS that were reported for 4/16. (that is no longer online)

You can continue to spin it, but it won't work.

BTW: LE kept a lot out. I've heard hints that there are more out there.

[Politigal]

not sure why some have scampered over to this board from our regular board at CTV....guess it got a little too hot in the kitchen...lol

But here are the only real facts of the case to date:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=356098

[J. J. in Phila]

not sure why some have scampered over to this board from our regular board at CTV....guess it got a little too hot in the kitchen...lol

But here are the only real facts of the case to date:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=356098

No, just tired of the nonsense.

The DC story on Alvey is here is here: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-21-05tdc/04-21-05dnews-10.asp

Also keep this in mind, three witnesses, at least, were revealed because of the Buehner letter.

[Rhododendron]

I repeat:

After the cell phone call to PF on 04/15/05, "HE HAS NOT BEEN SEEN OR HEARD FROM SINCE---AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE."

As per CDT, Pete Bosak, 07/30/06.

Please note that 07/30/06 is after May 2006.

The above quote pretty much takes in all the so-called "witnesses". Apparently, the phrase "AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE" is being missed ignored. Heck, the entire sentence is being ignored.

[J. J. in Phila]

The above quote pretty much takes in all the so-called "witnesses". Apparently, the phrase "AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE" is being missed ignored. Heck, the entire sentence is being ignored.


Such desperation.

You will note that the newer accounts say "heard" not "seen." A subtle change, but a noteworthy one.

[2-B]

No, just tired of the nonsense.

The DC story on Alvey is here is here: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-21-05tdc/04-21-05dnews-10.asp


Nonsense? I wouldn't call information from experts with sterling credentials "nonsense."

The Alvey and Bennett sightings are as far from confirmed as you can get. Bloodhounds are routinely used to include or exclude witness sightings. The Alvey and Bennett sightings are excluded on this basis. There's certainly nothing to confirm them.

As for "seen" vs. "heard," the last time it is confirmed that Gricar was "seen": Thursday 4/14, approximately 9:07 p.m., leaving the Bellefonte Courthouse.

[J. J. in Phila]

Nonsense? I wouldn't call information from experts with sterling credentials "nonsense."

The Alvey and Bennett sightings are as far from confirmed as you can get. Bloodhounds are routinely used to include or exclude witness sightings. The Alvey and Bennett sightings are excluded on this basis. There's certainly nothing to confirm them.

As for "seen" vs. "heard," the last time it is confirmed that Gricar was "seen": Thursday 4/14, approximately 9:07 p.m., leaving the Bellefonte Courthouse.

Bloodhounds are useful, but not infallible. I have never heard of them "excluding" witnesses. A polygraph might be more likely to exclude things.

Please, 2-B, it going by the standard that Rhododendron has implicitly used is what the newspapers said. That changed.

The sightings are corroborated by other sightings. A second witness saw RFG at the time, for example. Bennett was supported by two other witnesses within the SoS.

Now, 2-B, we see a pattern for those who don't want RFG to be in Lewisburg or 4/15/05.

First, there is the claim that it could be any middle aged man. Then it becomes clear that multiple witnesses put RFG in or near the Mini. They retreat.

Second, the witnesses were influenced by the media. Then it becomes clear that some of them reported prior to local news stories. They retreat.

Third, there is the claim that the there are not that many witnesses. It becomes clear that it is a fairly large number of witnesses. They retreat.

Now, it's the claim that the dogs rule them out, even though the dogs did detect the scent in the parking lot.

Just deal with the evidence instead of trying to explain it away; those that try have failed miserably.

[J. J. in Phila]

You know, the current blog notes how the police missed evidence because they were focused on just one theory.

[2-B]

Bloodhounds are useful, but not infallible. I have never heard of them "excluding" witnesses. A polygraph might be more likely to exclude things.

Tests conducted with the FBI scent unit have proven experienced Bloodhound/handler teams nearly infallible. There was a 96% success rate among such teams, and the only "failures" among these teams were with a ten-month-old and an eleven-month-old dog, both of whom were re-tested three months later with complete success. It's believed their adut neuro pathways weren't fully formed when first tested.

The idea that a polygraph would be more likely to exclude things is ridiculous, considering that polygraphs are not admissible in most courts, while Bloodhound testimony is admissible.

I'm surprised you've never heard of Bloodhounds excluding witnesses, since you've been told this before at In Session. It's done routinely. Lisa Harvey, a Bloodhound handler involved with the testing I described above, testified in court that Bloodhounds are far more reliable in identification than eyewitnesses. Ann Holt, DVM, at an annual meeting of the National Association for Search and Rescue, said that one of the things Bloodhounds are known for is their ability to tell whether a sighting is real or not. Here is but one example, a news clipping about escaped convicts, where Bloodhounds were brought to the places where the escaped convicts had been "sighted" to determine whether the sightings were real or not:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=892&dat=19840604&id=M9oKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=R08DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6338,575790


The sightings are corroborated by other sightings. A second witness saw RFG at the time, for example. Bennett was supported by two other witnesses within the SoS.

You are fully aware that one witness cannot corroborate another witness' sighting unless one of those witnesses has been confirmed, and none has been confirmed in the Gricar case. To quote Gary Wells once again, "a response that has no diagnostic value by itself cannot gain diagnostic value by having more of them." http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/FACULTY/gwells/Multiple-witness-diagnosticity_Clark&Wells_in_press.htm

I find it difficult to understand how you can take a position diametrically opposed to Wells, since Wells is the leading scholar on eyewitness identification and the law.


First, there is the claim that it could be any middle aged man. Then it becomes clear that multiple witnesses put RFG in or near the Mini. They retreat.

I would say the retreat has been on your part. You have been asked for any evidence that the non-SOS lot sightings involve the Mini Cooper belonging to Ray Gricar and not one of the two other red and white Mini Coopers in Lewisburg the weekend of the disappearance. This is especially important since Ray's nephew indicated that one of these other Mini Coopers was identified as being near the parking slots by the park. We are anxious for the evidence you have that the witness sightings can be linked to the Mini Cooper specifically owned by Ray Gricar, but we haven't heard what that evidence is.

Second, the witnesses were influenced by the media. Then it becomes clear that some of them reported prior to local news stories. They retreat.

That is not at all clear. That is your argument, but it appears to be based on a misreading of source material.

Third, there is the claim that the there are not that many witnesses. It becomes clear that it is a fairly large number of witnesses. They retreat.

This is the first time you've raised this issue, but it's easily dismissed. The number of witnesses you cite is in the low double digits. If counting witnesses matters at all (and I don't think it does), that's an incredibly small number compared to many other cases. Twenty sightings of Brittanee Drexel in the first three days after she disappeared. In the Brooke Wilberger case, there were more than 350 reported sightings in the first 6 months post-disappearance. I was reading about the case of a murdered English teen yesterday--more than 450 sightings in the weeks after her disappearance. Hundreds of sightings of the Sund/Pelosso women after they went missing. Thousands of sightings of Madeleine McCann, hundreds on one small island alone.

Whether you claim 10 or 12 or 14 in the Gricar case, they pale by "numbers" comparison to other cases. Not that I believe numbers matter. Validity of sightings matters.

Now, it's the claim that the dogs rule them out, even though the dogs did detect the scent in the parking lot.

For years, you misrepresented what we were saying about the dogs in this case and claimed we were saying, "The dogs got it all wrong." Then it was pointed out to you that you were the only one saying the dogs were wrong and that we believed the dogs were right. We do believe the dogs are right. They've picked up Gricar's scent in the area where his car was. They did not pick it up elsewhere. You have tried to explain that away with all sorts reasons that are not supported by the best experts in scent theory and Bloodhound handling. You take a positions diametrically opposed to the FBI Scent Unit and to Bill Tolhurst, the leading expert in Bloodhounds. As with the Gary Wells example, why should we believe you over these well-credentialed experts?

Just deal with the evidence instead of trying to explain it away; those that try have failed miserably.

Yes. Just deal with the evidence instead of trying to explain it away.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the polygraph is not admissible because it isn't perfect. We've seen other cases, the Peterson case, for example, where the dog wasn't perfect, for some reason. We don't know the reason, but if the Peterson case (UTR's favorite) depended on showing that Laci or her body went from the house to where the boat was stored, Scott Peterson should have never been tried. Fortunately, it wasn't dependent on that.

The same reason, or a similar one, may be in play in this case. In neither case is the dog talking. Beyond reasonable doubt, Laci Peterson went from the house to the warehouse; beyond reasonable doubt, Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

Now, after that, there is reasonable doubt.

[Rhododendron]

There is NO concrete, credible evidence that RG was in Lewisburg on 04/15-16/05.

RG's vehicle was found there; no proof he drove it there.

A water bottle & cell phone were found in the vehicle; no proof RG drove the vehicle there.

Any print(s) found on the vehicle belonging to RG; no proof when RG left it/them.

RG's scent was found in the area of the vehicle; no proof RG himself left the scent.

RG's scent was not found anyplace other than the area of the vehicle; no proof RG was anywhere near the inside/outside of the SOS, on the bench, or any place other than the immediate vicinity of the vehicle, & no proof RG himself left the scent in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.

No "confirmed" sightings of RG were made after the cell phone call on 04/15/05 (as per Pete Bosak, CDT, 07/30/06).

[Serendipitous1]

The battle in the war of words has been joined: "A different perspective (http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512479.html?nav=5003)".

[Serendipitous1]

"The DA's office is the voice for victims of crime. The job of the DA is to make sure justice is vigorously pursued after a crime has been committed. The scoring of that performance is the report card that matters. When I assign those grades, frankly I do not feel safe today." ~ Stacy Parks Miller (http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512479.html?nav=5003) (8/18/09)

[Politigal]

"The DA's office is the voice for victims of crime. The job of the DA is to make sure justice is vigorously pursued after a crime has been committed. The scoring of that performance is the report card that matters. When I assign those grades, frankly I do not feel safe today." ~ Stacy Parks Miller (http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512479.html?nav=5003) (8/18/09)

Have you contacted SPM with regard to RG's case, on what she might do to further the investigation, or are you just hopeful she will do more than MM has?

[J. J. in Phila]

There is NO concrete, credible evidence that RG was in Lewisburg on 04/15-16/05.

RG's vehicle was found there; no proof he drove it there.

A water bottle & cell phone were found in the vehicle; no proof RG drove the vehicle there.

Any print(s) found on the vehicle belonging to RG; no proof when RG left it/them.

RG's scent was found in the area of the vehicle; no proof RG himself left the scent.

RG's scent was not found anyplace other than the area of the vehicle; no proof RG was anywhere near the inside/outside of the SOS, on the bench, or any place other than the immediate vicinity of the vehicle, & no proof RG himself left the scent in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.

No "confirmed" sightings of RG were made after the cell phone call on 04/15/05 (as per Pete Bosak, CDT, 07/30/06).

Just witnesses, DNA and scent. That is both direct and indirect evidence.

[Politigal]

Just witnesses, DNA and scent. That is both direct and indirect evidence.


You're wrong.

The witnesses cannot be considered *direct* evidence when police claim their sightings are UNCONFIRMED.

The DNA was found on a water bottle inside the vehicle. NO DNA was actually found placing RG in Lewisburg.

The scent was found - and search dogs *circled* - where the vehicle was opened in the lot.

Weak....weaker.....weakest evidence.

[J. J. in Phila]

S1, something tells me the "War of Words" will intensify in a few weeks.

Have you contacted SPM with regard to RG's case, on what she might do to further the investigation, or are you just hopeful she will do more than MM has?

P'gal, would you like to tell us what MTM did in the first, oh, five months and two weeks of tenure during the Gricar investigation?

[J. J. in Phila]

You're wrong.

The witnesses cannot be considered *direct* evidence when police claim their sightings are UNCONFIRMED.

The DNA was found on a water bottle inside the vehicle. NO DNA was actually found placing RG in Lewisburg.

The scent was found - and search dogs *circled* - where the vehicle was opened in the lot.

Weak....weaker.....weakest evidence.

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm


Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.



And,

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence


Weak, weaker, weakest, ...... your quoted post.

:rolleyes:

[Serendipitous1]

Have you contacted SPM with regard to RG's case, on what she might do to further the investigation, or are you just hopeful she will do more than MM has?The difference is immaterial...because, despite certain strong opinions I, unlike others, have never presumed myself to be other than on the outside of the investigation into the disappearance of Ray Gricar.

[Serendipitous1]

Centre County voters (and Gricar case followers) have a choice...4 more years of the same bs, or a highly motivated and competent alternative.

[2-B]

UTR, the polygraph is not admissible because it isn't perfect. We've seen other cases, the Peterson case, for example, where the dog wasn't perfect, for some reason. We don't know the reason, but if the Peterson case (UTR's favorite) depended on showing that Laci or her body went from the house to where the boat was stored, Scott Peterson should have never been tried. Fortunately, it wasn't dependent on that.

The same reason, or a similar one, may be in play in this case. In neither case is the dog talking. Beyond reasonable doubt, Laci Peterson went from the house to the warehouse; beyond reasonable doubt, Ray Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

Now, after that, there is reasonable doubt.

How many times will you raise this faulty example? I count this as the fourth time just in the last two months.

The first of those four times (Crockpot thread at In Session, 06-09-2009, 11:28 PM), I told you there was no need to go over why Merlin didn't trail Laci again because that had already been discussed before in detail (many times).

The second time (Who Killed Ray Gricar thread, p. 2-3 07-22-2009 12:04 AM), I patiently gave you the bones of an explanation again in case you'd forgotten.

The third time (Ray Gricar, Missing DA thread, p. 4 08-10-2009, 01:02 AM), not even three weeks later, you raised this faulty comparison once again. I said in part, "You know perfectly well why Merlin didn't finish that trail (not track). It's only been explained to you a gazillion times."

Yet here you are nine days later asking the same question yet again.

I'll say yet again, "You know perfectly well why Merlin didn't finish that trail."

And you know it had nothing to do with his inefficiencies or failures as a Bloodhound. You say "the dog wasn't perfect, for some reason."

Yet you know perfectly well it was the direction of the non-dog handler LE directing the search that wasn't perfect--for some reason.

[2-B]

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm

You cannot honestly think that unconfirmed witness sightings in a missing persons case could be brought to trial and used effectively as indirect evidence, however.

Consider how many cases have hundreds upon hundreds of witness sightings of the missing person. Consider how rarely witness sightings in MP cases are valid identifications.

This is why the FBI demands confirmation of witness sightings. A confirmed witness sighting might be good indirect evidence. An unconfirmed witness sighting in a missing person's case--not so much.

As Rhododendren points out, there are no confirmed witness sightings in the Gricar case.


In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

It is on the scientific evidence that you most often fail to make reasonable connections.

You want the DNA on the water bottle to mean something with regard to Gricar's presence in Lewisburg, when in fact, it means only that he drank from a water bottle that was placed in his car sometime prior to the car's arrival in the SOS lot in Lewisburg.

You want the scent in the SOS parking lot to mean that Gricar was in Lewisburg but fail to understand that is only a "might possibly" and a "might have" with regard to Gricar arriving in the lot and getting immediately into another vehicle. An absolutely scientifically sound alternative based on solid scent theory is that the scent the dogs alerted to in the SOS lot was transferred from the car when the car doors were opened by LE.

At the same time, you want to ignore that the dogs did not pick up a trail in the lot, and you want to ignore that the dogs did not pick up Gricar's scent anywhere else except the SOS lot. The failure to trail out of the lot and to pick up scent elsewhere casts huge doubt on the list of witnesses you've compiled. But you want it both ways: you want the scent as evidence to mean something when it supports what you believe, and you want its absence as evidence to be explained away when that absence undermines what you believe. You cannot have it both ways, especially when your methods of explaining away the evidence are diametrically opposed to science that comes from the FBI Scent Unit and from Bill Tolhurst.

I have asked you this on our regular board, but now that you're camped out over here, I'll ask you this here:

Why is it important for you to insist as you have since September 2006 that Ray Gricar "had to have been" in Lewisburg? The evidence is NOT clear cut enough to make that claim.

[J. J. in Phila]

How many times will you raise this faulty example? I count this as the fourth time just in the last two months.

The first of those four times (Crockpot thread at In Session, 06-09-2009, 11:28 PM), I told you there was no need to go over why Merlin didn't trail Laci again because that had already been discussed before in detail (many times).

The second time (Who Killed Ray Gricar thread, p. 2-3 07-22-2009 12:04 AM), I patiently gave you the bones of an explanation again in case you'd forgotten.

The third time (Ray Gricar, Missing DA thread, p. 4 08-10-2009, 01:02 AM), not even three weeks later, you raised this faulty comparison once again. I said in part, "You know perfectly well why Merlin didn't finish that trail (not track). It's only been explained to you a gazillion times."

Yet here you are nine days later asking the same question yet again.

I'll say yet again, "You know perfectly well why Merlin didn't finish that trail."

And you know it had nothing to do with his inefficiencies or failures as a Bloodhound. You say "the dog wasn't perfect, for some reason."

Yet you know perfectly well it was the direction of the non-dog handler LE directing the search that wasn't perfect--for some reason.

No, I don't know why; Merlin the dog isn't talking. The handler thought, maybe, the dog was tired.

I also don't know why the dog didn't detect the scent outside of parking lot; the handler said, maybe RFG got into another car. The dog isn't talking their either.

Could the same thing happen with Merlin happened to the dog on 4/17/05? Something similar? Yes to both.

[J. J. in Phila]

You cannot honestly think that unconfirmed witness sightings in a missing persons case could be brought to trial and used effectively as indirect evidence, however.

Consider how many cases have hundreds upon hundreds of witness sightings of the missing person. Consider how rarely witness sightings in MP cases are valid identifications.

This is why the FBI demands confirmation of witness sightings. A confirmed witness sighting might be good indirect evidence. An unconfirmed witness sighting in a missing person's case--not so much.

Could you please tell me what your definition is of "confirmed." I have not heard it yet. I heard one of "corroborated," thrown around, but it didn't existed in the English language.

As for the others cases, where have five witnesses (minimum) put the missing person put the same place, within 150 yards, at the same time in the vehicle, the vehicle found in the same location, and the missing persons' scent detected in the same location. How many have another witness showing him heading to that area?

Hundreds, dozens, a couple?

[Rhododendron]

From Mirriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:


corroborate
One entry found.

English Dictionary
Looking for English Dictionary? Find exactly what you want today.
Yahoo.com


Main Entry: cor·rob·o·rate
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrä-bə-ˌrāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cor·rob·o·rat·ed; cor·rob·o·rat·ing
Etymology: Latin corroboratus, past participle of corroborare, from com- + robor-, robur strength
Date: 1529
: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain

synonyms see confirm

— cor·rob·o·ra·tion \-ˌrä-bə-ˈrā-shən\ noun

— cor·rob·o·ra·tive \-ˈrä-bə-ˌrā-tiv, -ˈrä-b(ə-)rə-\ adjective

— cor·rob·o·ra·tor \-ˈrä-bə-ˌrā-tər\ noun

— cor·rob·o·ra·to·ry \-ˈrä-b(ə-)rə-ˌtȯr-ē\ adjective

[Rhododendron]

From Answers.com
West's Encyclopedia of American Law




Dictionary: cor·rob·o·rate (kə-rŏb'ə-rāt')

Sponsored LinksLaboratory Consulting
Full-Service Medical Lab Consulting Delivering Innovative Solutions
www.Colaborate.com

Look Up Any Definition
What Is The Definition? Find Out w/the Dictionary Toolbar
Reference.alot.com

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionarytr.v., -rat·ed, -rat·ing, -rates.
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. See synonyms at confirm.

[Latin corrōborāre, corrōborāt- : com-, com- + rōborāre, to strengthen (from rōbur, rōbor-, strength).]

corroboration cor·rob'o·ra'tion n.
corroborative cor·rob'o·ra'tive (-ə-rā'tĭv, -ər-ə-tĭv) or cor·rob'o·ra·to'ry (-ər-ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) adj.
corroborator cor·rob'o·ra'tor n.

[Rhododendron]

From The Free Dictionary:

con·firmed (kn-fûrmd)
adj.
1. Being firmly settled in habit; inveterate. See Synonyms at chronic.
2. Having been ratified; verified.
3. Having received the rite of confirmation.

[2-B]

Could you please tell me what your definition is of "confirmed." I have not heard it yet. I heard one of "corroborated," thrown around, but it didn't existed in the English language.



If you haven't seen a definition of confirmed, it's because you asked the question on our regular board on In Session and then didn't read the immediate answer you received.

You asked, "Please defined "confirmed." How is a witness "confirmed." They obviously reported what they saw."

I answered, "When witnesses are confirmed in missing persons' cases (and it doesn't happen often, since confirmed, valid identifications in missing persons' cases are rare), it happens through hard evidence and/or corroboration by someone who knows the missing person personally or by the missing person himself/herself.

Examples:

Missing person Brandon Patton (now back home). After his disappearance, a woman reported seeing him and speaking to him at a restaurant. There was a video capture at the restaurant which allowed his family members to make a positive visual identification. That is CONFIRMATION.

Missing person Elizabeth Smart (now back home). Nine months after her disappearance, people reported a possible Elizabeth sighting in the company of a man and a woman. At first, the teenager denied being the missing Elizabeth Smart, but she ultimately admitted she was indeed Elizabeth. Her parents Lois and Ed were brought to meet the girl at the police station and made an identification. That is CONFIRMATION.

David Landis, missing mentally handicapped man: There was a reported sighting of David near a fire house. A K-9 Unit picked up David's scent in the same spot as the sighting. That is CONFIRMATION. (Note the contrast with the Gricar case, where the scent dogs did not pick up Gricar's scent anywhere but the area where Gricar's car had been parked.)

Hannah Upp, missing mentally disturbed teacher: sighting in a Manhattan store. Reported by a friend of Upp's and caught on videotape which was reviewed by family. That is CONFIRMATION.

Shasta Groene: missing child (now recovered): sighted in a restaurant/diner and reported by a waitress/worker there. Identifed herself to LE, IIRC. CONFIRMATION.

Those are the kinds of things the FBI is talking about when it says it won't confirm a sighting without corroboration or documentation.

Those are the kinds of things missing with regard to the Gricar witnesses, and hence, the reason the office police release calls the witnesses UNCONFIRMED.

Note that the FBI attempted confirmation in the Texas Chili's Restaurant sighting. Confirmation was negative--not Ray Gricar."

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=357083&page=2

I would also add that confirmation was also attempted in the Michigan "RG" restaurant sighting. LE attempted to find any credit card receipts which might have been signed by RG. Negative again.

Note that these examples are all consistent with dictionary definitions Rhododendren has posted: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain; verified.

[2-B]

No, I don't know why; Merlin the dog isn't talking. The handler thought, maybe, the dog was tired.

Merlin's handler was very clear: she wanted to continue working the area you're talking about. She was pulled off the trail by LE. Under oath, she specifically described that area as "not a failure."

Where are you coming up with the idea that she thought the dog was tired? She said that LE could certainly have put her right back out there to continue on.

I also don't know why the dog didn't detect the scent outside of parking lot; the handler said, maybe RFG got into another car. The dog isn't talking their either.

The dogs didn't detect the scent outside the parking lot because it wasn't there. According to the FBI, dogs for police scent work should be certified in the following: positive and negative scent checks, trails aged to seven days, layered scent, drop trails, vehicle trails, contaminated scent articles, and suspect identification. Please don't suggest that if Gricar walked from the SOS lot to the SOS, the Bloodhound couldn't follow that trail. Or if he walked to the river to throw away the drive and/or the laptop, the Bloodhound couldn't follow that trail.

Could the same thing happen with Merlin happened to the dog on 4/17/05? Something similar? Yes to both.

What happened to Merlin is that his civilian handler was forced to stop the trail he was working by LE directing the search.

That could not have happened to the Bloodhound at the Gricar scene, since that dog was PSP dog, LE trained and handled.

Time to stop trying to draw parallels between these two situations. There are none.

[2-B]

Another example to help JJ understand what it means to confirm a witness sighting:

DNA test results expected today could confirm whether a possible sighting of missing Madeleine McCann in Belgium needs further investigation.

A child therapist said she was "100% sure" she saw the young girl at a restaurant in the Flemish town of Tongeren, not far from the Dutch border, on Saturday July 28.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-182329053.html

You'll likely recall that despite this witness' 100% certainty she'd "seen" Maddie, the DNA tests confirmation was 100% negative with regard to the sighting.

Hopefully, all these examples have helped you to see that in each case, some kind of stronger, harder evidence is used to check against the sighting, whether it's DNA or other scientific evidence, video that's reviewed by LE and/or family, scent, or the missing person him/herself. That stronger, harder evidence either confirms (rules in) the sighting or excludes (rules out) the sighting. In no case do you see an unconfirmed sighting being used to confirm another unconfirmed sighting.

Hope that helps your understanding of the concept.

[J. J. in Phila]

From The Free Dictionary:

con·firmed (kn-fûrmd)
adj.
1. Being firmly settled in habit; inveterate. See Synonyms at chronic.
2. Having been ratified; verified.
3. Having received the rite of confirmation.

Well, let's look at the second, since the first and last are not applicable.

"Verify"

1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.

3. Law
a. To affirm formally or under oath.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verify

These have been affirmed formally (though I won't swear to them being notarized).

I think it is actually a crime to make a false police report in PA.

[2-B]

Well, let's look at the second, since the first and last are not applicable.

"Verify"

1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.

3. Law
a. To affirm formally or under oath.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verify

These have been affirmed formally (though I won't swear to them being notarized).

I think it is actually a crime to make a false police report in PA.

Legally someone can only confirm by formal affirmation something they know to be the absolute truth.

When you sign your income tax return, you formally affirm that what's on the return is accurate and true.

But surely you don't see formal affirmation as applicable to the case of eyewitness identifications by a strangers. Stranger eyewitnesses could never "affirm" their identifications are the absolute truth and absolutely accurate, even those who say they are "100% certain." (Look at how easily the 100% certain identification of Maddie fell apart once the DNA results came back!)

Eyewitness identifications need to be confirmed as in #1 above: To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony.

See my examples of witness identifications which have been confirmed (and attempted confirmations which have proven negative). I hope those will help you understand what is necessary to confirm an eyewitness identification.

Now the question for you, again, JJ, is this:

Why is it so important to you to cling to the belief that Gricar HAD to have been in Lewisburg when the evidence is not strong enough to support that contention?

LE has never publicly confirmed that he was there. In fact, Dixon said it was an assumption.

He may have been; he may not have been.

Expert evidence supports the theory that he may not have been.

Evidence also supports the possibility that someone else may have driven the Mini Cooper to Lewisburg. There was, after all, enough smoke odor in the car to make LE think Gricar was off having a wild weekend. There were ashes in the car, and cigarette butts were found beside the car.

[J. J. in Phila]

From Mirriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:


corroborate
One entry found.

English Dictionary
Looking for English Dictionary? Find exactly what you want today.
Yahoo.com


Main Entry: cor·rob·o·rate
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrä-bə-ˌrāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cor·rob·o·rat·ed; cor·rob·o·rat·ing
Etymology: Latin corroboratus, past participle of corroborare, from com- + robor-, robur strength
Date: 1529
: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain


Actually, here:

To support or enhance the believability of a fact or assertion by the presentation of additional information that confirms the truthfulness of the item.

The testimony of a witness is corroborated if subsequent evidence, such as a coroner's report [b]or the testimony of other witnesses,[b] substantiates it.[i]

Emphasis added

http://www.answers.com/topic/corroborate

This is actually from a [i]law dictionary.

Thanks for illustrating why we should not trust your posts.

[Rhododendron]

Could you please tell me what your definition is of "confirmed." I have not heard it yet. I heard one of "corroborated," thrown around, but it didn't existed in the English language.

(snip)



Wow, am so glad you found the word "corroborated" does exist in the English language!

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B please stop making up your own definitions to words in English. People take oaths or affirmations.



Now the question for you, again, JJ, is this:

Why is it so important to you to cling to the belief that Gricar HAD to have been in Lewisburg when the evidence is not strong enough to support that contention?

LE has never publicly confirmed that he was there. In fact, Dixon said it was an assumption.

He may have been; he may not have been.



First Dixon said he was 99% sure, within the first month.

Second, RFG was there on 4/15/05 because that is what the evidence shows. I'll look at actual evidence that contradicts that. Do you have any?

Let me a bit blunt. It is possible that RFG was murdered after after 5:00 PM on 4/15/05 but before noon on 4/16/05. I doubt that, at this point, you could ever prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If he was murdered before 4/16/05, the killer has gotten away with it.

[SaraSidle]

Were Gricar's fingerprints found on the steering wheel of the found Cooper?

[2-B]

Were Gricar's fingerprints found on the steering wheel of the found Cooper?

No, Sara, they weren't. The only readable print belonging to Ray Gricar was found on the outside of the Mini Cooper.

[2-B]

Actually, here:

To support or enhance the believability of a fact or assertion by the presentation of additional information that confirms the truthfulness of the item.

The testimony of a witness is corroborated if subsequent evidence, such as a coroner's report [b]or the testimony of other witnesses,[b] substantiates it.[i]

Emphasis added

http://www.answers.com/topic/corroborate

This is actually from a [i]law dictionary.

This definition does not apply to eyewitness sighting identifications, however, especially of missing persons.

Otherwise, the FBI would confirm all eyewitness sightings where multiple people reported seeing the missing person. Their standard is "no confirmation without corroboration or documentation." And yet they do not confirm sightings simply because multiple people report a sighting at the same place and at the same time. See the Sund/Pelosso case I have directed you to before, where the FBI refused to confirm multiple witness sightings. The FBI, of course, is far more than a law dictionary. They actually are the law.

Similarly, Gary Wells would not say that an identification with no value can't gain value by having more of them if this was not scientifically and legally true. He, after all, is more than a law dictionary. He is an expert in both the science and the law with regard to witness identifications.

IOW, your law dictionary entry is talking about other kinds of witness testimony entirely. It is not referring to eyewitness identifications of missing persons. For example, a witness testifies that "Bill" was acting in an erratic manner and did not appear lucid when he shot "John." Two psychiatrists, one who was treating John for schizophrenia before the shooting and one who examined him after his arrest, testify to his mental illness. The two psychiatrist witnesses would corroborate the testimony of the witness who testified to his erratic behavior during the shooting, perhaps forming the basis for an insanity plea.


Thanks for illustrating why we should not trust your posts.

Quite the contrary. I stand behind everything I have posted as well researched, well documented, and true.

And I challenge you to find a single missing person's case where LE has confirmed a witness sighting as accurate using another witness sighting as the basis for that confirmation.

[2-B]

2-B please stop making up your own definitions to words in English. People take oaths or affirmations.

I have no idea what you mean by this, JJ. Of course, people take oaths or affirmations. What I said was that they can only affirm what they know to be the truth, and that no stranger can affirm the identity of a sighting in a missing person's case.

First Dixon said he was 99% sure, within the first month.

Please provide a link for this. I do not recall seeing this. I do recall Dixon saying he was not 100% sure about several different things in this case, never that he was 99% sure about anything.

Second, RFG was there on 4/15/05 because that is what the evidence shows. I'll look at actual evidence that contradicts that. Do you have any?

That's what you're missing by a) not taking hard evidence seriously and b) using erroneous premises to explain things away. The evidence in no way conclusively shows Gricar was in Lewisburg on 4/15/05. You've been given literally tons of evidence on our home board showing that he may not have been.

Let me a bit blunt. It is possible that RFG was murdered after after 5:00 PM on 4/15/05 but before noon on 4/16/05. I doubt that, at this point, you could ever prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If he was murdered before 4/16/05, the killer has gotten away with it.

Let me be blunt. It is possible Gricar was murdered before he reached Lewisburg on 4/15/05. Ignoring evidence that he may never have reached that destination--while his car did--may lead to the killer getting away with it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Wow, am so glad you found the word "corroborated" does exist in the English language!

You missed the words "your definition," though your reading comprehension skills might explain the problems you are having.

[J. J. in Phila]

Were Gricar's fingerprints found on the steering wheel of the found Cooper?

Three prints were found in the Mini Cooper, but none were readable; they did not have enough ridge markers. LE has said consistently that the Mini was not wiped down.

There is a footnote linking to the story of how it was revealed in "The Investigation Part Four." It might be mentioned in a future blog.

The article is here: http://www.dailyitem.com/panews/local_story_057131958.html/resources_printstory

[J. J. in Phila]

I think the 99% was one of the earlier statements; it is no longer online. It was, however, enough that they dismiss Fenton's sighting.

I do know that the police are holding back some things regarding the witnesses, and that there are some that have not been released.

[Politigal]

new blog on the Centre Daily Times

http://www.centredaily.com/personas/?plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&plckUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-20743&insiteUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-20743&sid=pluck.centredaily.com

[J. J. in Phila]

Was SPM at the Fraternal Order of Police picnic? MTM has photos on his site from it.

[2-B]

I think the 99% was one of the earlier statements; it is no longer online. It was, however, enough that they dismiss Fenton's sighting.

Frankly, I don't believe Dixon ever said he was 99% sure Gricar was in Lewisburg.

And certainly by 7/19/05, he was saying the only thing LE had was the car in Lewisburg:

"We have very little to work with still at this point," he said. "We haven't really gotten anywhere other than the fact the car was found in Lewisburg."

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/07/07-19-05tdc/07-19-05dnews-01.asp

I do know that the police are holding back some things regarding the witnesses, and that there are some that have not been released.

Well, of course. Name one investigation where LE releases everything to the public. (Answer: none.)

However, the police have NOT confirmed any of the sightings. That much we do know for certain.

[Politigal]

The difference is immaterial...because, despite certain strong opinions I, unlike others, have never presumed myself to be other than on the outside of the investigation into the disappearance of Ray Gricar.

I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating here...

But you've been a part of this investigation for several years...

posting on Court TV

writing letters in the newspaper

searching along the river bank

talking with a volunteer dog handler

etc

that's a smidgen more than "on the outside" IMO

[SaraSidle]

Does anyone seen something wrong with no fingerprints on the steering wheel and none were wiped? I do not think that is possible. Is there some videos of Gricar speaking? sara

[2-B]

Does anyone seen something wrong with no fingerprints on the steering wheel and none were wiped? I do not think that is possible.

Hi Sara. Finding readable prints at a scene happens much less often than people would think. There was an in-depth discussion of this on the CTV/In Session Gricar board some time ago. I wish I could point you to the thread, but it's been wiped away in housekeeping.

I do remember that a major study was done of thousands of crime scenes in dozens of cities and that readable prints were found in something like only 45% of all scenes. The kicker was that MOST of those readable prints belonged to people who had every right to be at the scene (i.e., not possible crime suspects). I also remember a TV show being discussed where a real life cop talked about cars and fingerprints and how rarely readable prints were found in stolen cars.

I also remember a case where two friends murdered a third friend, then drove the murdered friend in his own car to a "hidden" location and left him and the car there. When the car and the body were discovered and the car was processed, the only readable prints in the car were the dead man's.

So it's hard to say whether Gricar's prints should or shouldn't have been on the steering wheel, IMO.

What's far more interesting to me is the strong odor of smoke and the presence of the ash in a car where the owner would not let anyone smoke.

[J. J. in Phila]

However, the police have NOT confirmed any of the sightings. That much we do know for certain.

Except to say "We confirm it," there is nothing else the can do. You, and a few others here, keep on using words like "corroborated" and "confirmed" when in fact, you mean that the witnesses don't fit your theory.

[J. J. in Phila]

Does anyone seen something wrong with no fingerprints on the steering wheel and none were wiped? I do not think that is possible. Is there some videos of Gricar speaking? sara

There were prints found, but they were not readable. One, for example, was on the water bottle that contained his DNA, but it didn't have enough ridge characteristics to match. I think it would be impossible to absolutely know that his would be in the bottle, so it's likely to have been his print.

There are, I'm sure, news videos of RFG speaking someplace. I'm not sure if some of the witnesses that heard him speaking heard the tapes. Some reports, IIRC in the PPG, stated that they identified him the video.

I have private information that this was not the case.

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a CD of RFG here:

http://ffh.films.com/id/4937/Spring_Dawn.html

I would assume his voice is on it.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating here...

But you've been a part of this investigation for several years...

posting on Court TV

writing letters in the newspaper

searching along the river bank

talking with a volunteer dog handler

etc

that's a smidgen more than "on the outside" IMO

My "part" in the investigation was largely created by JKA.

The reason I've started asking question was looking at utter frustration with the progress on the case.

Ironically, the reason I got on Insession was because the board I thought was more informative would not take my e-mail.

[SaraSidle]

thanks for the tape JJ. I will look at some other places to find one I hope I do not have to buy.
B-2 was it cigar ash do you know? If he was a walkaway and was picked up by someone he probably did not get in the car if they smoked unless it may have been against his will. I do not know much about the politics of the case not living in the area but it almost sounds like suicide is ruled out due to the ashes and retiring in 6 months. It sounds more and more to me like possible foul play but then I do not know very much. sara
IMO

[2-B]

Except to say "We confirm it," there is nothing else the can do. You, and a few others here, keep on using words like "corroborated" and "confirmed" when in fact, you mean that the witnesses don't fit your theory.

David Edgar Landis is a mentally handicapped resident of Thompsontown who has been missing since Oct. 14, when he walked away from his father's place of employment in Richfield.

Monday evening at approximately 11 p.m., Landis was seen in Penns Creek, in the area of the fire house. This sighting was confirmed Tuesday by a special K-9 unit.

http://lewistownsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/510057.html?nav=5010

You have never seen the word "confirmed" used like this with regard to any sighting of Ray Gricar.

The word "confirmed" is used by LE when they have evidence which verifies the accuracy of a sighting.

This is the applicable legal definition of "confirm":

1. An action, declaration, document, or statement that corroborates, ratifies, verifies, gives formal approval, or assures the validity of something.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/confirmation

The missing person's flyer for Ray Gricar from the Bellefonte Police Department specifically describes the sightings of Ray Gricar as UNCONFIRMED.

That means they have no declarations, documents, or statements to corroborate, ratify, verify, or assure the validity of the sightings.

It's that simple, JJ.

[2-B]

B-2 was it cigar ash do you know? If he was a walkaway and was picked up by someone he probably did not get in the car if they smoked unless it may have been against his will. I do not know much about the politics of the case not living in the area but it almost sounds like suicide is ruled out due to the ashes and retiring in 6 months. It sounds more and more to me like possible foul play but then I do not know very much. sara
IMO

Hi Sara,

I believe that LE determined the ashes were from a cigarette. But it was his car the ashes were found in, not one he would have gotten in. That's what makes it odd, since he didn't allow anyone to smoke in his car.

I'm not sure that suicide has been taken off the table completely, but most of us who have been following the case have tended to put it much further down the list now that 4.5 years have passed. No body was ever found in the river or elsewhere. Like you, I tend to think foul play was involved.

If you're interested in learning more about this case, I invite you to come over to the In Sessions Ray Gricar board where we have many threads going about Ray's disappearance. We'd welcome your input if you're interested.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=127

[SaraSidle]

Hi Sara,

I believe that LE determined the ashes were from a cigarette. But it was his car the ashes were found in, not one he would have gotten in. That's what makes it odd, since he didn't allow anyone to smoke in his car.

I'm not sure that suicide has been taken off the table completely, but most of us who have been following the case have tended to put it much further down the list now that 4.5 years have passed. No body was ever found in the river or elsewhere. Like you, I tend to think foul play was involved.

If you're interested in learning more about this case, I invite you to come over to the In Sessions Ray Gricar board where we have many threads going about Ray's disappearance. We'd welcome your input if you're interested.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=127
thanks 2-B. I have read some of it. I lurk there a lot. I just got my computer and I will be lurking again. still even if this person is smoking a cigarette what are the chance that he would willingly get into another car with at least one smoker..........? sara

[J. J. in Phila]

thanks for the tape JJ. I will look at some other places to find one I hope I do not have to buy.
B-2 was it cigar ash do you know? If he was a walkaway and was picked up by someone he probably did not get in the car if they smoked unless it may have been against his will. I do not know much about the politics of the case not living in the area but it almost sounds like suicide is ruled out due to the ashes and retiring in 6 months. It sounds more and more to me like possible foul play but then I do not know very much. sara
IMO

Suicide was very "popular" within the first several months. I think part three of the current blog series chronicles the multiple searches of the river. The PSP profiler concluded it was suicide. Tony Gricar, even months later, was noting the "similarities" between Lewisburg and his father's suicide. It was only after the body failed to turn up that murder came to the forefront. Walkaway began to gain popularity after this story:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3802.html

Some of the background events can be found here:

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=19a90cc4a9a5e0d0b2a7d7f772d7a07a

The ash, and scent in the car, was from a cigarette.

[J. J. in Phila]

David Edgar Landis is a mentally handicapped resident of Thompsontown who has been missing since Oct. 14, when he walked away from his father's place of employment in Richfield.

Monday evening at approximately 11 p.m., Landis was seen in Penns Creek, in the area of the fire house. This sighting was confirmed Tuesday by a special K-9 unit.

http://lewistownsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/510057.html?nav=5010

You have never seen the word "confirmed" used like this with regard to any sighting of Ray Gricar.

The word "confirmed" is used by LE when they have evidence which verifies the accuracy of a sighting.

This is the applicable legal definition of "confirm":

1. An action, declaration, document, or statement that corroborates, ratifies, verifies, gives formal approval, or assures the validity of something.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/confirmation

The missing person's flyer for Ray Gricar from the Bellefonte Police Department specifically describes the sightings of Ray Gricar as UNCONFIRMED.

That means they have no declarations, documents, or statements to corroborate, ratify, verify, or assure the validity of the sightings.

It's that simple, JJ.

Well. if you feel that a sighting can be "confirmed" by a K-9 Unit, we do have that for Lewisburg.

[J. J. in Phila]

thanks for the tape JJ. I will look at some other places to find one I hope I do not have to buy.
B-2 was it cigar ash do you know? If he was a walkaway and was picked up by someone he probably did not get in the car if they smoked unless it may have been against his will. I do not know much about the politics of the case not living in the area but it almost sounds like suicide is ruled out due to the ashes and retiring in 6 months. It sounds more and more to me like possible foul play but then I do not know very much. sara
IMO


I tried to do a rough count, and it looks like there were at least 5 searches of the river between 4/17 and 4/30/05. Those included foot searches along the banks, aerial searches, and divers.

Some of the thinking could have been that RFG's body had been dumped their after he was murdered, however. In the same period they also checked roads.

The real first theory was that RFG was in the company of an old girlfriend; that was dropped on 4/17.

[Rhododendron]

One year, 3 months, after Ray Gricar disappeared, this article appeared in the Centre Daily Times. Please note the last sentence quoted. According to the article, Ray Gricar had not been seen nor heard of since the cell phone call of 04/15/05. AT LEAST NOTHING CREDIBLE!

Gricar case stalls
Hope fades as trail goes cold again
By Pete Bosak
07/30/06

BELLEFONTE -- The family and loved ones of former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar still cling to hope that police will find out what happened to the prosecutor, who seemed to step off the face of the Earth more than a year ago.

There are no new leads.

No news.

"Not a thing, actually," said Tony Gricar, Ray Gricar's nephew and the family's spokesman.

Tony Gricar concedes his family is preparing for the possibility they will never know what happened to Ray Gricar on April 15, 2005. That day, he telephoned his live-in girlfriend, Patty Fornicola, to tell her he was taking the day off and going for a drive on state Route 192 toward Lewisburg.

His Mini Cooper was found in a Lewisburg parking lot outside an antiques mall.

He has not been seen or heard from since -- at least nothing credible.(snip)

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
(snip)

Main Entry: cred·i·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈkre-də-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin credibilis, from credere
Date: 14th century
1 : offering reasonable grounds for being believed <a credible account of an accident> <credible witnesses>
2 : of sufficient capability to be militarily effective <a credible deterrent> <credible forces>

— cred·i·bly \ˈkre-də-blē\ adverb

[2-B]

Well. if you feel that a sighting can be "confirmed" by a K-9 Unit, we do have that for Lewisburg.

Absolutely untrue.

The dogs found no trace of Gricar's scent outside of the SOS lot.

Gricar's car had been in the SOS lot with its doors opened.

It has been explained to you many times before, complete with documentation from experts--including the FBI Scent Unit--that given that circumstance, no one can confirm that Gricar himself was in the SOS lot.

The PSP dog handler gave Gricar's presence there no better than a "might possibly" and a "could possibly" although you have interestingly wiped all traces of those conditionals out of your most recent blog entry.

If Landis' car had been found abandoned behind the firehouse, his sighting would not have been confirmed by scent.

BTW, I don't "feel" that a sighting can be confirmed by scent. I am certain that a sighting can be confirmed by scent--when the scent could not have been transferred to the surrounding area by a giant scent pad sitting in the middle of a parking lot with its doors open.

[2-B]

The missing person's flyer for Ray Gricar from the Bellefonte Police Department specifically describes the sightings of Ray Gricar as UNCONFIRMED.

That means they have no declarations, documents, or statements to corroborate, ratify, verify, or assure the validity of the sightings.

It's that simple, JJ.

Just a reminder.

And a re-issue of this challenge to JJ: I challenge you to find a case where LE confirmed a sighting in a missing person's investigation using another unconfirmed sighting.

[J. J. in Phila]

Just a reminder.

And a re-issue of this challenge to JJ: I challenge you to find a case where LE confirmed a sighting in a missing person's investigation using another unconfirmed sighting.


Here are four:

http://www.gage-ne-sheriff.us/ann_marie_kelley

http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/mpccn/slyon.html

http://www.cbs8.com/global/story.asp?s=9975976

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=5790.msg916053

Quoted article reprinted here:
http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/officials-continue-search-for-man.html

I just googled "Missing Person 'Confirmed sighting' witnesses" and eliminated those from the UK.


This one is perhaps the most interesting:

http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/tag/harlem-missing-person/

It's a video, but they called it "positively identified."

Here is what happened:

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/39878827.html

Perhaps it is quite telling.

[J. J. in Phila]

http://www.centredaily.com/news/breaking_news/story/1464345.html

This might be part of the pattern in the election. High profile arrests.

They use to raid the local bordello in Johnstown in election years.

[2-B]

I just googled "Missing Person 'Confirmed sighting' witnesses" and eliminated those from the UK.



Yeah, I did that too, JJ, ages and ages ago.

But I also eliminated any Place Last Seen/Point Last Seen sightings because they are of no value in terms of evaluating witness sightings of a missing person. They simply establish a Place Last Seen.

So you'll have to try again:

Ann Marie Kelly: Nope. That's the Place Last Seen before Ann Marie went missing. She wasn't even reported missing until 11 hours later. It would be like saying there was a confirmed sighting of RG in Bellefonte on Thursday night at 9:07 p.m. He hadn't been reported missing yet.

The Lyons sisters: Nope. Same thing as Ann Marie, Place Last Seen before they went missing. A later witness was never confirmed.

Amber Dubois: Nope. Same thing as Ann Marie. The 7:10 a.m. sighting is a Place Last seen sighting before she went missing reported by Amber's neighbors. Later sightings are described this way: unconfirmed.

Lindsey Baum: Sightings were by neighborhood people who apparently knew Lindsey, not stranger sightings. One witness isn't being used to confirm another. (That's a new case to add to my list of "confirmed" sightings in the US, by the way, new in the last few months. And I did find one more by going back as far as 1990. I think that makes 8 I've found for the last 19 years. I'll keep searching for you though, since I know you claim Gil Alba was wrong when he said that valid sightings in missing persons' cases are rare.)

Hannah Upp: How many times have I given you the Upp case as an example of a confirmed case? Yes, confirmed, by her family and friends and by video capture that was reviewed by family as I've told you before. None of that is applicable to the Gricar case. It's the personal knowledge of Hannah and the video that's the confirmation.

None of these are examples of one unconfirmed witness sighting being used to confirm another unconfirmed witness sighting.

That's what I asked for, because that's what you're claiming in the Gricar case.

[SaraSidle]

Yeah, I did that too, JJ, ages and ages ago.

But I also eliminated any Place Last Seen/Point Last Seen sightings because they are of no value in terms of evaluating witness sightings of a missing person. They simply establish a Place Last Seen.

So you'll have to try again:

Ann Marie Kelly: Nope. That's the Place Last Seen before Ann Marie went missing. She wasn't even reported missing until 11 hours later. It would be like saying there was a confirmed sighting of RG in Bellefonte on Thursday night at 9:07 p.m. He hadn't been reported missing yet.

The Lyons sisters: Nope. Same thing as Ann Marie, Place Last Seen before they went missing. A later witness was never confirmed.

Amber Dubois: Nope. Same thing as Ann Marie. The 7:10 a.m. sighting is a Place Last seen sighting before she went missing reported by Amber's neighbors. Later sightings are described this way: unconfirmed.

Lindsey Baum: Sightings were by neighborhood people who apparently knew Lindsey, not stranger sightings. One witness isn't being used to confirm another. (That's a new case to add to my list of "confirmed" sightings in the US, by the way, new in the last few months. And I did find one more by going back as far as 1990. I think that makes 8 I've found for the last 19 years. I'll keep searching for you though, since I know you claim Gil Alba was wrong when he said that valid sightings in missing persons' cases are rare.)

Hannah Upp: How many times have I given you the Upp case as an example of a confirmed case? Yes, confirmed, by her family and friends and by video capture that was reviewed by family as I've told you before. None of that is applicable to the Gricar case. It's the personal knowledge of Hannah and the video that's the confirmation.

None of these are examples of one unconfirmed witness sighting being used to confirm another unconfirmed witness sighting.

That's what I asked for, because that's what you're claiming in the Gricar case.


You keep track of all the kind of information?????? sara

[2-B]

You keep track of all the kind of information?????? sara

For Ann Marie, the Lyons sisters, Amber, and Lindsey, I just opened JJ's links, read them, did some fact checking, and could easily see that he wasn't giving me what I'd asked for: cases where one unconfirmed witness was used to confirm another unconfirmed witness sighting.

Hannah Upp I did have in my files. I confess, I do have a huge file on the Ray Gricar case. :)

[Serendipitous1]

http://www.centredaily.com/news/breaking_news/story/1464345.html

This might be part of the pattern in the election. High profile arrests.

They use to raid the local bordello in Johnstown in election years.Yes, that is part of politics. At least his good press was offset by his bad press yesterday: Rape suspect still at large (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1463019.html)

You can bet MM the politician will be there to take credit when things go right. But when things go wrong, he ducks the questions...or passes the buck to one of his assistants. Example in this morning's brief: Drug charges dismissed against man due to delay (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1464566.html)

[J. J. in Phila]

For Ann Marie, the Lyons sisters, Amber, and Lindsey, I just opened JJ's links, read them, did some fact checking, and could easily see that he wasn't giving me what I'd asked for: cases where one unconfirmed witness was used to confirm another unconfirmed witness sighting.

Hannah Upp I did have in my files. I confess, I do have a huge file on the Ray Gricar case. :)

Whether or not some of these people were reported missing later has no relevance, as the 4/15/05 witnesses all were before RFG was reported missing. Just another example 2-B spinning.

[Rhododendron]

If the "witnesses" of 04/15, before RG was reported missing, were uncomfirmed, & the "witnessses" after RG was reported missing were unconfirmed, then ALL the "witnesses" were UNCONFIRMED. And, according to Pete Bosak, CDT, on 07/30/06, 1 yr. 3 mos. after RG disappeared, THE WITNESSES WERE UNCONFIRMED. :no:

[J. J. in Phila]

If the "witnesses" of 04/15, before RG was reported missing, were uncomfirmed, & the "witnessses" after RG was reported missing were unconfirmed, then ALL the "witnesses" were UNCONFIRMED. And, according to Pete Bosak, CDT, on 07/30/06, 1 yr. 3 mos. after RG disappeared, THE WITNESSES WERE UNCONFIRMED. :no:

Actually, the police have not really said that. One report quoted them as having a "visual on Ray." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387875/posts

And, of course the former lead detective said he was in Lewisburg on Saturday, 4/16/05.

Want to try to redefine some more words in English.

[2-B]

Whether or not some of these people were reported missing later has no relevance, as the 4/15/05 witnesses all were before RFG was reported missing. Just another example 2-B spinning.

Not true, JJ.

Most of the Point Last Seen witnesses you have given are either

a) last confirmed sightings before the person/people went missing or

b) last confirmed sightings by people who personally knew the missing individual.

For a) above, it would be like saying that Vicki Wedler's sighting of RG in the park Thursday night was a confirmed RG "sighting." After all, other than PF, and minus the video camera at the courthouse, Vicki Wedler is a confirmed witness who saw RG before he disappeared!

Now b) above would correspond to the Fenton sighting behind the Courthouse on Friday afternoon. But the police, and you for the most part, rule out that sighting.

No spinning. Just getting the facts and details accurate.

[2-B]

Actually, the police have not really said that. One report quoted them as having a "visual on Ray." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387875/posts

And, of course the former lead detective said he was in Lewisburg on Saturday, 4/16/05.

Want to try to redefine some more words in English.

And who was interviewed in that piece by Renner?

Have you ever stopped to think how very different that article would have been had Renner interviewed Chief Dixon?

A small sampling of Dixon's style:

But we have no videotape of the situation up there, we have no credit card receipts, no transactions on his financial accounts. So I can't say for sure myself whether it's 100 percent, whether it's him or not up in Detroit.

http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/02/ltm.04.html

At least two people in Lewisburg said they are certain they saw Gricar on April 16, the day after he was last heard from.

"Am I 100 percent sure it was him? No," Dixon said. "There is no surveillance video, no credit card slips that would show he was there."

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/12203757.htm

Over and over, Chief Dixon comes as close as he can to saying, "If you're asking me whether there's any hard evidence to verify the sighting(s), the answer is no. If you're asking me whether I confirm that, the answer is no."

And that, of course, is consistent with the press release which calls all the sightings of Gricar unconfirmed.

Compare that with the actual interviewee.

I'll refrain from asking some of the questions I'd like to ask about that comparison, but one thing I will ask: do you see any hard evidence being offered to verify any of those sightings in the Renner piece?

Nope, didn't think so.

Is Dixon lying? Was hard evidence discovered between Dixon's statements and Renner's interview, but the interviewee is withholding it? Or is that hard evidence simply non-existent? I say door number three is the most likely one.

[2-B]

I offer a limited mea culpa to my previous post, written late at night when my eyes were going fuzzy. JJ was referring to DZ in a free republic article, not DZ in that danged free times article he quotes so religiously. Entirely my bad for a dyslexic late-night reading and for not double-checking.

Still, my point stands.

And note that Dixon had no problem offering confirmatory statements regarding other parts of the investigation where he believed they were appropriate:

The suicide of a man whom Gricar recently prosecuted is not thought to be related to the district attorney's disappearance, Dixon said Monday. The man was found dead in his vehicle April 17, according to troopers who investigated the death.

"State police ran a timeline for us" between the time of Gricar's disappearance and the time that the man was found dead, Dixon said. "They are 100 percent sure there is no connection there."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1391340/posts

Despite my mistake in having confused JJ's free republic link with his frequently cited questionable free times link, I'd still love to see that free times article with Dixon as the interviewee! :D

[2-B]

Actually, the police have not really said that. One report quoted them as having a "visual on Ray." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387875/posts

And, of course the former lead detective said he was in Lewisburg on Saturday, 4/16/05.

Want to try to redefine some more words in English.

Now then, turning to the free republic link.

Actually, the report does not quote them as "having a visual on Ray."

Here are the sentences in question:

Bellefonte police detectives Tom Thal and Darrell Zaccagni, working from their car in a parking lot across the street, said the reports of Bennett and others appeared to establish a "visual on Ray" at the noon hour Saturday, called the Street of Shops.

Bennett said some mall employees have told police they saw Gricar's car, a red and white Mini Cooper, in the parking lot between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday. The Saturday "visual" would be the most recent point in a time line reported so far in authorities' efforts to track Gricar.

Operative words: "appeared"; the conditional "would be."

These are not words that confirm.

[J. J. in Phila]

Not true, JJ.

Most of the Point Last Seen witnesses you have given are either

a) last confirmed sightings before the person/people went missing or

b) last confirmed sightings by people who personally knew the missing individual.

For a) above, it would be like saying that Vicki Wedler's sighting of RG in the park Thursday night was a confirmed RG "sighting." After all, other than PF, and minus the video camera at the courthouse, Vicki Wedler is a confirmed witness who saw RG before he disappeared!

Now b) above would correspond to the Fenton sighting behind the Courthouse on Friday afternoon. But the police, and you for the most part, rule out that sighting.

No spinning. Just getting the facts and details accurate.

I would obviously call Wedler a confirmed sighting.

Fenton has not been ruled out. There is a difference between "ruled out" and "unsure." Good Lord. You are to the point where you are redefining words in English :rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Now then, turning to the free republic link.

Actually, the report does not quote them as "having a visual on Ray."

Here are the sentences in question:

Bellefonte police detectives Tom Thal and Darrell Zaccagni, working from their car in a parking lot across the street, said the reports of Bennett and others appeared to establish a "visual on Ray" at the noon hour Saturday, called the Street of Shops.

Bennett said some mall employees have told police they saw Gricar's car, a red and white Mini Cooper, in the parking lot between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday. The Saturday "visual" would be the most recent point in a time line reported so far in authorities' efforts to track Gricar.

Operative words: "appeared"; the conditional "would be."

These are not words that confirm.

I would say it does, especially with DZ saying, a few months later that the can "definitely" put RFG in Lewisburg on 4/16/05.

This goes back to your theory: The dogs are wrong; all the witnesses are wrong. I know this because I'm 2-B. :rolleyes:

[2-B]

I would obviously call Wedler a confirmed sighting.

Well, obviously. But also obviously NOT fitting the parameters for the kind of sightings I asked you for originally when I challenged you to find any unconfirmed witness being used to confirm another unconfirmed witness.

Which was my point. You googled and came up with a list of witnesses, none of which fit those parameters.

That's because you won't find unconfirmed witnesses being used to confirm other unconfirmed witnesses.

I'll repeat what Gary Wells has said, which is essentially that if one identification has no diagnostic value, you can't gain value by adding more of them. That's why unconfirmed witnesses can't be used to confirm other unconfirmed witnesses.

Should be simple enough for you to understand, unless you just choose not to.

Fenton has not been ruled out. There is a difference between "ruled out" and "unsure." Good Lord. You are to the point where you are redefining words in English :rolleyes:

Fenton hasn't been ruled out? I beg to differ:

Missed leads
By Pete Bosak

An assistant district attorney is certain she saw Gricar in Bellefonte at 3 p.m. on Friday, April 15, 2005, the day he vanished. It was reported to police but dismissed as not fitting the timeline police had established for Gricar. . . .
Fenton said she was about 15 to 20 feet away. Gricar was driving a gold or silver, metallic-colored car, not his Mini Cooper or Fornicola's Honda, she said.
When she heard Gricar was missing, she went to police. But her sighting was immediately ruled out as not fitting the timeline they'd established, which put Gricar in Lewisburg at that time.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3802.html

IMMEDIATELY RULED OUT doesn't sound at all like "unsure" to me! Sounds pretty dang definitive, especially the immediate part. What's "unsure" about an immediate decision???

Seems like "dismissed" and "ruled out" mean exactly what they say here: i.e., "We've got a timeline all figured out based on stranger sightings in Lewisburg; your Bellefonte sighting conflicts with that so we're ruling yours out on that basis. Immediately."

[2-B]

I would say it does, especially with DZ saying, a few months later that the can "definitely" put RFG in Lewisburg on 4/16/05.

In the Renner article? Interesting. DZ phrases a number of claims about witnesses in that piece in a way that are not consistent with the official position of the BPD. Go figure.

This goes back to your theory: The dogs are wrong;

I've called you on this before because the joke is entirely on you, JJ. As I pointed out to you before, YOU are the only one who has run around from message board to blog to message board hollering that the dogs were wrong.

I've been saying all along that THE DOGS WERE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

You have totally missed the irony in your silly twisting of my position.

I've been saying TRUST THE DOGS because I've got the scientific and canine background to understand scent theory and what Bloodhounds are capable of. I understand what likely possibilities happened in that SOS lot, and I have consistently and repeatedly said that from what we have available to us publicly, it appears there are two likely possibilities:

a) Gricar arrived in Lewisburg in the SOS lot and immediately got out of the Mini and into another vehicle--but he was not in the SOS or by the museum or the park, etc. OR

b) Someone else drove the Mini into the lot and the dogs picked up the scent from the vehicle transferred to the area immediately surrounding it.

Both possibilities are supported by the science of scent theory and by the descriptions we have in press accounts and completely consistent with the evidence we know.

Now here's the irony:

You're the one who wants the dogs to be wrong.

You want them to be wrong when they don't support your theories about the witnesses.

And you want them to be right when they do support your theories about the witnesses.

I've watched you over and over make up pseudo-science, reject real science, misuse source material, and in short do whatever it takes to explain why the dogs were wrong in your opinion .

It's the only way you can make your claim on the In Session board that the odds of all the witnesses being "above 90%, probably above 99%" correct in identifying Ray Gricar in Lewisburg make sense with regard to the scent evidence--you have to prove the dogs wrong.

You love to tell posters how "foolish" they'll look, so perhaps I should do the same "favor" for you. Keep in mind how foolish you'll look the next time you think you can discredit me by saying that I've been arguing that the dogs were wrong. No way, Jose. I trust them. It is you who does not trust the dogs. It is you who cannot afford to trust them.


all the witnesses are wrong. I know this because I'm 2-B. :rolleyes:

I refer you to this link, post #80. And with that, I shall return to the home board for this discussion. It serves no purpose for you to camp out over here.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=357083&page=2

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, obviously. But also obviously NOT fitting the parameters for the kind of sightings I asked you for originally when I challenged you to find any unconfirmed witness being used to confirm another unconfirmed witness.

Which was my point. You googled and came up with a list of witnesses, none of which fit those parameters.

That's because you won't find unconfirmed witnesses being used to confirm other unconfirmed witnesses.

I'll repeat what Gary Wells has said, which is essentially that if one identification has no diagnostic value, you can't gain value by adding more of them. That's why unconfirmed witnesses can't be used to confirm other unconfirmed witnesses.

Should be simple enough for you to understand, unless you just choose not to.



Fenton hasn't been ruled out? I beg to differ:

Missed leads
By Pete Bosak

An assistant district attorney is certain she saw Gricar in Bellefonte at 3 p.m. on Friday, April 15, 2005, the day he vanished. It was reported to police but dismissed as not fitting the timeline police had established for Gricar. . . .
Fenton said she was about 15 to 20 feet away. Gricar was driving a gold or silver, metallic-colored car, not his Mini Cooper or Fornicola's Honda, she said.
When she heard Gricar was missing, she went to police. But her sighting was immediately ruled out as not fitting the timeline they'd established, which put Gricar in Lewisburg at that time.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3802.html

IMMEDIATELY RULED OUT doesn't sound at all like "unsure" to me! Sounds pretty dang definitive, especially the immediate part. What's "unsure" about an immediate decision???

Seems like "dismissed" and "ruled out" mean exactly what they say here: i.e., "We've got a timeline all figured out based on stranger sightings in Lewisburg; your Bellefonte sighting conflicts with that so we're ruling yours out on that basis. Immediately."

And, if you would have even bothered to read the articles on the subject, you would note that even TG said: "The single most-credible witness [Fenton] was discredited because of timeline issues when police didn't even have a credible timeline."

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=c12933b0000d30b373318b0a8fe9234b

Now, unless there are unreported witnesses, that I don't know about, that put RFG in Lewisburg between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM, Fenton does fit the timeline. What it doesn't fit is the theory that RFG was in Lewisburg all afternoon or that he committed suicide (and, if accurate, it would greatly weaken murder.).

Loot at the blog, "The Investigation, Part Four," and you will see the problem. After the person they thought was the "Mystery Woman" was contacted, LE assumed that RFG was in the river, and probably committed suicide. That assumption was probably wrong.

Like you, in the early days of the investigation, LE had some tunnel vision problems.

[2-B]

I know exactly what TG said on the issue of CF.

TG isn't the police and can't rule anyone in or out, however.

The police ruled CF's sighting out. I never said I did.

If you want to discuss further issues, you'll have to return to home turf.

[J. J. in Phila]

I know exactly what TG said on the issue of CF.

TG isn't the police and can't rule anyone in or out, however.

The police ruled CF's sighting out. I never said I did.

If you want to discuss further issues, you'll have to return to home turf.

And, I think it has been established that the police were not perfect. :rolleyes:

The police ruled out the sighting because it didn't fit the time line. Yet, we have no reports that put RFG in Lewisburg, or any place else, between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM.

As far as I've been able to tell, it does fit the time line. What it doesn't fit is the theory that RFG was dead before 5:00 PM on 4/15/05.

[J. J. in Phila]

If you want to discuss further issues, you'll have to return to home turf.

I will admit to wondering why a thread that I started would not be my "home turf." Interesting comment, however.

[J. J. in Phila]

S1, I'm wondering exactly how much influence the FOP carries. In 2007, they endorsed one of the commissioner candidates that lost.

http://dev.libraryo.com/Article.aspx?num=168519076

[2-B]

I will admit to wondering why a thread that I started would not be my "home turf." Interesting comment, however.

Not your home turf. Home turf for a full discussion of Ray Gricar, where there are 125 threads or so for reading and posting on the topic of Ray Gricar's disappearance. Where there's the option to start any thread on any sub-topic of the Gricar case one desires. Where a wider variety of long-time Gricar case followers gather to post or simply to read.

Nothing interesting about my comment in any kind of sinister or agendized way, if that's what you're implying. It's all very straight forward.

This thread has eleven pages.

The first five or so were used to announce the existence of your blog, to serve as a place for another poster to (erroneously) claim he was "run off" another message board (where he was actually warmly welcomed), and for you and that poster to gossip about posters on that message board (very bad netiquette, IMO).

The vast majority of the rest of the thread has been devoted to a discussion of "inside politics"--certainly worthy of a single thread among many on the bigger forum. But perhaps a bit perplexing to CL members who come to a sub-forum titled "Unsolved Missing/Abduction," looking for case details on missing people.

Those who want to discuss "Investigative Procedures in Missing Persons Cases," the publicly known facts in the case, the initial calls, the role tunnel vision played in the case, the computer searches, the Tyrone sighting, the Lewisburg Mystery Woman, the witness sightings, who might have killed Ray Gricar, etc., etc. should discuss those things where those things are already being discussed. This thread has already cut out its niche, and those things aren't on the menu.

[J. J. in Phila]

Nothing interesting about my comment in any kind of sinister or agendized way, if that's what you're implying. It's all very straight forward.


I imply nothing of the sort.



The first five or so were used to announce the existence of your blog, to serve as a place for another poster to (erroneously) claim he was "run off" another message board (where he was actually warmly welcomed), and for you and that poster to gossip about posters on that message board (very bad netiquette, IMO).



You will have to ask the other about his/her "impressions." This thread was actually stated because I thought a poster was treated unfairly someplace else, and wanted to give her a spot to post.

Had I wished to announce the existence of the blog I would have done so in February, when the blog was started, not April.

As for gossip, this violation of nettiquette should bother you immensely:

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/partiii:onlinediscussion


The vast majority of the rest of the thread has been devoted to a discussion of "inside politics"--certainly worthy of a single thread among many on the bigger forum. But perhaps a bit perplexing to CL members who come to a sub-forum titled "Unsolved Missing/Abduction," looking for case details on missing people.



You don't think there is a political aspect to the case where a man that disappeared was an elected office holder? Where the case has been an issue in the current campaign? Where how the incumbent district attorney, who is running for re-election, has been conducting the investigation? Wow!

[2-B]

The vast majority of the rest of the thread has been devoted to a discussion of "inside politics"--certainly worthy of a single thread among many on the bigger forum. But perhaps a bit perplexing to CL members who come to a sub-forum titled "Unsolved Missing/Abduction," looking for case details on missing people.


I believe GS kindly offered to pay for a specific course that you could take, applicable to the above.

[J. J. in Phila]

I believe GS kindly offered to pay for a specific course that you could take, applicable to the above.

2-B, there are ample places for discussion of new material here, considering than other the ancillary political things, there have been no "new" developments in the case, at least none that you caught, and certainly none that has yet appeared in the press.

The last thing that came out that created a stir was simply "news to us," but had been reported in May 2006. :rolleyes:

Of course, GS missed it, just like everyone else.

[2-B]

there have been no "new" developments in the case

Sure, whatever you say. Except that you're dead wrong.

You started this thread 4/1/09.

On 4/15/09 or thereabouts, the computer searches were released as part of the 4th anniversary "give them one tidbit a year" package.

Over on home turf for discussion of Ray Gricar, a single thread about those computer searches produced eleven full pages of discussion with 408 posts on it, and the thread has received 5,621 views.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure you've even mentioned the computer searches on this thread.

[J. J. in Phila]

Sure, whatever you say. Except that you're dead wrong.

You started this thread 4/1/09.

On 4/15/09 or thereabouts, the computer searches were released as part of the 4th anniversary "give them one tidbit a year" package.

Over on home turf for discussion of Ray Gricar, a single thread about those computer searches produced eleven full pages of discussion with 408 posts on it, and the thread has received 5,621 views.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure you've even mentioned the computer searches on this thread.

2-B, that was released 4/14/09; today is 8/26/09. That little "tidbit" certainly does not need multiple threads. Instead, we see people, the same 3-4 people, trying to explain away the evidence.

[2-B]

2-B, there are ample places for discussion of new material here, considering than other the ancillary political things, there have been no "new" developments in the case, at least none that you caught, and certainly none that has yet appeared in the press.

The last thing that came out that created a stir was simply "news to us," but had been reported in May 2006. :rolleyes:

Of course, GS missed it, just like everyone else.

Except that two weeks after this thread was started, a big piece of news was released to the public.

This thread didn't feature any discussion of it at that point or thereafter, except for Pgal's efforts to generate some discussion of this big development.

She questioned how police could know for certain that Gricar himself had done the computer searches, an important question, since no computer expert witness has ever gone into court and testified that a specific person performed searches.

Pgal was essentially told that police in the Gricar, and I quote, "somehow know" Gricar did the searches, and the discussion was dropped. A few short posts later, the thread returned to bashing posters on another message board.

Look, you obviously see this as your home turf. (Quoth JJ: "I will admit to wondering why a thread that I started would not be my "home turf.")

My original point, which your ensuing discussion has sought to obscure, was simply this: if you want to discuss further details of the Gricar case with me, I will be on home turf for discussion of the Ray Gricar case, where a full range of topics are up for discussion. Where someone who raises the major Gricar story of the year isn't shut down . . .

:seeya:

[J. J. in Phila]

As you pointed out, that information came was two weeks after the tread was started, or are you suggesting that I have grand precognitive abilities.

The BIG piece of evidence was actually just an elaboration on something reported in September of 2008. That pattern is being documented, even as we speak.

The claims about how the police could have known were easily demonstrated, by several posters, including S1. It was just another attempt to "explain away the evidence."

And, there was another problem, it does not clearly point to any theory.

[Serendipitous1]

I suppose the Grange Fair was the last best chance to meet and greet volumes of voters (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1480970.html). From here on out it will take more than candy and balloons. Not that candy and balloons (or kissing babies) have no place in the political arena. But what I find exceptionally disheartening are voters (like Snow Shoe resident LH) whose political party affiliation is like a set of blinders. Because what may serve her well in voting for national and state leaders cannot be applied to voting for her community leaders. That would be stupid IMHO. There is much at stake. Straight-party voters, regardless of party, need to consider people over party if they want to make a difference locally.

On another note, what happened to J.J.'s blog? Did he step on someone's toes while that person was out to the Grange Fair? Maybe someone should check the helium concentration at the CDT...JMO!

[Serendipitous1]

Is Madeira's camp or the CDT attempting to stifle public opinion? Is there anything worse in politics than someone who attempts to stifle public opinion? Madeira has failed Ray Gricar's loved ones and he has failed the citizens of Centre County. That is not news to anyone who cares about Ray Gricar...or their own family. So why the censorship?

[J. J. in Phila]

Is Madeira's camp or the CDT attempting to stifle public opinion? Is there anything worse in politics than someone who attempts to stifle public opinion? Madeira has failed Ray Gricar's loved ones and he has failed the citizens of Centre County. That is not news to anyone who cares about Ray Gricar...or their own family. So why the censorship?

The blog is still up, and people are still reading it. There are not entries on the blog page, however. You can click the title
"Sporadic Comments on the Gricar Case" and all entries will appear.

Several comments I approved (along with my own) disappeared, however. My photo had to be reloaded.

I have e-mailed the editor and technical support person. I have had no explanation, but it could be a technical problem. To date, I have had no complaints from the editor. When applicable, a link also appears on the front page.

An approved comment from "TXslueth" and two from "Erasernut," along with two of my responses were lost (a third post from Erasernut was off topic and not approved). "TXslueth" contacted me and was invited to re-post.

In short, I don't know what happened either. I hope to have another blog entry in the series up sometime tomorrow.

[Serendipitous1]

Michael Madeira has amply shown why he is not qualified to be DA. Stacy Parks Miller is the future of Centre County law enforcement because she understands Madeira's shortcommings and what it takes to be a truly effective DA...ala Ray Gricar, but not Ray Gricar. This is what is missed by the Republican straight-party voters...you are not well served, when you could be.

[Serendipitous1]

The blog is still up, and people are still reading it. There are not entries on the blog page, however. You can click the title
"Sporadic Comments on the Gricar Case" and all entries will appear.

Several comments I approved (along with my own) disappeared, however. My photo had to be reloaded.

I have e-mailed the editor and technical support person. I have had no explanation, but it could be a technical problem. To date, I have had no complaints from the editor. When applicable, a link also appears on the front page.

An approved comment from "TXslueth" and two from "Erasernut," along with two of my responses were lost (a third post from Erasernut was off topic and not approved). "TXslueth" contacted me and was invited to re-post.

In short, I don't know what happened either. I hope to have another blog entry in the series up sometime tomorrow.OK, I clicked on Sporadic Comments and got: "This community member's page is currently being reviewed by the editors." That is censorship, no matter how it is parsed, my short-peckered friend!

[J. J. in Phila]

OK, I clicked on Sporadic Comments and got: "This community member's page is currently being reviewed by the editors." That is censorship, no matter how it is parsed, my short-peckered friend!


It just came up for me. Txslueth contacted me last night and read it. I had another recommendation sometime today.

I did indicate that I had contacted both the editor and the IT person earlier today, which might be why you got the response.

[Serendipitous1]

If "hatchy-mcclatchy" thinks it can control political persuasions...it had better find a more prominant venue...because most of the "feelers" I have gotten are for Stacy Parks Miller!!! And that is because it would be good for Gricar...as well as for all of the citizens of Centre County!

[Serendipitous1]

It just came up for me. Txslueth contacted me last night and read it. I had another recommendation sometime today.

I did indicate that I had contacted both the editor and the IT person earlier today, which might be why you got the response.Then it is obviously someone's pathetic "game"! I cannot bring up your blog.

[J. J. in Phila]

If "hatchy-mcclatchy" thinks it can control political persuasions...it had better find a more prominant venue...because most of the "feelers" I have gotten are for Stacy Parks Miller!!! And that is because it would be good for Gricar...as well as for all of the citizens of Centre County!

Considering the editor's recent "Disconnect" blog, it might not anything more than a technical glitch. My photo had been up for 8 months, and that dropped off the face of the Internet.

Let's figure out what happened first, before we jump to media conspiracy theories.

[J. J. in Phila]

Then it is obviously someone's pathetic "game"! I cannot bring up your blog.

I'm attempting to see if others can. I could get there from several methods.

I know that several people read it today; someone recommended it after 2:00 AM this morning. TXslueth saw that her comments were removed. Another reader read it this morning.

[J. J. in Phila]

Somebody else just got the same message; this looks like it occurred after I asked them to review it, however.

It might be a glitch or somebody might be playing games; it might not be the paper.

[SaraSidle]

Somebody else just got the same message; this looks like it occurred after I asked them to review it, however.

It might be a glitch or somebody might be playing games; it might not be the paper.

FYI all I see is your picture JJ.............sara

[J. J. in Phila]

I have not received any complaints from the editor about the blog; I obviously would have listened to them if I'd have any. I'd even be willing to let him review them prior to publication, if he'd request that. I've had no indication of anything improper.

As of this morning it was up, though I did ask the editor and the IT person to review it.

I announced this particular series more than a month prior to my last entry.

[SaraSidle]

I have not received any complaints from the editor about the blog; I obviously would have listened to them if I'd have any. I'd even be willing to let him review them prior to publication, if he'd request that. I've had no indication of anything improper.

As of this morning it was up, though I did ask the editor and the IT person to review it.

I announced this particular series more than a month prior to my last entry.

Very strange. I will be interested in knowing what is going on when you find out. sara

[J. J. in Phila]

Very strange. I will be interested in knowing what is going on when you find out. sara

You won't be the only one. :)

[SaraSidle]

You won't be the only one. :)

Of that I have no doubt at all..........

[J. J. in Phila]

And my bloody "recommended" count keeps going up! :rolleyes:

[One2Snoop]

I just checked the blog and this is what I get....

JJinPhila's page

This community member's page is currently being reviewed by the editors.

[J. J. in Phila]

For some unknown reason, "Sporadic Comments on the Gricar Case" is down.

I received a message from TXSlueth last night indicating that one of her comments was deleted. An approved comment from "TXslueth" and two from "Erasernut," along with two of my responses were lost (a third post from Erasernut was off topic and not approved). As indicated "TXslueth" contacted me and was invited to re-post.

I noticed that both the blog titles would not appear; my photo was also missing.

I have e-mailed the editor and technical support person at the CDT earlier on 9/1/09. I have had no explanation, but it could be a technical problem. I know that, as of this morning, at least some people could read it.

I indicated that I would be doing this series, titled "The Investigation," and would cover both the conduct of the police and the District Attorney, in late July of 2009. What I had planned to write about was not unknown.

To date, I have had no complaints from the editor. I have not received any "suggestion" from him not to write about any topic. Had I had any complaints from the editor, I would have been more than willing to either pull a particular entry or reword things. (I write a lot in real live and do deal with editors. I do get re-written and am use to it.)

At the time it went down, it was the highest rated blog on the CDT site; I am unaware of any complaints.

While I can read the blog, if you go to it you will see: "This community member's page is currently being reviewed by the editors." I asked for a review and I don't know if this is it or not.

In short, I don't know what happened either. Please, before we jump to any conclusions, let's wait until we see what happened.

[SaraSidle]

For some unknown reason, "Sporadic Comments on the Gricar Case" is down.

I received a message from TXSlueth last night indicating that one of her comments was deleted. An approved comment from "TXslueth" and two from "Erasernut," along with two of my responses were lost (a third post from Erasernut was off topic and not approved). As indicated "TXslueth" contacted me and was invited to re-post.

I noticed that both the blog titles would not appear; my photo was also missing.

I have e-mailed the editor and technical support person at the CDT earlier on 9/1/09. I have had no explanation, but it could be a technical problem. I know that, as of this morning, at least some people could read it.

I indicated that I would be doing this series, titled "The Investigation," and would cover both the conduct of the police and the District Attorney, in late July of 2009. What I had planned to write about was not unknown.

To date, I have had no complaints from the editor. I have not received any "suggestion" from him not to write about any topic. Had I had any complaints from the editor, I would have been more than willing to either pull a particular entry or reword things. (I write a lot in real live and do deal with editors. I do get re-written and am use to it.)

At the time it went down, it was the highest rated blog on the CDT site; I am unaware of any complaints.

While I can read the blog, if you go to it you will see: "This community member's page is currently being reviewed by the editors." I asked for a review and I don't know if this is it or not.

In short, I don't know what happened either. Please, before we jump to any conclusions, let's wait until we see what happened.


well I sure hope they have no problem with the "Investigation" It does not look good now.

[One2Snoop]

You're more than welcome to post your blog comments here. Thanks for the info.

[J. J. in Phila]

One2Snoop, thank you.

well I sure hope they have no problem with the "Investigation" It does not look good now.

The editor never indicated that he did.

[SaraSidle]

One2Snoop, thank you.



The editor never indicated that he did.

this may be the reason everything is gone. he is making decisions

[J. J. in Phila]

this may be the reason everything is gone. he is making decisions

I really don't want anyone to blame the editor or the CDT until there is an explanation. I didn't a response today, but that could indicate that they don't know what the problem is.

Please don't speculate, except to note that that I've never had any suggestion from the editor not to deal with issue.

[Rhododendron]

Last night, the following comment was made to the CDT blog "The Myth of Ray Gricar by Debbie Taylor" under the "Scents & Scentability" article. The comment later disappeared from the blog.

"According to the official BPD Ray Gricar Flier 2007, Ray Gricar was last seen on April 15, 2005, Bellefonte, PA."

(NOTE: BELLEFONTE NOT LEWISBURG)

Also, "There have been sightings of Ray over the past 2 years (unconfirmed)."

(NOTE: SIGHTINGS UNCONFIRMED)

[DOC] gricar-flyer-2007
26k - Microsoft Word - View as html
MISSING PERSON. RAY FRANK GRICAR. Last Seen April 15, 2005 Bellefonte, Pennsylvania ... For almost twenty years, Ray Frank Gricar has served as the District Attorney ...bellefonte.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gricar-flyer-2007.doc "

[J. J. in Phila]

TXSlueth made a comment on "Sporadic Comments," which was approved. That comment, and one of the followups, from me, disappeared.

Ironically, my comment could be considered pro-Madeira. It certainly wasn't anti-Madeira.

No, I don't understand what is going on.

[J. J. in Phila]

FYI all I see is your picture JJ.............sara

BTW, if it's a photo of a guy in a gray sweatshirt, that is Mr. Gricar.

[J. J. in Phila]

The blog is back up and the cause appears to have been a technical problem.

So far as I know neither the publisher, editor or staff of the CDT is part of the vast Gricar conspiracy. :rolleyes:

As I have indicated, I have had no complaints from the editor and would be happy to let him review any entry or listen, at least, to any changes he'd suggest. He has made no request to do either to date.

I really think that, if you missed my blog, you should say thank you to the Centre Daily Times.

[SaraSidle]

BTW, if it's a photo of a guy in a gray sweatshirt, that is Mr. Gricar.

Of course it is. I am sorry. I posted that so quickly and I was very tired.
I am not judging but waiting for you. I hope this is straightened out soon.

sara

[SaraSidle]

the blog is back up and the cause appears to have been a technical problem.

So far as i know neither the publisher, editor or staff of the cdt is part of the vast gricar conspiracy. :rolleyes:

As i have indicated, i have had no complaints from the editor and would be happy to let him review any entry or listen, at least, to any changes he'd suggest. He has made no request to do either to date.

I really think that, if you missed my blog, you should say thank you to the centre daily times.

great news!!!

[J. J. in Phila]

great news!!!

I don't know how good. My "recommended" count went up when there was nothing to read. Maybe someone thought it was an improvement. :biggrin:

[SaraSidle]

I don't know how good. My "recommended" count went up when there was nothing to read. Maybe someone thought it was an improvement. :biggrin:

I am sure there is a good reason somewhere for that too. :)

[Serendipitous1]

I am sure there is a good reason somewhere for that too. :)You took the words right off of my fingertips, Sara!
:beer:

On another note - Join a winner and be a winner. Contribute dollars and "sense". Or we might all soon (November 3) be lamenting 4 more years of nothingness in the Gricar case!
Stacy Parks Miller on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/stacyparksmiller)
Scathing retort to MM taking credit where credit is not due (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/09/02/district_attorney_candidate_ad.aspx)
Stacy Parks Miller for DA campaign website (http://www.parksmillerforda.net/index.php)

[J. J. in Phila]

You took the words right off of my fingertips, Sara!
:beer:



Amazing. You were the one complaining that it wasn't up. Checking it. Accusing the newspaper of censorship.



On another note - Join a winner and be a winner. Contribute dollars and "sense". Or we might all soon (November 3) be lamenting 4 more years of nothingness in the Gricar case!
Stacy Parks Miller on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/stacyparksmiller)
Scathing retort to MM taking credit where credit is not due (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/09/02/district_attorney_candidate_ad.aspx)
Stacy Parks Miller for DA campaign website (http://www.parksmillerforda.net/index.php)

[Just wondering]

Hello folks - This is my first attempt at blog posting, so if I make any errors in "blog etiquette", feel free to point them out to me.

I'm trying to come up to speed on this case by reading all the info that I've been able to find. If I had to guess, I'm probably at 33%. I'll throw out a few questions that have come to mind from what I've learned so far. I apologize that they're not necessarily in a coherent order.

* Did RG own any firearms, and if so, have they all been accounted for ?

* RG apparently had approx. $100K in the bank. That doesn't appear to be a very large sum accumulated by someone with a decent paying position, and reportedly frugal spending habits.

* Is it known if anyone checked several years past income tax returns for interest earned from other un-known accounts ?

* What were his ties to Yugoslavia, and is it known if Interpol was notified ?

* Usually a small screwdriver is needed to remove a laptop's harddrive - was RG handy with tools, and were any found in his car ?

* Did someone actually verify that the laptop asset tag on the found laptop was in fact the one issued to him by the county according to their accounting records ?

* Was his trip to Lewsiburg a planned trip or a spur of the moment errand ?

* Were his cell phone records checked to see what calls he rec'd and placed within the last 60 days ?

* Did his girlfriend comment if any articles of clothing were missing, other than what he was known to be wearing ?

* Are any of the police interview records being made available to the general public ?


Feel free to comment on any of the above. These are probably very basic questions, but I'm trying to come up to speed, and Just Wondering.

[J. J. in Phila]

* Did RG own any firearms, and if so, have they all been accounted for ?

No, according to his nephew.


* RG apparently had approx. $100K in the bank. That doesn't appear to be a very large sum accumulated by someone with a decent paying position, and reportedly frugal spending habits.

* Is it known if anyone checked several years past income tax returns for interest earned from other un-known accounts ?


Yes to both but there was no checking prior to his divorce settlement 2000 to 2002. There was a blog on that in March or April of 2009. Interestingly, I found out that RFG's second wife was at least employed sporadically, so there would have been more income in the household that just his salary.


* What were his ties to Yugoslavia, and is it known if Interpol was notified ?


Slovenia. :) I have not heard of Interpol being contacted, but his passport was checked.


* Usually a small screwdriver is needed to remove a laptop's harddrive - was RG handy with tools, and were any found in his car ?

* Did someone actually verify that the laptop asset tag on the found laptop was in fact the one issued to him by the county according to their accounting records ?


I asked about the screw; it wasn't found. I have not heard about a screw driver. I was thinking about a pen knife or something similar.

The laptop numbers matched, but there were no numbers on the drive


* Was his trip to Lewsiburg a planned trip or a spur of the moment errand ?


Neither. RFG liked to drive. He planned to take the day off and just called from the road. Lewisburg wasn't his stated destination.


* Were his cell phone records checked to see what calls he rec'd and placed within the last 60 days ?


Unreleased.


* Did his girlfriend comment if any articles of clothing were missing, other than what he was known to be wearing ?


Nothing that she knew of.


* Are any of the police interview records being made available to the general public ?



No. Some of it was more extensive than we were led to believe.

[J. J. in Phila]

SPM was just endorsed by Bald Eagle Lodge #51 of the Fraternal of Police, the first time in memory that a sitting DA was not endorsed by that group.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1558642.html

[J. J. in Phila]

Here are some photos of the Lewisburg site:

http://picasaweb.google.com/LookingforRay

[SaraSidle]

Here are some photos of the Lewisburg site:

http://picasaweb.google.com/LookingforRay

thanks for the pix.......sara

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a blog with even more descriptions of my visit to Lewisburg.

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a blog up on the media coverage, if anyone is interested.

[SaraSidle]

There is a blog up on the media coverage, if anyone is interested.

thank you. I will check it out. sara

[J. J. in Phila]

Michael T. Madeira was decisively defeated in his bid for reelection as Centre County District Attorney by Stacy Parks Miller.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/loca...y/1608060.html

Madeira's handling of the Gricar case was an issue.

[SaraSidle]

Michael T. Madeira was decisively defeated in his bid for reelection as Centre County District Attorney by Stacy Parks Miller.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/loca...y/1608060.html

Madeira's handling of the Gricar case was an issue.

he really was defeated. no close call here.

[J. J. in Phila]

he really was defeated. no close call here.


It is worse.

In PA, we elect judges at the county and state level. We also elect jury commissioners county wide. 7 of 8 Republican judges one carried the county and the Republican jury commissioner came in first.

MTM lives in the Huston Township. 7 of 8 Republican judges and the jury commissioner carried it. MTM lost it.

This was one of greatest repudiations of an incumbent that I've ever seen.

[J. J. in Phila]

My mistake. Every other Republican candidate won in Huston Township, expect for MTM.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/elections/results/results.asp?FileName=2009_municipal_huston_twp_p_0 059&FolderName=2009_municipal_election

[SaraSidle]

My mistake. Every other Republican candidate won in Huston Township, expect for MTM.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/elections/results/results.asp?FileName=2009_municipal_huston_twp_p_0 059&FolderName=2009_municipal_election

that does not look good at all

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not joking when I say this, but "pulling a Madeira" might become the term in Centre County for going down in a landslide defeat. One article I read indicated that out Centre County's 89 precincts, SPM carried 84.

It was brutal. I think I've only seen one case worse, the retention of a judge, who on trial for official misconduct.

MTM might have been the greatest loss by any incumbent at the county level in the state this year.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm very happy to report that SPM has mentioned renewed emphasis on the RFG case.

http://www.centredaily.com/116/story...k=omni_popular

I have some reason to believe it is more than lip service.

[SaraSidle]

I am sure it is more than lip service but let's home something happens now.
thanks for the link

[J. J. in Phila]

I am now somewhat optimistic that the investigation will advance, at least slightly.