Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
SuperSmith

The disappearance of Ray Gricar

3,995 posts in this topic

Thanks, SS. I was wondering recently as to whether anything had been determined about that particular 'found remains'.

Since the article states that they are trying to do a DNA profile, wouldn't that DNA be checked against RG's to determine whether it was a match?

The description of height and age doesn't seem to fit RG, but then not sure how accurate they can be with such.

JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that people who are truly interested in the disappearance of Ray Gricar should join this discussion...a continuation of a 9-year discussion which has spanned (and survived the demise of) several past Gricar forums...particularly those who are dissatisfied with the unibomber on Websleuths and the companion sporadic blog nonsense found on centredaily.com. This forum has been a JJ-free zone...and I hope it stays that way!

Some mimicking sporadic blog rebuttal:

Nine years ago the sitting District Attorney of Centre County, Ray Gricar, vanished from the face of the earth. The Mini Cooper that he normally drove was found in Lewisburg, PA. It is uncertain how it got there since there has never been any hard evidence presented to the public of Ray Gricar's whereabouts after surveillance video showed him in Bellefonte on Thursday evening, April 14, 2005.

This is the umteenth time we have stated this important fact. One promising thing that I have noticed is that people are finally drifting toward the idea that Mr. Gricar’s disappearance was the result of foul play...including LE types like former lead detectives Matt Rickard and Darrel Zaccagni, former district attorney Michael Madeira and current district attorney Stacy Parks Miller. That can be the only reason why the PSP is now handling the case...wasting more time and money on a suicide or intentional walkaway is ridiculous.

Even on-line in recent weeks, I’ve seen a change in some posters on other message boards. I was surprised to see those who once staunchly supported suicide or intentional walkaway switch to foul play...despite the unibomber's attempts to focus attention on a non-issue (specifically Mr. Gricar’s money).

After nine years, I would not conclude that Mr. Gricar was a suicide or simply walked away. I would conclude that the evidence that we have is pointing more strongly to foul play.

Edited by Saunterer
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Websleuth unibomber recently insisted that Ray Gricar had no plans (later, no definite plans) for the future, he lied! As he later admitted, RG had definite plans to travel to Ohio that May for his nephew's high school graduation. TG even related that there was still a note on RG's frig to bring along some Yuengling lager.

While the Websleuth unibomber wants you to believe recent discussion revolves around missing money...there is, in fact, no missing money (according to LE) and the fact that RG's estate settlement is not public is just another lame and long ago discarded excuse for continuing to push the intentional disappearance theory.

When the Websleuth unibomber points people to his photographs while in Lewisburg, he fails to note that he had never been in Lewisburg until years later. I can tell you how it looked within a week of Ray Gricar's disappearance...because I was there then and on several other days thereafter. What I observed then completely dispells everything people might accept as gospel from the unibomber!!!

We tried to warn Websleuth readers and the admins there about the charlatans dug in. And for that we got timed out, till (like) the end of this year or something. Fortunately, there are still people there who know to question and to post their own opinions...a chore intentionally made difficult by the disinformation, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods allowed. For those people who question, your only support is here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your support Rho! I must admit though, I did not once think of Ray Gricar this April 15...first time in 9 years! Must be old age, or something!

But it still irks me that the few of us who have been around long enough to know the difference between hard facts and soft-spun conjecture are not always allowed to express it.

Tags: Ray Gricar, Tom Corbett, Tom Ridge, Penn State, Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, the Three Musketeers/Stooges, ..............

Edited by Saunterer
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, SS. I was wondering recently as to whether anything had been determined about that particular 'found remains'.

Since the article states that they are trying to do a DNA profile, wouldn't that DNA be checked against RG's to determine whether it was a match?

The description of height and age doesn't seem to fit RG, but then not sure how accurate they can be with such.

JMO

They would check against their own local missing persons and then enter the DNA into a larger further reaching database.

That said I don't believe it is RG due to the age determined specifically. Although the age determination may vary, this particular one is pretty far off. Ill concede to 2b on this though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would check against their own local missing persons and then enter the DNA into a larger further reaching database.

That said I don't believe it is RG due to the age determined specifically. Although the age determination may vary, this particular one is pretty far off. Ill concede to 2b on this though.

While I tend to agree, it's doubtful that it's RG, but likewise, I'll also concede to 2B on this since I don't know how far off they can be at times on height and age.

JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey LW I something for you to work with. I received info that the sighting of RG and the Big Hair blonde was 12pm or after and the sighting was actually on 192. You will figure out who and what I'm talking about.

In trying to put a timeframe together, this sighting is hard to put together with the other two; spide's at 10 a.m. and call time from Madisonburg at 11:12 a.m. Only way that it will all fit together, IMO, is if RG went to Lewisburg with blonde spide saw him with on route 45 at 10 a.m., and while returning home with blonde to drop her off at home 'somewhere', was waylaid somehow, possibly by force/weapon to turn around?

Or was he being followed back to home area accompanied by blonde when the trouble arose from someone else who knew why the blonde was in the car, ie:possibly a JS victim's mother? Only way to then explain a man and blonde were sitting in a parking lot on route 192 tallking, unless it was past the area where the call came in from, and toward Centre Hall is if the man in the car was not RG and the car was being driven back to Lewisburg? If the blonde was with him in Lewisburg as spide indicates, she would have been able to direct driver as to where to leave the Mini. IF there was a problem, can't imagine why RG would have turned around, headed back toward Lewisburg on route 192, pulling into a parking lot along the way to calmly talk. Doesn't make sense, but if the man in the car at the parking lot wasn't RG but someone who took over driving while RG was taken in another vehicle, possibly the sighting in the parking lot was of someone other than RG, with the blonde? Reasons as to why no woman came forward could be that she was part of a 'planned' abduction of RG or fear.

That would mean there had to be 'multiple' people involved. It could have been a set-up using the JS situation to lure RG in, as in some mother's story that someone knew RG would be interested in, and the mother's refusal to come to the office?

Dunno quite what to make of this sighting-----------

JMO

Edited by lw-intuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy holiday all! Been enjoying a bit of a break meself...with the darlins of Youtube. For instance:

Edited by Saunterer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've missed you people, & I hope I'm back now. I wish you all a Happy Easter. Nine (9) years . . . nine (9) long years . . .

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno quite what to make of this sighting-----------

My opinion on sightings won't make anyone happy. But I think it's a realistic opinion, which is this: minus solid corroboration and verification (and not the loose and subjective kind of corrobation Bogger dude cooks up), sightings are to be filed away in the back of the file cabinet awaiting corrobation and verification. This is essentially the FBI standard, and I think it's wise. I'd say with any sighting, look for corroboration and verification, but resist the impulse to expend energy on uncorroborated sightings lest you wind up using them as a premise for an untenable theory.

By "you" I mean "anyone," of course, not a direct challenge to you or SS. But look at the craziness that comes from Blogger Dude's reliance on shaky and unverfied Lewisburg witnesses as part of his "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that Gricar was in Lewisburg. Then the big question for him became trying to prove how he got OUT of Lewisburg, when his sightings weren't verified in the first place to prove Gricar was ever there.

Saw an interesting Dateline last night re a young woman who disappeared in Wyoming in 1988 driving at night from her workplace to her boyfriend's parents' house, where she was to meet up w/ the boyfriend, then travel with him the next morning to her parents' house. She drove a small black Honda with personalized plates that read, "LILMISS," a family nickname given by her grandmother.

Her body was found in a river maybe 8 days after she disappeared. Various people including her boyfriend were cleared. The car, however, remained missing.

Police received literally THOUSANDS of alleged sightings of the black Honda with the personalized plates from all over the US, but the car--and her killer--remained at large. Fourteen years after her murder, a career criminal was finally arrested in the case. He had kept her captive for a week or so on his remote property before killing her. Buried deep on the property, police finally found her car, where it had been since the night she went missing.

Re-telling this just to show that even something as distinctive as a car with personalized plates produced thousands of false sightings. Actually, now that I think of it, we had in smaller numbers many false sightings of RG's Mini with personalized plates in only a 24-hour time period.

I know, I know--it sounds like I'm raining on a parade. Don't mean to, but I just **personally** want to hear something in the realm of hard evidence to verify the blonde with big hair sightings. Anybody got anything to satisfy my hunger for corroboration?

Edited by 2-B
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've missed you people, & I hope I'm back now. I wish you all a Happy Easter. Nine (9) years . . . nine (9) long years . . .

Good to have you back, Rho! Don't get yourself lost again! :-)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would check against their own local missing persons and then enter the DNA into a larger further reaching database.

That said I don't believe it is RG due to the age determined specifically. Although the age determination may vary, this particular one is pretty far off. Ill concede to 2b on this though.

Here's a good article (non-technical) re difficulties in determining sex, height, age, even species from skeletal remains. Gender appears to be easiest to determine, with approximate height within perhaps a 4" range next assuming the femur is available. If not, a different bone, if available, can give a less accurate indication. Age can be tricky because people mature/age at different rates.

Loved this passage: The most publicized case is when some individuals working in the desert of New Mexico found some skeletal remains. By the time this set of bones had been properly identified as a deceased bear the press had reported it as the remains of a missing 12 year old girl who had been kidnapped, raped and murdered.

http://www.defenseinvestigator.com/article13.html

This also tells us the qualifications and experience of the person/team examining the remains means a great deal (read also the TURKEY story!!!).

Note Well: article may tilt toward emphasizing difficulties since it comes from defense point of view, but it at least shows us some of the potential challenges.

Edited by 2-B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on sightings won't make anyone happy. But I think it's a realistic opinion, which is this: minus solid corroboration and verification (and not the loose and subjective kind of corrobation Bogger dude cooks up), sightings are to be filed away in the back of the file cabinet awaiting corrobation and verification. This is essentially the FBI standard, and I think it's wise. I'd say with any sighting, look for corroboration and verification, but resist the impulse to expend energy on uncorroborated sightings lest you wind up using them as a premise for an untenable theory.

While I understand the need for verification re: sightings, before I tuck any of them back in a 'dead' file waiting for some report from the FBI/PSP/BPD regarding same, I like to look at it from all sides first. As you know by my use of intuition, I am not a black and white, or form and order person. If I had been, I would have missed out on a gazillion gifts that have come to me over many years. What works for me may not work for anyone else.

I definitely respect another's right to do things the way it works for them. What works for me may not be be the creative process that another chooses to follow and vice versa. Granted, ultimately in the end, there must be verification, but I don't think there can be verification without the study. We can be assured and re-assured over the years that the FBI and other agencies to include SPM's supposed team are looking into every detail that comes up and hope, against hope, that someday we'll hear something from someone somewhere. I think 9 years of studying a case is our only way of saying 'RG, we haven't forgot about you--------not for one day! and we won't give up until we have an answer!' That in itself is a form of justice being served, IMO.

How many times have tips come in on cases and the information was put in a file only to find out years, sometimes decades, later that the tip wasn't looked into and if it had been, the case would have been solved years ago? I recall reading such a couple of times in the past few weeks.

Everyone has their own 'requirements' as to how to study something or check into anything that comes up that can only be left up to the individual. No one has to follow anyone else's pattern. If you choose to wait on the FBI to give you an answer, that's your perogative. SS has gone the extra mile now to find out more about the tip and that's the kind of 'stuff' I like to see. Only with the facts can we check it out.

Aside from that, the tip doesn't quite 'come together', either time-wise or explanation-wise as to what IB has said thus far coupled with what SS has passed along now------ Here we have a state trooper's wife, or ex, who claims to have seen the DA with a blonde in a parking lot on route 192, and am assuming it's likely near what used to be a bar IB operated on route 192. Then we have the Mini ending up in the SOS lot, a place where IB's daughter was said to work, IIRC. That seems quite coincidental that in both locations we have an IB connection. Then we have IB, state trooper's wife or ex, supposedly not reporting such a sighting until years later when cameras are rolling at the SOS re: RG's disappearance. Her claim is she thought he just basically must have run off with the woman to Mexico or somewhere?, thinks 'good for him' and wishes she could do the same.

Now to me that seems like a whole lot of negatives to indicate something wrong with the sighting, but irregardless of the number of negatives, there is always the possibility that it was nothing more than human error in judgment, either way, and that the sighting or any part of it may be legit. Maybe SS can find out more yet. One thing I often see at those roadside bars are lots of motorcycles, so my next question would be to ask whether her particular bar was a hangout for cyclists. Still may mean nothing other than keeping the wheels turning here, but again acknowledging it could be more like 'wheels spinning'.

If we only want to discuss what has been proven as evidence, the board then could have shut down 8 years, 50 weeks ago. We have basically nothing after the video at the courthouse on Thursday night as being last known sighting of RG. I don't need to nor do I want to change anyone's opinion about anything. That is theirs to do.......it's called the learning process.

JMO

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand the need for verification re: sightings, before I tuck any of them back in a 'dead' file waiting for some report from the FBI/PSP/BPD regarding same, I like to look at it from all sides first. As you know by my use of intuition, I am not a black and white, or form and order person. If I had been, I would have missed out on a gazillion gifts that have come to me over many years. What works for me may not work for anyone else.

Respectfully snipped. Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply.

I think I did a far less eloquent job of explaining myself and my desire for corroboration. Much of my frustration comes from long feeling that the way witnesses were handled and regarded in this case (by LE) has in large part led to keeping the investigation stalled at the three theories stage. We've agreed before that LE believed human testimony over canine testimony as far as Lewisburg is concerned, and that alone has helped lead to things like speculation that RG took off with the mysterious MW in the SOS. And then because of Some of LE's fast and loose statements re those alleged sightings, especially from DZ, there's been a hole wide enough for JJ to drive his Walkaway Express through. Just recently, he was quoting DZ from the Renner article, using DZ's statements about sightings to allege proof that Gricar had definitely been in Lewisburg.

I fully understand that the IB sighting is in a different category, and I didn't mean to imply that it shouldn't be examined by anyone wanting to do so. I'm really grateful there are folks whose minds work differently from each others' on this (and past) board; that's what makes a collaborative effort productive. If each of us were limited to our own individual ways of looking at a puzzle, the outcome would be that much less informed.

And the only thing I can contribute to this group process is the way *my* mind operates, which is always to search for hard, objective evidence to support ideas. Which is why, of course, I asked if anyone had anyone had any corroborating evidence for the IB sightings. Just the way *my* mind works.

Hope that makes more sense now.... sometimes it's hard to get meaning across on a computer screen....

Edited by 2-B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully snipped. Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply.

I think I did a far less eloquent job of explaining myself and my desire for corroboration. Much of my frustration comes from long feeling that the way witnesses were handled and regarded in this case (by LE) has in large part led to keeping the investigation stalled at the three theories stage. We've agreed before that LE believed human testimony over canine testimony as far as Lewisburg is concerned, and that alone has helped lead to things like speculation that RG took off with the mysterious MW in the SOS. And then because of Some of LE's fast and loose statements re those alleged sightings, especially from DZ, there's been a hole wide enough for JJ to drive his Walkaway Express through. Just recently, he was quoting DZ from the Renner article, using DZ's statements about sightings to allege proof that Gricar had definitely been in Lewisburg.

I fully understand that the IB sighting is in a different category, and I didn't mean to imply that it shouldn't be examined by anyone wanting to do so. I'm really grateful there are folks whose minds work differently from each others' on this (and past) board; that's what makes a collaborative effort productive. If each of us were limited to our own individual ways of looking at a puzzle, the outcome would be that much less informed.

And the only thing I can contribute to this group process is the way *my* mind operates, which is always to search for hard, objective evidence to support ideas. Which is why, of course, I asked if anyone had anyone had any corroborating evidence for the IB sightings. Just the way *my* mind works.

Hope that makes more sense now.... sometimes it's hard to get meaning across on a computer screen....

I agree regarding being frustrated over the manner in which witnesses appear to have been handled, and will add, how they continue to be handled since some have not heard one word from LE since the change in lead to the PSP. Unless they have some solid evidence that completely eliminates other leads, I don't understand what they're waiting on...........maybe a new lead that will coincide with a previous one?

Bottom line, for me at least, is that IF the call was made by RG that Friday at 11:12 a.m., he wasn't invisible. Others had to see him if he was there, and those are the witnesses I would be interested in hearing from, IF I were LE. Finding the Mini in the lot and then holding up a photo of the car's 'believed to be driver' is NOT the way to find out if he was there, nor is scenting the dog to RG's scent in a lot where RG's vehicle he typically drove the way to find out what and where.

What we want to know is where did the last driver of the Mini go to? If the dog was scented to the top rafts on the driver seat, and followed a trail from there across the lot, then very possibly the driver did have someone there to pick him/her up. That in no way indicates the driver was RG. If the dog was scented to RG item and sent into the lot where the car was parked, of course, the dog is going to alert to both the car and the area where RG's scent would naturally be.

Correct me here if I am wrong, but IF the driver had RG's scent on him/her, the dog could also follow that across the lot as well if scented to an RG item. That in no way proves RG was physically there. Like you, I know what a dog can tell us and would love to see the report so we could do our own interpretation. Not saying the dog's trainer doesn't also know exactly what the dog indicated.........just think what was given to the public was a crumb, nothing more or less but to be expected in an investigation of the disappearance of a public official. After nine years and IF the case is as cold as it appears, why not let the public assist IF qualified to do so.............I'm referring to you, not myself. I'm just opinionated, lol.

IMO, the only 'witnesses' who could indicate direction and confirm presence are the dogs, and they were stymied before they even arrived on the scene............the car should have never been moved off the lot or the doors opened without the dogs being there to be the first ones in. Something I am curious about is whether the dogs are available on weekdays at anytime, but not available on a Saturday evening? IIRC, they were in on Sunday, noonish, which means available weekends I guess, but why not on Saturday evening? Just curious here---------------

I think it is important for any poster to know that their opinion is wanted, needed, required to keep the energy wrapped around not giving up until we have an answer. Whether we differ in opinion really doesn't matter. Until we have an answer anyone can surmise anything they want to about walkaway but without proof it's nothing but a guess. Based on evidence, without a body, it still is just a guess. Same is true of all three theories, but IMO, RG's character speaks volumes, and absolutely points toward foul play. What we don't know is where, when, why or who.............yet.

Hope springs eternal particularly on this Easter Eve, as we are now over 9 years into looking at the case and it's time...........it's past time for us to know what happened to the best DA this county has ever had.

JMO

Edited by lw-intuit
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really tragic how few people are still interested in Ray Gricar's sudden disappearance!!!

But my hat goes off to you all here because, unlike on other 'closed' discussion forums (like Websleuths where well thought out challenges are censored by ridiculously long time outs), you are free here to express your opinions without the last-word-itisness of some creep from Filthadelphia...or some wayward admin trying to keep the feel-good audience from us 'nasty' strays.

Edited by Saunterer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where else can you tell JJ he would not (does not) know his ass from a hole in the ground?

What books have been written about Gricar...a dangerous game?

Edited by Saunterer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where else can you tell JJ he would not (does not) know his ass from a hole in the ground?

What books have been written about Gricar...a dangerous game?

I'm guessing that mods here (as they did back at Crime Library) understand that JJ has chosen to be a public figure in the Gricar case and is therefore fair game for scrutiny, challenges, refutation, and yes, public criticism.

Some of us here remember his assertion that he was the ONLY GAME IN TOWN. And sadly, the more tight-lipped investigators become/remain, the more pathetic truth that egotistical statement takes on. When one reads the comments with a recent non-Gricar CDT story only to find a commenter telling another that JJ is "our resident Gricar expert," we see the way the tentacles have grown. They started with that September 2006 command from JJ to a board he'd barely posted on that "all discussion of PF should be off the table" and they've grown to such stranglehold that he's like the thought police, subtly controlling not only what's discussed Over Yonder but how members see various aspects of the case.

Take, as one example, JJ's use of the phrase "destroy the data" vis a vis RG and the hard drive. Any number of us back at CTV and CL complained about his use of that phrasing, arguing that while RG had expressed a desire to wipe his hard drive or erase his hard drive before retirement (confirmed by LE), nothing proves he wanted to destroy data or keep data "from seeing the light of day," another phrase JJ has insisted on using and has insisted, wrongly, has no nefarious connotations. (I can't remember the last time I innocently said, "I'm putting the soup in the pantry to keep it from seeing the light of day.")

So now, if you notice, his minions Over Yonder have adopted the phrasing "destroy the data." That language use is not neutral, and it shows they not only choose his terminology but choose to see (or are brainwashed to see) the neutral "erase the disk" as the far less neutral "destroy the data."

And that, friends, is just one tiny example of how he has come to control the Gricar conversation and the "Gricar Think." What makes this doubly pathetic is that two of our members were banned from there not for breaking any rules but merely for trying to show the other side of the story, to get WS members to think rather than to follow in lockstep without thinking.

Cases aren't solved that way. Especially when the so-called expert has had ulterior motives since day one.

Find the Puppeteer and Save The World!

Edited by 2-B
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder why, the former Governor of Pa in 2005, had no comment when a long sitting District Attorney from Centre County went missing suddenly? This governor and former District Attorney of Philly surely would've had an opinion or could have voiced his concern for the departed especially since this governors former wife was a judge for the Federal Appeals Court of the Third Circuit (based in Philly) and likely knew the missing DA. This former governors grandparents (all four) also were immigrants from Russia.

I cannot find any quotes about the Missing DA, from this former governor, until he spoke about how he would have prosecuted Sandusky back in 98 post Sandusky scandal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, for me at least, is that IF the call was made by RG that Friday at 11:12 a.m., he wasn't invisible. Others had to see him if he was there, and those are the witnesses I would be interested in hearing from, IF I were LE. Finding the Mini in the lot and then holding up a photo of the car's 'believed to be driver' is NOT the way to find out if he was there, nor is scenting the dog to RG's scent in a lot where RG's vehicle he typically drove the way to find out what and where.

To be precise, though, I believe it's possible RG could have been the one to make the call but not have been "there," meaning in Lewisburg. Whether he set out for a pleasure drive that was interrupted (not super likely in my humble opinion but possible) or whether he planned to meet with someone, we have no proof the meeting place was Lewisburg. Now I'm sure our friendly neighborhood blogger would point to the area map found on RG's computer and say that while it wasn't likely to be directions for RG, it was likely to be directions or timing for someone else. Well, possibly. But as many of us have agreed before, it might also have been a map that allowed RG to check secondary area roads, state parks, other landmarks, etc.

The witnesses I'd personally be interested in hearing from would have been these:

1. Interviewed by an investigator unfamiliar with RG

2. Given a number of photos of similar middle aged Caucasian men

3. Given those photos in a sequence, not in a group

4. Asked if they had seen any of the men (in a given place/time, for instance, SOS workers asked if they had seen any of the men in or around the SOS on the 15/16 of April)

5. Asked open-ended questions rather than being provided with details ("Can you describe what clothing he was wearing?" rather than providing clothing details).

These are among the parameters investigators can use to get valid ID's, and we know that's not how things went down with the 2005 Lewisburg witnesses. DZ crowing to Renner, "We know we can put him there...." just makes me cringe. Assuming there will be better practices with the case turned over to the state, but it's nine years out now and memories fade, so let's hope for the best with any witness interviews.

What we want to know is where did the last driver of the Mini go to? If the dog was scented to the top rafts on the driver seat, and followed a trail from there across the lot, then very possibly the driver did have someone there to pick him/her up. That in no way indicates the driver was RG. If the dog was scented to RG item and sent into the lot where the car was parked, of course, the dog is going to alert to both the car and the area where RG's scent would naturally be.

Correct me here if I am wrong, but IF the driver had RG's scent on him/her, the dog could also follow that across the lot as well if scented to an RG item. That in no way proves RG was physically there. Like you, I know what a dog can tell us and would love to see the report so we could do our own interpretation.

Absolutely--wouldn't it be great if we could go over the handler logs for that day and see for ourselves rather than trying to interpret from a few bones (pun intended) that were thrown to Dixon and to the media?

Even with those few bones, I do think we've learned a lot, enough to know that there was nothing definitive in the Bloodhound's behavior to indicate that Gricar was or wasn't in the parking lot. We also know that Gricar wasn't in the places the Bloodhound was also taken, including anywhere beyond the parking lot. That's a lot, when you think about it.

As far as who was scented with what: some of that we know, and some of it's a mystery. We know the Bloodhound was scented to an article belonging to RG (I think it was a T-shirt). That makes sense because 1. RG was the guy missing and 2. Bloodhounds are generally scent discriminatory and follow individual human scent (obviously true of this one).

What we don't know is the training of the other 2 dogs or how they were used at the scene. We have heard only about the Bloodhound.

And we don't know what LE and/or the handler were thinking that Sunday. Did ANYONE even consider then that someone other than Ray might have driven that car to Lewisburg? If so, putting a trailing dog on things after scenting to the driver's seat and excluding RG as the missing member would have been useful IMO. But as Dixon said early on, they assumed Gricar had been in Lewisburg despite the lack of objective evidence like receipts or video, and that I think was in July. On 4/17, was any thought given to other drivers?

As to another person carrying RG's scent across the lot after sitting in the car, I'd have to ask someone more knowledgable to be sure. But scientifically/logically, it seems possible. Driver 2's clothes would pick up scent from the seat and seat back! his shoes from the floor. Some small number of rafts could be taken from clothing by air currents and some small numbers transferred by footwear. Given that a Bloodhound can DETECT and identify one scent molecule in billions (the visual that always stayed with me was detection of a scent molecule as small as a period in an Olympic sized pool), identification seems a given. Following a trail might be another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't recall reading this but found it fairly notable, except for RG wanting money.

http://newslanc.com/2011/11/13/letterfactorfictionaboutpennstatescandal/

Gotta love the "My cousin Vinny" line.

But this one leads me to believe the writer doesn't much understand emeritus status: "That is why they kept Sandusky around the campus after he was “retired”, He was the school connection to the mob."

Yeah, Sandusky got more perks than anyone anticipated, but a Polish boy from western PA as connection to the mob is kind of funny.

The RG blackmail angle, not so much. (Go ahead, Blogger Dude, and call me out for Legacy Protection.)

Thanks for the link, SS. Needed new things to read, and missed this back when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.