Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
mbrn30000

The disappearance of Ray Gricar (Part 2)

770 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

docyabut2

Unfortunately a lot of links are gone. If I recall the scent dog was around the car, parking lot, in front of the SOS. Not sure if it was a scent dog or cadaver dog that did the river banks.

April 17, 2005 - The red Mini Cooper is returned to girlfriend Patty Fornicola. Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon says that no "strangers" prints were found in the car. A small amount of cigarette ash is found on the passenger floorboard.

· April 17, 2005 - Search dogs are brought to Lewisburg (after the car has been moved) and find no trail of Gricar from where his vehicle had been parked at the Street of Shops, even though witnesses claimed to have seen him in surrounding areas there. The dogs “circled” the area where the car had been parked. Dogs did not find Gricar’s scent at the Street of Shops where witnesses claim to have seen him, nor did they find his scent at the river (where the laptop and hard drive were later located.)

he did not drive that car there

Edited by docyabut2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

I don`t see why everyone thinks of Ray`s curiosity of jeep, anyone would be curious and would want to get the heck out of its way:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

Well, I have another unesteemed thought and it goes right to my direct question to you. KA felt that your's was one of the personalities that seem to engage in the original thread using various nome de plume. That takes me to another thought. BD has just recently been described here in this thread as being "imperious," projecting feelings of "owning" the discussion and that he has intimate knowledge surrounding things that went on in the disappearance. Hmmmm ~~~ I'll even go back a ways to an earlier post where we were granted permission "go on with what you were discussing." ~~~ Hmmmm ~~~

As to what Karen didn't understand maybe she didn't understand why any one who had acquired such "personal information" about Ray Gricar, didn't have his butte sitting in the Police Dept, the FBI office or the PSP headquarters. Why they would chose to dribble it throughout a who dunnit forum on the subject proclaiming themselves headmaster of personal knowledge. Because that in itself would be absurd and would show a very immature personality. There we are right back to BD and JJ again. And here you are again, jumping in when the subject really turns to Patty.

Karen's subsequent action of spelling out what she knew and a problem that was going on to others and divesting herself from being involved make perfect sense to me. I think this forum carries a long standing burden with it and I think maybe it's gone on long enough.

You made me go look at JKA again. I never read the portion on online people. Ok now its too creepy in here. Back to other cases. good luck folks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunterer

Well, I have another unesteemed thought and it goes right to my direct question to you. KA felt that your's was one of the personalities that seem to engage in the original thread using various nome de plume. That takes me to another thought. BD has just recently been described here in this thread as being "imperious," projecting feelings of "owning" the discussion and that he has intimate knowledge surrounding things that went on in the disappearance. Hmmmm ~~~ I'll even go back a ways to an earlier post where we were granted permission "go on with what you were discussing." ~~~ Hmmmm ~~~

You know this is the second time you have referred to a question for me...and maybe I am dense, but I have yet to see an actual question. I did have to reregister on an old forum as Serendipitous1 because Saunterer was banned...go figure.
As to what Karen didn't understand maybe she didn't understand why any one who had acquired such "personal information" about Ray Gricar, didn't have his butte sitting in the Police Dept, the FBI office or the PSP headquarters. Why they would chose to dribble it throughout a who dunnit forum on the subject proclaiming themselves headmaster of personal knowledge. Because that in itself would be absurd and would show a very immature personality. There we are right back to BD and JJ again. And here you are again, jumping in when the subject really turns to Patty.
While I was forced to reregister, KA was not. Are you aware (of course you are not) of how many different usernames KA posted under on various boards? I do not recall any attempt by me to limit discussion (including in this forum), only to add my 2 cents for what it was worth. And I specifically warned people away from any notion that I had any information that could not have been uncovered by anyone...except for being present in Lewisburg to see what I saw in 2005.

BTW, I was contacted by the PSP by phone in regard to a matter tangentially related to the Gricar disappearance investigation. And apparently, according to Tony Gricar, several of us posters (back when) were "checked out" by law enforcement, as police were then reading the boards for possible clues...or whatever.

Karen's subsequent action of spelling out what she knew and a problem that was going on to others and divesting herself from being involved make perfect sense to me. I think this forum carries a long standing burden with it and I think maybe it's gone on long enough.
So, are you trying to end all discussion by canning this forum?
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunterer

You made me go look at JKA again. I never read the portion on online people. Ok now its too creepy in here. Back to other cases. good luck folks.

I know...JKA can be kinda creepy, but this is the only case that has captured my interest. Anyway, good luck with the other cases which interest you.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperSmith

Lol, geesh........all I can say at this point

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperSmith

April 17, 2005 - The red Mini Cooper is returned to girlfriend Patty Fornicola. Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon says that no "strangers" prints were found in the car. A small amount of cigarette ash is found on the passenger floorboard.

· April 17, 2005 - Search dogs are brought to Lewisburg (after the car has been moved) and find no trail of Gricar from where his vehicle had been parked at the Street of Shops, even though witnesses claimed to have seen him in surrounding areas there. The dogs “circled” the area where the car had been parked. Dogs did not find Gricar’s scent at the Street of Shops where witnesses claim to have seen him, nor did they find his scent at the river (where the laptop and hard drive were later located.)

he did not drive that car there

Thank you Docy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperSmith

Well, I have another unesteemed thought and it goes right to my direct question to you. KA felt that your's was one of the personalities that seem to engage in the original thread using various nome de plume. That takes me to another thought. BD has just recently been described here in this thread as being "imperious," projecting feelings of "owning" the discussion and that he has intimate knowledge surrounding things that went on in the disappearance. Hmmmm ~~~ I'll even go back a ways to an earlier post where we were granted permission "go on with what you were discussing." ~~~ Hmmmm ~~~

As to what Karen didn't understand maybe she didn't understand why any one who had acquired such "personal information" about Ray Gricar, didn't have his butte sitting in the Police Dept, the FBI office or the PSP headquarters. Why they would chose to dribble it throughout a who dunnit forum on the subject proclaiming themselves headmaster of personal knowledge. Because that in itself would be absurd and would show a very immature personality. There we are right back to BD and JJ again. And here you are again, jumping in when the subject really turns to Patty.

Karen's subsequent action of spelling out what she knew and a problem that was going on to others and divesting herself from being involved make perfect sense to me. I think this forum carries a long standing burden with it and I think maybe it's gone on long enough.

Vin, just spitballing here but if you've posted with JKA you'd find that she is at many times arrogant as she is intelligent. She often viewed others posts and theories as garbage compared to her own and she wasn't polite about it.

That said, her close proximity to ground zero is important to me as she at times does share critical info that you can't find anywhere else. Much like the conversations I've had with BB and his theories. I don't agree with some of his conclusions but his tidbits are priceless.

With regards to Patty the police interviewed her, she passed a poly, Gricars own family never considered her a suspect, and she really had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by Rays disappearance. For these reasons I have put her way back on the burner. I haven't totally excluded her from the list of suspects but I play the percentages when there is not enough available info to rule someone out. IMO, she has a low percent of being able to pul off this crime. Not everyone believes this here and in fact Mrs. PC probably has Patty at the top of her list and that is fine. We all are trying to piece a puzzle together with very few pieces.

The attitudes and resentments need to be checked at the door by everyone and focus on the case.

I find EVERYONES input imperative to this case.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrsPC

I always have had Patty at the top of the list & still do... for lots of reasons - too numerous to mention again & I probably couldn't even recall them all now since so many years have passed & I'm older than dirt! LOL

I maintain that the reported content of the 11:30ish phone call Gricar supposedly made to the courthouse is still poppy c***. And if you can't trust/believe in the veracity of that phone call then everything PF said becomes totally questionable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cutter99

Can someone please post a link for the JKA information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caramina

As I understand it, he's a member of/"expert" in parliamentary rules of order (like Roberts Rules of Order?) used in governing how groups and organizations operate. I never researched it, frankly, because it sounded deadly boring to me and my entire professional life, the thing I have detested the most is meetings, which I take it parliamentary procedure is supposed to govern. (I always found someone could have handed me five lines on half a sheet of paper and saved me several hours.) Just my opinion, of course.

Thanks for explaining it. I hated meetings too, very little ever got done, as the boss already had his mind made up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caramina

Ha! For Caramina:

Ah, very apropo, and it's not

Edited by Caramina
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caramina

Wow....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saunterer

Ah, very apropo, and it's not

The Temptations......Suuuweeeeeeet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vincennes

You made me go look at JKA again. I never read the portion on online people. Ok now its too creepy in here. Back to other cases. good luck folks.

Ditto .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

Sorry about your friend.

There is no rulebook and I think many missing people killed themselves. I think if he did it, he did not want anyone to find his body, and certainly would leave no note. I think if he did kill himself, he would have been thinking it was best for everyone. I am not sure why he did, but suicide is not often a rational decision. If you think about it, he was old and male, two risk factors. His life was in a state of change. He was retiring from 20 years of being a very high ranking man in his town. Why did he retire? Was he being threatened? Did he have some dark secret ready to come out during a re-election? Did he see his daughter living out west, a younger gf who might not really love him as signs he was not needed by either of them? again, not that his thoughts were reality or rational. nothing to look forward too? Who knows? Maybe he thought mystery was better than leaving a dramatic suicide. Idk.

While there are stats showing that males, white males in particular, have an increased risk of suicide in retirement, Ray Gricar definitely didn't fit the profile of this group.

The increased suicide risk of that demographic is associated with enforced retirement (by age or poor health) among those whose entire identity defined by their work.

In contrast, Ray always maintained that he himself had planned to retire at sixty. As I've noted only recently, he announced these plans publicly in 2004, saying 1. he did not intend to practice any type of law in private practice after leaving office and 2. he was looking forward to a life without alarm clocks. He wanted time to enjoy doing things without pressure. He wanted to travel, and he had specific plans already mapped out on an atlas in his desk drawer. Others had seen Ray and Patty at the Gamble Mill toasting to the upcoming retirement and counting down the days. This was not a man depressed about his upcoming retirement but wholly in charge of it and looking forward to it. I've known people just like this, who walked away from important positions by their own choice at age 60 when they'd accrued enough vested years to retire, and they've never looked back.

Part of Ray's travel plans included visiting with Lara, a daughter he remained extremely close to despite her west coast location. At 27, she and her father still talked on the phone at least three times a week. He was looking forward to her upcoming marriage and, no doubt, eventually to the role of grandpa. His disappearance--not a weakening relationship--robbed him of these things.

And at 59, Ray was hardly "old."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

I always wondered if "I won't be back in time to take the dog out" was some sort of code.

Not to reveal too much, but my wife and I once did some, umm, "informing" for the feds for a short time. If the s hit were ever to hit the fan, we had a method of communicating. In the scenario either of us had been kidnapped, we were to subtly convince the kidnappers to let us call the other or my parents, since they expect a call daily and would assume something was wrong if we didn't call. The code was to ask about a fake nephew or niece. "How's (so and so) doing? Heard he/she wasn't feeling to well. Maybe she misses her uncle/aunt!". At that point, either of us and/or my parents knew to contact our Fed guy, and based on the fake name, we would know which direction the distressed was heading.

Just thinking out loud.

My mind might go there if Honey hadn't been in renal failure. In this case, I tend to think a cigar is just a cigar. JMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

First of all, to talk about us like children is disparaging, and I will leave it at that.

I fail to see how my posts ENCOURAGING you, Vin, and anyone else to discuss Patty as a suspect because you're fresh eyes who may see new things are in an way disparaging. You are reading things that simply aren't there, mbrn. I've done nothing but encourage your discussion and try to answer questions/offer correct information about things like the distance from the courthouse to the park, etc.

If you feel disparaged, that's on you, not on me.

And you do care about this case way too much to be objective.

Absolutely not true. I think those who have known me longest as a poster on this case will attest that few posters have approached the evidence in a more scientific, objective way--you just weren't around through all the years I was posting case study after case study. I think they'll also attest that I'm an absolute stickler for accuracy. I'm not a fan of wild speculation spun from partial information, and there's a heck of a lot of that happening here lately, most of which I've not commented on, but it's disturbing because from half-truths and inaccuracies, people can create any narrative they wish.

I prefer to work from actual evidence and actual evidence only.

I've been listening to a series of podcasts on the Manson murders, and listened to the final one the other night, which dealt with the months following the murders. Although police already had one person in custody for a Manson linked murder and although Charlie had instructed followers to leave clues in blood at the Tate-LaBianca sites to make people think the murders had been committed as part of his "race war" concept, it took LE months to finally see Tate and LaBianca as committed by the same people and to focus on Manson and his family.

Now here's my point: I was listening to the section where the podcast described the wild rumors and speculation that spread through the Hollywood Hills before the arrests and thinking how people take small pieces of information--and misinformation--and weave it into a narrative explanation.

The only way to solve this case or any other is to deal objectively and accurately with the facts and evidence. That has always been my position and remains my position, which is why I find observations like "Ray was a sad old man" utterly detrimental to solving this case. Objective evidence simply does not support either of those characterizations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

First of all, when a lover kills another, it is not always planned. there are plenty of examples of lovers who kill lovers and they get up and pretend all is well. "she went shopping and never came home" is all too familiar. So I am back to suicide, but I never said PF would have meant to do it. It could have been passion, and now a body to get rid of. And it doesn't mean money was the cause. as I said, suicide is more viable, but if she did it, someone might have helped get ride of the body and evidence. Think she killed him for a big payday is a bit small thinking. It would have been for love and jealously by one party to another....but lets get back to suicide.

I've watched all those Dateline episodes, too. But it's 99/100 times a big, strong husband/boyfriend killing the wife/girlfriend. I don't think I've seen a case where the woman took out the guy in a heat of passion scenario unless a good weapon like a gun or a butcher knife was lying right within reach. Those methods are pretty bloody, Gricar didn't own a gun, and I just have trouble seeing how 5'2" PF takes out 6'0" fit Ray--unless you want to argue she planned ahead and poisoned him or planned ahead and got help to kill him.,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

I cannot find any description of where the dogs searched other than around the car. Supposedly, they tracked his scent about 20 ft from the car, and it stopped as if he got into another vehicle. Some stories said they could not find his scent along the river, but never tell us where if any where they searched along the river. I have searched for this info and cannot find it anywhere. So if you have it link it. I have a lot of faith in dogs, but they are not perfect, but I would like to know where they were sent.

The dogs identified Ray's scent in the SOS lot but as Chief Dixon pointed out at the time, the picked up no trail, an important distinction I have noted before. Scent rafts travel on air currents. Twenty yards is nothing out of the ordinary as scent rafts from a human target can travel more than a quarter mile and still be detectable.

However, Ray's scent was not identified **anywhere** outside of the parking lot boundaries.

Read the Harvey &Harvey study for the accuracy rate of experienced Bloodhounds on contaminated urban trails at 48 hours (much more difficult trail conditions than existed in Lewisburg). Read the 2004 FBI Forensic Scent Unit study on durability of scent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

Good thing because criticizing would be ridiculous when with all of you esteemed knowledge, you never quite reached a finding did you ?

I'll ask straight up here you are one of the ones KA suspected as being right there to change a subject with irrefutable knowledge and personal insight anytime Patty's name comes up. Hummmmm You still seem to have the same penchant for recordings.

Keep in mind that KA has suspected just about everyone but the Pope. Maybe the Pope and I missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2-B

Other than a consistent (unesteemed) belief that Ray Gricar met with foul play, you are correct...I have never reached a finding (that being law enforcement's task).

Karen Arnold never understood how some totally detached person could acquire personal information about Ray Gricar...or why they would use that information, not to change discussion but to challenge her arguments. As I posted earlier, it was an extraordinary time for ordinary people to be involved in the discussion...with her and others.

It was...and I'm not sure whether newcomers can ten years out appreciate what it was like to live the case from the day we first heard the DA was missing--from the time we didn't even know where the car was, or that the laptop was missing, or that there had been computer searches; to live through each alleged "sighting" as each one was news; to learn about the LMW and the TMW a year in; and so on. Seeing the case as a whole is different from experiencing it live, reading all the now scrubbed articles at the time, following the local and national TV coverage until the Runaway Bride and Natalee Holloway knocked Ray's case out of the spotlight.

And there's really no way to explain the extraordinary nature of those early days with ParlorElephant and Billy Wahoo and LogicWorks and all the others. Thousands upon thousands of posts containing insight into this case have been lost--a sad loss for any newcomer who really wants a foundation on which to build an understanding.

I lack the energy to repeat in any detail much of what I learned and shared in those days. I want to keep Ray's case alive, but I mostly await new information to chew on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.