Over the past few days I’ve been discussing theories about what might have happened to missing former District Attorney Ray Gricar. I started out, a few months ago, laying out the known evidence. Mostly over the past ten days (okay, I did a few before), I have been seeing how each theory matches up (“meshes”) with this evidence.
Notice one thing that I did when I was laying out the evidence. I commented on it especially the witnesses but I did it on the others as well. I said that there some pieces that might be coincidental or, especially with the witnesses, might be wrong. When I tried to see how the evidence fits the theory, I didn’t weigh that evidence. I assumed, for the sake of the entry, all the evidence was correct. Even when writing about it, I didn’t make that assumption. Some evidence I said was weaker than others.
Let’s take one telling point, the Fenton sighting. I said, if accurate, this would point to walkaway and would be one of the two things pointing away from the short walk to death. What did I say about the Fenton sighting? How much weight did I give it? Much less weight that the other sightings. My Take on the Witnesses
Now let be clear. I think Ms. Fenton is honest, intelligent and observant. Honest, intelligent and observant people make mistakes. She could have confused the day or seen someone that, as the drove passed, bore a slight resemblance to Mr. Gricar and made a mistake. If that is the case, what happens to the theory?
Instead of having two pieces of evidence that refute the short walk, there is now just one, the same as for walkaway. Instead of fifteen points of evidence pointing to walkaway, that is down to fourteen. That is just one piece of information.
I’m not thrilled with the link of the disappearance to 20/20 Vision either. If that was just coincidence, walkaway loses a point in favor, and the various other scenarios lose a “coincidental point.” While some of the evidence does mesh well with a theory, it might not be evidence related to the case.
Likewise, some of the other evidence can point in two or three different directions. Mr. Gricar called about the dog to either:
A. Misdirect the police from finding the car too soon?
B. Create a reasonable excuse as to where he was in case Ms. Fornicola asked?
C. Tell her that he wouldn’t be home to walk Honey?
Not only are all three possible, but I’ve used all three in explanations.
About a week ago I said, I said that I hope you could see how the evidence fits the theories and how bloody skeptical I am about any theory. I hope I’ve demonstrated both in the last week.
I’ll repeat the odds I’ve assigned to each possibility:
Walkaway: 48% likely.
Murder: 42% likely .
Suicide: 9% likely.
Something else : 1%
In looking at all these theories, note that the two scenarios that best match up with the evidence involve Mr. Gricar leaving Lewisburg. Okay, how could he have done that? The Way Out