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

[J. J. in Phila]

I have no idea what you are talking about. RG did not work for Penn State. And we agree that the university has a culture of secrecy and appears to have covered up major crimes. I was asking for posters on this board to weigh in on the chances that the case, as it stood in 1998, could have been successfully prosecuted, given the stature and influence of the accused, as well as the lack of physical evidence of child abuse.

Yet it was his decision, solely. When the University Police took it to the DA's Office, any cocoon of Penn State was not longer there.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

From the NY Times article:

The Clinton County teenager — Victim 1, as he would become known in the grand jury report made public this month — alleged that he first met Sandusky through the Second Mile when he was 11 or 12. Sandusky had indecently fondled him and performed oral sex on him, the boy said.
But prosecutors, lacking physical evidence of an assault, worried about the fortunes of a case that might end up with little more than competing claims — by the boy and by Sandusky.
“You can charge it, but getting a conviction is going to be difficult,” said one person with direct knowledge of the deliberations among prosecutors. “And getting a conviction in State College against someone of Jerry Sandusky’s stature is going to be 10 times more difficult.”

Here is one person, speaking "with direct knowledge of the deliberations among prosecutors" in the CURRENT case, brought in 2011, with the full support of the state police and the Corbett-free AG office. And these people HAD the 1998 file, as well. I think that says it all, really.

“And getting a conviction in State College against someone of Jerry Sandusky’s stature is going to be 10 times more difficult.”

No one questions the need to stop people like Sandusky, but prosecutors have to worry about getting a conviction. And these people think that even now it will be hard to convict Sandusky--or they wouldn't be looking for a change of venue. And RG's 1998 situation was even worse--he didn't have a victim claiming actual assault.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This is an absurd statement. Read the Grand Jury reports. The current case has 10 victims that we know of. Many of their allegations overlap. The 2000 incident observed by the janitor has come to light, supported by statements from his supervisor. The 2002 case has AN EYEWITNESS TO ACTUAL RAPE as well as corroborating testimony from others, including Paterno, that support the fact that the eyewitness told others in positions of responsibility. They have adults at the high school where Victim 1 was a student, on record as SEEING Sandusky lying on a map with a child.

Neither of which are relevant to what RFG did in 1998. Neither of which were corroborated by a victim or other witness.

You have two prosecutorial problems with a single eyewitness:

1. Is he accurate about the act he witnessed?

2. Will he be believed, beyond a reasonable doubt?

If the answer is no to both, you lose the case. You have less of a problem with two victims. You have substantially less of a problem with three people witnessing the defendant's admission to the act.

You insist on calling the police officers running the sting as "eyewitnesses." First, they didn't see child rape or hear it as McQueary did. They heard Sandusky say things that suggest a "guilty conscience" of some kind, but he also claimed to have done nothing more than shower, hug, and make incidental contact.

Admitting to an act in front of witnesses and having two victims too the same act is stronger, obviously. With less, Kelley proceeded.

I am sure everyone in law enforcement involved in the 1998 case, even tangentially, would love to go back and change what happened, now that the cover-up has failed and the whole world can see what Sandusky was and has been. Don't we all wish that someone had stopped him in 1998? Or 2000? Or 2002? 2008? But tell me: who in this God-awful chain of events knew the least about Sandusky? The guy who punted the case to the state (where Corbett buried it for YEARS) was related to him and didn't prosecute. Any "colossal failure of judgment" for those two?

Madeira acted correctly. He had a legitimate conflict of interest and he, under the law, turned the case over to the AG. That was very good judgment.

The AG's Office was slow, but they also were focusing on Victim 1, because that was the only case they initially had. It is one of the stronger charges. They didn't know about 1998, but Schreffler's report set them off.

It is quite interesting on how you wish to focus on what everyone else did, and that RFG (presumably) had no idea about and not focus on the incident he knew about, and didn't prosecute. I think that if you want to talk about these others, you should go over to the Sandusky thread. All the charges are discussed and I participate there.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From the NY Times article:



Here is one person, speaking "with direct knowledge of the deliberations among prosecutors" in the CURRENT case, brought in 2011, with the full support of the state police and the Corbett-free AG office. And these people HAD the 1998 file, as well. I think that says it all, really.

I think looking at the same NYT article, the report was not discovered until 2010-11:

With the discovery of the 1998 report, the investigation took on a greater sense of urgency, those involved in the case said. Investigators now had evidence that Sandusky might have molested at least two boys.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/s...sandusky-investigators.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

(And thank God for Schreffler!)

The basically had a weak case in regard to the 2007 incident. The was circumstantial evidence but they only had the victim as a direct witness. In 1998, they had Sandusky's admission to conduct. It was only a question if the 3 witnesses to that admission and the 2 victims would be believed and if the act was criminal.

No one questions the need to stop people like Sandusky, but prosecutors have to worry about getting a conviction.

In PA, they also have the power to investigate, by calling a grand jury. Did RFG? Not that we know of.

And RG's 1998 situation was even worse--he didn't have a victim claiming actual assault.

Yes they did. The act Sandusky admitted to was assault, Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Years of Age, just not rape. That isn't the felony charge. Those are Unlawful Contact with Minor.

 

[Bellaneph]

This back and forth bickering between forum members is getting old; like this story. I just watched a back episode of "Person of Interest" where a judge threw the case, but did so in a way he didn't look like he was throwing it. Ray could have not prosecuted Sandusky back in 1998 out of wrong intent and most likely no one will ever know whether he did it on purpose or not. You guys never gonna get anywhere with the back and forth.

So Ray, how bout you go and do something new for us to talk about? Obviously we need some new information around here to discuss!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This back and forth bickering between forum members is getting old; like this story. I just watched a back episode of "Person of Interest" where a judge threw the case, but did so in a way he didn't look like he was throwing it. Ray could have not prosecuted Sandusky back in 1998 out of wrong intent and most likely no one will ever know whether he did it on purpose or not. You guys never gonna get anywhere with the back and forth.

So Ray, how bout you go and do something new for us to talk about? Obviously we need some new information around here to talk about!

I don't know. In all the back and forth, there was something new.

In the preliminary, Farrell, the prosecutor, asked Harmon, the retired head of the University Police if he ever talked about the 1998 incident with Arnold.

Arnold, around that time, was the child abuse person in the office. Normally, the case would go to her; she'd been there about 11-12 years at the time. RFG didn't give it to her.

Schreffler obviously knows who he talked to, and everyone at the office indicates that RFG handled the case. Arnold says she had minimal involvement in the case (and I believe her), with "a brief pre-Ray Gricar involvement with the ’98 situation." Harmon backs her up. It doesn't seem like an issue.

Yet, Farrell asks Harmon specifically if he ever talked to Arnold, in the preliminary for Schultz and Curley. It's a strange question in that circumstance, but the strangeness is that Farrell is asking it.

I get the feeling I'm missing something. It's like Farrell is laying the foundation for something, but what?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Bringing charges 10 years ago, which was quite possible, is also an option. Remember, he could file charges all the way through 2005.

If RFG did handle it all by himself, without consulting, contrary to standard practice, that could indicate that he backed off the case for political reasons. That is the implication of your comment.

The problem is, after 2001, there are no political reasons. He wasn't planning to run for re-election; he wasn't even planning to practice law. Sandusky, while still seen as a pillar of the community, was not Paterno's heir apparent after 1999.

So? Where is the evidence that RG stopped prosecuting cases when he decided not to run fornelection? Or that it would only be worth prosecuting Sandusky if he was still with PSU? And let's think about "after 2001": once he had decided not to prosecute in 1998, the only thing that would hve led RG to go after .sanduskynwould have been new information--which a number of people had but covered up.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So? Where is the evidence that RG stopped prosecuting cases when he decided not to run fornelection? Or that it would only be worth prosecuting Sandusky if he was still with PSU? And let's think about "after 2001": once he had decided not to prosecute in 1998, the only thing that would hve led RG to go after .sanduskynwould have been new information--which a number of people had but covered up.

Well, you have it both backwards and wrong.

Sandusky could have been charged in relation to 1998 at any point during the remainder of RFG's tenure. The 1998 charges today are based totally on what LE had in the summer of 1998; they actually have less today than in 1998, because one of the victims is out of the country. That is the part you have wrong.

Now, though I question this as the motive, let's say that the reason RFG didn't prosecute Sandusky was that he didn't want to go after a popular figure tied to Penn State football, which you have suggested.

1997- RFG is re-elected in an unopposed primary and general election.

1998- Sandusky is the assistant coach and heir apparent to Joe Paterno. Paterno is in his early 70's and around the age when folks retire.

The 1998 incident happens. I could see RFG looking at the situation and thinking:

Sandusky is well respected, popular, and part of the football program. He's going to be coach after Paterno. If I prosecute him, everyone is going to blame me for destroying Penn State football, even if this is a strong case and even if I win. All those football fans won't vote for me, and I'll lose the next election.

1999 - Paterno promotes his son, Jay, to an assistant position. There is another heir apparent, a biological one. He also tells Sandusky that he, Paterno, isn't retiring and that Sandusky won't be coach. Sandusky leaves.

If RFG is thinking politically, he looks and says:

If I prosecute Sandusky, I won't be accused of destroying Penn State football. Paterno didn't know about the incident and it was reported properly.

Sandusky is still well respected and popular, and he has a lot of friends. I'm up for re-election in 2001 and they will all come out and vote against me and I'll lose the next election.

2001 - RFG runs for re-election. He has a contested primary, which he wins, but it is roughly 55% -45%, not particularly good for a 4 term incumbent Republican. He's unopposed in the general.

According to RFG, his "plan" at this point was not to run for reelection; he wasn't going to continue practicing law either.

Sandusky, while still involved in Second Mile, is not involved directly in Penn State football (though he does some things). If he had been hit by a bus, it would not have affected the football program.

RFG can look at the situation and think:

Sandusky is still well liked and respected, but with a far lower public stature than in 1998. He has friends who won't vote for me, but I'm not running, so it doesn't make any difference. Maybe they won't hire me as an attorney, but I'm not going to practice law.

There is no political motive for him to give Sandusky a pass after 2001.

This assumes that RFG was making a political decision, and he was not known to make political decisions.

That is what you have backwards. By not running for re-election it should eliminate an argument (a political one) against prosecuting.

 

[BigCat]

Personally, I enjoy the back and forth between pittsburghgirl and JJ. I find it very informative.

Sandusky is still well respected and popular, and he has a lot of friends. I'm up for re-election in 2001 and they will all come out and vote against me and I'll lose the next election.[/i]

2001 - RFG runs for re-election. He has a contested primary, which he wins, but it is roughly 55% -45%, not particularly good for a 4 term incumbent Republican. He's unopposed in the general.

From reading Penn State football message boards and the comment sections in central PA newspapers, I get the impression Tom Corbett is done politically. Penn State fans blame him for....I don't even know what. All I know is that a considerable number of them simply HATE the man. I have to believe RG would have been on the receiving end of a lot of irrational anger in 2001 if he had brought charges against Sandusky in 98.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Personally, I enjoy the back and forth between pittsburghgirl and JJ. I find it very informative.



From reading Penn State football message boards and the comment sections in central PA newspapers, I get the impression Tom Corbett is done politically. Penn State fans blame him for....I don't even know what. All I know is that a considerable number of them simply HATE the man. I have to believe RG would have been on the receiving end of a lot of irrational anger in 2001 if he had brought charges against Sandusky in 98.

Not even close to being done (and I get read alumni boards as well). The Paterno issue won't last to 2014. Fracking is the longer term issue and that won't kill him. Further, the Democrats really don't have anyone, except Casey in the Senate.

RFG had basically from 2001 to 2005 to file charges against Sandusky, after his last election. Even if there was anger, he wasn't planning to run for reelection. Further, after 1999, Sandusky wasn't part of the football program, and clearly, Paterno was not involved in the 1998 incident.

 

[BigCat]

Not even close to being done (and I get read alumni boards as well). The Paterno issue won't last to 2014. Fracking is the longer term issue and that won't kill him. Further, the Democrats really don't have anyone, except Casey in the Senate.

Well, you are certainly are more familiar with Pennsylvania politics than I am.

BTW, why, in your opinion, did a Republican run against RG in the 2001 primary? And why did he or she get such a large percentage of the vote?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, you are certainly are more familiar with Pennsylvania politics than I am.

BTW, why, in your opinion, did a Republican run against RG in the 2001 primary? And why did he or she get such a large percentage of the vote?

Rob Bascom, a defense attorney. He got about 45% of the vote in 2001; he ran for the open seat in 2005 (RFG was not seeking reelection) and lost to MTM about 33% to 76%. (There were write-ins and abstentions (undervotes) in both cases.)

2001:

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/election...me=2001_municipal_primary_accumulated_results

2005:

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/election...me=2005_municipal_primary_accumulated_results

There was some negative comments on him over the years: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/07/14/2396563/not-everybody-loves-raymond.html

I don't know why Bascom ran either time, except he thought he'd be a good DA.

I would, however, note that the 2001 primary was held in conjunction with a special election for Congress in the 7th District, that included the western half of Centre County (at the time). It is a very conservative area (and the area where MTM showed most of his strength in 2009). Bud Shuster (R) had resigned and his son Bill was elected, overall by 52% to 48%. The process of choosing the nominee of the GOP was done by delegates and was quite contentious. (There was a lawsuit at one point in which, in a strange parallel, the entire Blair County bench also recused itself.)


Note that in PA, there are closed primaries; only members of the party may vote and only members of the party (with a few exceptions) may appear on the primary ballot. For the special election any voter may vote in just that race, but a Republican voter could have shown up voted in the special election and also voted in the primary. That probably boosted turnout.

RFG was not universally loved in the early 2000's.

 

[quixote]

A bit here that relates to Mr. Gricar:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/attorney_prosecutors_left_out.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A bit here that relates to Mr. Gricar:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/attorney_prosecutors_left_out.html

From that article:

Details of an interview with former assistant district attorney Karen Arnold, in which Amendola says she had "extensive disagreements" with Gricar over the handling of the 1998 investigation into Sandusky.

:what:

Two days ago, I wrote about Farrell's question to Harmon.

Three days ago I wrote:

The Sandusky scandal is a true horror story for all concerned, the alleged victims certainly, but for all those involved, even tangentially. It is the new shocking and disgusting genre, this Central Pennsylvania Gothic, and it is no work of fiction. I have a sickening feeling the last chapter has not yet been written.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/04/3078101/central-pennsylvania-gothic.html

I hope that Amendola is blowing smoke out his sphincter. If he isn't, I don't think Arnold was planning to throw Sandusky a ticker-tape parade.

 

[BigCat]

Below are some interesting comments from Ms Arnold.

In 1998, I asked Mr. Gricar to be permitted to concentrate on the prosecution of child-abuse cases, in part because of the complex issues they presented and the amount of time which was required to prepare them. He agreed, with the proviso that I also handle elder-abuse/exploitation cases and all types of cases involving juvenile offenders. This remained my assignment for the next eight years, until I was discharged, and I believe that the expertise which I gained during that time is the factor which most clearly sets my candidacy apart from both the other Democratic primary contenders and current DA, Michael Madeira. Many changes and improvements were made in the approach to prosecuting child abuse during this period. I invite you to read about them and about my concerns in the "For the Children" link.

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=213309

I can't find the "For the Children" website. I'm curious what improvements she suggests need to be made in the DA's approach to prosecuting child abuse cases.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Below are some interesting comments from Ms Arnold.



I can't find the "For the Children" website. I'm curious what improvements she suggests need to be made in the DA's approach to prosecuting child abuse cases.

Here: http://arnoldforda.org/6.html

My error for not finding her website directly; that other was a mirror site.

I would also note that JKA might not have been handling all the abuse cases at that point in 1998.

The thing is the prosecutor, Farrell, asked Harmon if he had any contact with JKA in the preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Amendola is not blowing smoke.

Page 32 of PSP Incident No. G07-1146135 describes an
interview with Karen Arnold, a former Assistant District Attorney of Centre County,
wherein she and former District Attorney Ray Gricar had extensive disagreements over
a 1998 police investigation regarding the Defendant. The incident report author fails to
identify the victim/investigating agency or with a full copy of this unknown police
investigation.

And

It is further requested that any and all documents from the
Centre County District Attorney's Office be provided in like manner (no redactions) as well as a copy of the communications from the then District Attorney Gricar as to his decision not to prosecute the Defendant and to effectively close the case and UCR validation.

There was further reporting prepared on this incident that a
psychological evaluation was conducted and a report prepared by John P. Seasock, a
psychologist, of an unknown individual. The Attorney General's response to
Defendant's discovery request failed to provide this psychological evaluation report
prepared by Dr. Seasock and to identify the patient. The Defendant is asking the Court
to enter an Order directing the Commonwealth to provide Defendant's counsel with full,
complete, and non-redacted copies of these materials pursuant to his request
contained in Defendant's First Request for Pre-Trial Discovery material along with all
supplemental reports related thereto.

http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusk...ion_2-6-12.pdf

I might see what Amendola and Farrell are doing, but I don't see why.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I might see what Amendola and Farrell are doing, but I don't see why.

No, I don't.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

J.J.

Have your percentages changed (murder, suicide, walkaway) since reading this new info? Thanks.

wm

 

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J.

Have your percentages changed (murder, suicide, walkaway) since reading this new info? Thanks.

wm

I posted it about 25 days ago:

Voluntary Departure (Walkaway): 51% likely. (-1)

Victim of Foul Play (Primarily Murder): 44% likely. (+1)

Suicide: 4% likely.

Something else: 1% likely.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/13/3051899/the-odds-january-2012.html#storylink=cpy

Walkaway went down a bit because the 4/18/05 Wiles-Barre sighting was ruled out.

We don't know that the Sandusky case had any role in the disappearance.

The odd for the scenario "A Meeting for Murder" is a bit more likely, though not necessarily related to anything at Penn State.

http://www.centredaily.com/2009/04/21/2396785/murder-i-a-meeting-for-murder.html