PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #6

[J. J. in Phila]

And, if the only new or additional info Gricar had was on his computer, then thr investigating detectives never had the benefit of that data since the hard drive was removed.(I think, IIRC, that it was later found, but was of no use).

The drive was found, but RFG did not have that computer until well after 1998.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

It seems clear from news articles that the mother of the shower victim wanted charges to go forward, but it isn't clear whether the other boy (BK) and his parent(s) were willing to do that. There are really only a few reasons not to proceed with charges in a case like this one: A prosecutor decides there is insufficient evidence to bring charges (which may include reluctant witnesses); there is evidence but not enough to prevail against a big-bucks defense team, who might conjure up all sorts of unsavory tactics to save a guy like Sandusky; the prosecutor knows there was a crime but is pressured politically to decline to
prosecute, perhaps with assurances that "it won't happen again"; the prosecutor has doubts about the charges themselves; or the fix is in. There may be other possibilities, but these are the ones that come to mind for me.

What bugs me is that Sandusky kept the charity going after the 1998 investigation; I'd be totally shocked if there weren't earlier victims (1980s and early 90s) and more in the 1998-2008 window. An investigation into Second Mile might have stopped Sandusky in 1998. But of course we are looking with 20-20 hindsight and as yet no real information about how RG made his decision.

We have debated endlessly about motives for walkaway and suicide, but certainly one of the major reasons for murder--especially of a prosecutor--is to cover up a crime. And if We were looking for a sensational crime that someone could have tipped RG to in the days before the disappearance, and that would have led him to be upset, this would fit that description. It would not even have had to be planned--just someone meeting with RG and he wouldn't play ball or an argument started....

 

[pittsburghgirl]

The drive was found, but RFG did not have that computer until well after 1998.

We don't know what RG had on that computer. Certainly, most people put old files on new computers all the time. He could also have had new files pertaining to new information on this or some other case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It seems clear from news articles that the mother of the shower victim wanted charges to go forward, but it isn't clear whether the other boy (BK) and his parent(s) were willing to do that. There are really only a few reasons not to proceed with charges in a case like this one: A prosecutor decides there is insufficient evidence to bring charges (which may include reluctant witnesses); there is evidence but not enough to prevail against a big-bucks defense team, who might conjure up all sorts of unsavory tactics to save a guy like Sandusky; the prosecutor knows there was a crime but is pressured politically to decline to
prosecute, perhaps with assurances that "it won't happen again"; the prosecutor has doubts about the charges themselves; or the fix is in. There may be other possibilities, but these are the ones that come to mind for me.

You can subpena them and it won't be a question of being "willing to." LE knew about it already.

There was at least the same evidence in 1998 as there was today; with B. K., there might have been more than they have today.

What bugs me is that Sandusky kept the charity going after the 1998 investigation; I'd be totally shocked if there weren't earlier victims (1980s and early 90s) and more in the 1998-2008 window. An investigation into Second Mile might have stopped Sandusky in 1998. But of course we are looking with 20-20 hindsight and as yet no real information about how RG made his decision.

There were earlier instances, well at least one, but it was not reported.

We have debated endlessly about motives for walkaway and suicide, but certainly one of the major reasons for murder--especially of a prosecutor--is to cover up a crime. And if We were looking for a sensational crime that someone could have tipped RG to in the days before the disappearance, and that would have led him to be upset, this would fit that description. It would not even have had to be planned--just someone meeting with RG and he wouldn't play ball or an argument started....

Well, you were the one who wanted to debate those reasons, until a few days ago.

We can rule a out, or at least mostly out.

1. RFG was murdered to hide a crime. In this case, he was one of six people to know about the incident, at least. The other five are still around. In just about any case he handled, the situation would be the same.

2. RFG was murdered to prevent a prosecution. Well, in this case, after seven years, it was unlikely he would prosecute. As seen in this case, that wouldn't prevent prosecution.

Now, I pointed this out a long time ago, and prosecutor is in a position to blackmail someone. http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/19/2531734/blackmail.html#storylink=misearch He could find out something bad about the person or even decline to prosecute in return for remuneration.

There are some problems with that:

1. Eventually, the prosecutor will leave office. He'll lose an election or primary, die or vanish. The next guy could prosecute. That's not a good motive for paying not to be prosecuted.

2. The prosecutor, if caught, will go to jail.

3. The person being blackmailed might kill the prosecutor.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We don't know what RG had on that computer. Certainly, most people put old files on new computers all the time. He could also have had new files pertaining to new information on this or some other case.

And, by the same token, he could have copied them to a CD, flash drive, or another computer, or could have printed the information; my guess is, after seven years, he would have. RFG, supposedly, didn't use that computer and did want the data on it removed.

 

[cloudbuster05]

JJ ,Ray could have back in 1998 been threatened with his EX wife (BG mother to Lara) of her losing her job at Penn State. That would be a motive for Ray not to Prosecute. Also wasn't Cgricar (nephew) in that college?

Ray is not here to defend himself. We do know the Attorney General was sworn in as of Jan of 2005 and at that time RG wanted his laptop erased. We know MM turned this over to the Attorney General right when he got in. Why? Many questions.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

cloudbuster, you raise a key question. Why did MM turn the case over to the state? using hinsight, once again, we can see that it was a smart move; it took 3 years to bring the case to a set of indictments. It also made it easier to get the court case out of Centre County.

JJ, in sexual assault cases involving children, prosecutors generally do not force testimony with subpeona power. If I recall correctly, BK was not named as a victim in the grand jury report; he was identified by initial. The current case includes credible eyewitnesses who were adults, the most powerful of whom is allegedly involved in the PSU football program as well as PSU officials who were told of the incident. The 1998 incident involved showering, nudity, and touching; the 3-year investigation involved oral sex, anal sex, etc. There are phone records. There is the 1998 allegation that establishes a pattern of conduct. The case is being investigated by the state, at a time when many think the real power in central PA, Joe Paterno, should resign
for football reasons, which changes the political landscape, as does the indications that PSU officials perjured themselves. it is also worth remembering that the victims (even the 2002 victim) are older now and have had time to mature and fully understand both what happened to
them and the danger of letting it go unpunished. They are in a position both to choose for
themselves now and to put events in powerful context. So this case, as it stands, is much more
powerful than a case that could have been made in 1998. We do know there was an attempt to
get Sandusky to "say something" in front of the mother back in 1998, so it's not like RG ignored
the case or swept it under the rug.

Let me be clear that the way child molestation cases have been handled historically stinks to high heaven. On the one hand, there are those cases that turned into witch hunts, like the day care
case in California, in which prosecutors and their investigators went cuckoo and ruined peoples' lives, and then there is the terrible scandal of the Catholic Church covering up decades of abuse (and we still haven't seen justice in most of those cases.) Finally, there are parents who have wielded unfounded sex abuse allegations as weapons in alimony and custody cases or taken
settlements to drop cases against molesters, thereby creating an environment in which clever defense attorneys can cry "blackmail" if their clients are brought to trial (e.g., Michael Jackson). So a case involving the defensive creator of the "Linebacker U" brand would always need to be be
"winnable." Remember, too, there is no statute of limitations involved, so prosecution is always on
the table, but the prosecutor only gets one bite of the apple. If the accused is found "not guilty," those cases are over forever.

So I think it is likely, given the fact that there was an attempt at getting Sandusky to "confess" to the mother that the people involved, including RG, were trying to get more to take to court or force a plea. RG might have thought a plea was the best route, and would have put the community on warning. Sandusky did leave his coaching position, and the fact that we are discussing the 1998 case indicates that RG wasn't just "covering up" Sandusky's mess. Think of how many murder cases there are in which LE pretty much knows who did it but can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. How many PSU officials and Penn State fans would have wanted
to see Sandusky convicted in 1999 or would have believed the accuser? And we don't know who might have lied to investigators and RG to cover up this mess in 1998.

Seriously, who would have wanted to take on Joe Paterno's bright, shining, honorable team and its reputation in 1998 without a mountain of evidence?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ ,Ray could have back in 1998 been threatened with his EX wife (BG mother to Lara) of her losing her job at Penn State. That would be a motive for Ray not to Prosecute. Also wasn't Cgricar (nephew) in that college?

A Penn State connection never stopped RFG from prosecuting others. The nephew had graduated by that point and BG had tenure.

Let's face it, a sizable portion of Centre County has a tie to Penn State. I have a tie to PSU; I went there and am in the alumni association. If RFG couldn't prosecute people with that connection, he really could not have done his job.

 

[rlc]

I think you can be talking about a motivation to walk away or a motivation for someone to murder RFG. Right not, it is just speculation, but not filing charges was hugely uncharacteristic of RFG, even in the late 1990's.

Especially for a case involving the sexual abuse of young children. I simply cannot believe that he made that choice without some type of coercion, and whether he walked away or was murdered, I feel certain his disappearance is related to this case.

 

[FLmom777]

When I read of the case of RFG missing and the timeline of this atrocious case, my first thought was a suicide. I don't know the condition of the Susquehana River in that locale, but it runs pretty fast in areas I have seen it. He may have felt extreme guilt over not charging Sandusky back in 1998 and now sees that the suspect had continued his acts unabated. Perhaps he did not find enough in the first investigation to warrant charges. Perhaps he was convinced these were false charges. Now move ahead several years and he is confronted with evidence of the same thing. A man with morals would be wracked with guilt over this scenario.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First of all, I agree regarding the conflict of interest point you have raised. Why did Madeira feel that there was a conflict of interest.

JJ, in sexual assault cases involving children, prosecutors generally do not force testimony with subpeona power. If I recall correctly, BK was not named as a victim in the grand jury report; he was identified by initial.

BK was not called because he was in the military and outside of civil jurisdiction.

The current case includes credible eyewitnesses who were adults, the most powerful of whom is allegedly involved in the PSU football program as well as PSU officials who were told of the incident. The 1998 incident involved showering, nudity, and touching; the 3-year investigation involved oral sex, anal sex, etc. There are phone records. There is the 1998 allegation that establishes a pattern of conduct.

In 1998, we have the mother, a Penn State Police Officer, a State College Police Officer, and someone from child services, with Victim #6. That is exclusive of anything relating to BK.

We do know there was an attempt to
get Sandusky to "say something" in front of the mother back in 1998, so it's not like RG ignored
the case or swept it under the rug.

Yet after Sandusky "said something," RFG did not file charges.

So a case involving the defensive creator of the "Linebacker U" brand would always need to be be
"winnable." Remember, too, there is no statute of limitations involved, so prosecution is always on
the table, but the prosecutor only gets one bite of the apple. If the accused is found "not guilty," those cases are over forever.

RFG, even at that time, argued (and lost) cases that would not be politically popular. The Grove case, involving the shooting Kitu Sampson in 1997. http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1997/03/03-07-97tdc/03-07-97d01-014.htm

One of things that impressed me about RFG was that he was not political and would prosecute on the merits.

 

[rlc]

of or arguments against this scenario: RG was pressured to not pursue the 1998 allegations, but upon learning of the 2005 allegations, decided to report the pressure/cover-up and initiate an investigation into those responsible for the cover-up? and then opted to walk away to avoid the fallout? Is it too hopeful of me to think that after this all comes out, and appropriate people are convicted, he may suddenly reappear?

One thing I wanted to add: I truly do not believe RG made the decision to not prosecute out of bad intentions or self-preservation. I think it is far more likely that he did not believe prosecuting the case brought the highest likelihood of a just outcome. Maybe he thought pursuing an investigation but not charges would enable them to get more information and bring more serious charges, and that the investigation would be more successful if charges were not brought yet (i.e. people involved could let their guard down a little) or maybe the pressure to not bring charges was not put on him, but put on a key witness, and without that witness, he did not feel able to win a conviction. Or maybe he thought that the ramifications of the allegations in the community would be more than the witnesses could handle (because there is no doubt that without an open and shut case, the PSU community would want badly to believe the allegations were false).

 

[eriklatranyi]

I found this site since news broke of a connection between Gricar and Sandusky. This is a great site and you all deserve commendations for your cool heads.

A few points:

Has anyone addressed the cigarette ashes found in Gricar's Mini Cooper? It is my understanding that he did not allow smoking in his car and was meticulously clean.

Second, is it true that they never found the keys for the Mini Cooper?

Third, I read that Gricar's home computer was used to conduct searches for how to destroy a hard drive. Is that confirmed?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I found this site since news broke of a connection between Gricar and Sandusky. This is a great site and you all deserve commendations for your cool heads.

A few points:

Has anyone addressed the cigarette ashes found in Gricar's Mini Cooper? It is my understanding that he did not allow smoking in his car and was meticulously clean.

Yes, and when the car was opened, there was the faint smell of cigarette smoke.

Second, is it true that they never found the keys for the Mini Cooper?

Yes.

Third, I read that Gricar's home computer was used to conduct searches for how to destroy a hard drive. Is that confirmed?

Yes and he asked staff and others about how to clean the computer, about a year before he disappeared.

 

[eriklatranyi]

OK, let me throw a "hail mary" pass at a theory.

RFG had evidence against someone. Rather than prosecute, RFG received payments from this individual that were sent directly into a foreign account. This could be extortion by RFG or a bribe paid to RFG. It does not matter.

RFG kept the damning evidence on the hard drive in whatever laptop he carried with him as insurance that the payments would continue or he would release the evidence.

In 2005, something happened that convinced RFG he must destroy the evidence and disappear. He did not want to leave his daughter without money, so he had to ensure she could get his savings, life insurance, etc.

Could this evidence be the Sandusky evidence and either Sandusky was paying or officials at Penn State were paying to keep it quiet?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

OK, let me throw a "hail mary" pass at a theory.

RFG had evidence against someone. Rather than prosecute, RFG received payments from this individual that were sent directly into a foreign account. This could be extortion by RFG or a bribe paid to RFG. It does not matter.

RFG kept the damning evidence on the hard drive in whatever laptop he carried with him as insurance that the payments would continue or he would release the evidence.

Well, he didn't generally carry the laptop.

In 2005, something happened that convinced RFG he must destroy the evidence and disappear. He did not want to leave his daughter without money, so he had to ensure she could get his savings, life insurance, etc.

He left her a substantial pension; it would have been substantially less had he died or disappeared after retirement.

Could this evidence be the Sandusky evidence and either Sandusky was paying or officials at Penn State were paying to keep it quiet?

Well, there were other reasons to use a computer, like computer banking.

 

[eriklatranyi]

So my theory seems to fit the facts and supports why Gricar would go missing before retirement (to ensure his daughter received the maximum amount of money from his insurance, pension, etc).

It supports the statements that Gricar wanted to retire and travel the world.

I know some ask why he would leave his gov't healthcare and pension behind.....because he has a lot more hidden away and if he moved to Canada, he would be covered under the Canadian socialized healthcare system.

The computer is the curious part. It is clear the hard drive was detached from the computer and found separately. What I do not know is if the drive was wiped intentionally or through exposure to the environment in the river.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So my theory seems to fit the facts and supports why Gricar would go missing before retirement (to ensure his daughter received the maximum amount of money from his insurance, pension, etc).

It supports the statements that Gricar wanted to retire and travel the world.

Well, now that you mention it, there is more. The only post April 2005 sighting was in Southfield, MI. It is close to the Canadian border, and there is a consulate for the Republic of Macedonia there. The blog on it was here: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/14/2518751/southfield-sighting.html

I know some ask why he would leave his gov't healthcare and pension behind.....because he has a lot more hidden away and if he moved to Canada, he would be covered under the Canadian socialized healthcare system.

Mr. Gricar's family was from Slovenia, like Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic. He still had cousins there and he did travel there in prior years. He had photos of family in his office, but I'm told it included those Slovenian cousins.

The computer is the curious part. It is clear the hard drive was detached from the computer and found separately. What I do not know is if the drive was wiped intentionally or through exposure to the environment in the river.

Chief Weaver expressed the opinion that it had been wiped, but I don't know if that was expert opinion or just his guess.

One other point, though we do now, in 2005 Slovenia did not have an extradition treaty with the US.

Your speculation is logically consistent. For someone with three posts, you are doing remarkably well.

 

[eriklatranyi]

Well, now that you mention it, there is more. The only post April 2005 sighting was in Southfield, MI. It is close to the Canadian border, and there is a consulate for the Republic of Macedonia there. The blog on it was here: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/14/2518751/southfield-sighting.html



Mr. Gricar's family was from Slovenia, like Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic. He still had cousins there and he did travel there in prior years. He had photos of family in his office, but I'm told it included those Slovenian cousins.

Wow! The Southfield sighting is something I did not know. Also, keep in mind, that there is no visa or requirements to travel from Canada to Slovenia.....they have excellent relations.

Canada is also well-known for making it easy for immigrants to become citizens.

Your speculation is logically consistent. For someone with three posts, you are doing remarkably well.

Coming from you, that is high praise as I have given your posts far more credence in this thread than anyone else's! Thank you.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wow! The Southfield sighting is something I did not know. Also, keep in mind, that there is no visa or requirements to travel from Canada to Slovenia.....they have excellent relations.

Canada is also well-known for making it easy for immigrants to become citizens.

There is more to the Southfield sighting.

We can speculate on a motivation for RFG walking away (and until a few days ago, Pittsburghgirl really wanted to). I've never really wanted to focus on the motive because it is speculative, even if solid. I cannot do a Vulcan mind meld with RFG.

We do have opportunity.

I focus on the means; how did RFG get out of Lewisburg? All the motive in the world won't answer that question.