PA PA - District Attorney Ray Gricar Mysteriously Disappeared - Bellefonte 15 April 2005 #18

[Black Diamond]

Since some links were posted by Betty P on the Sandusky theme, I bring up that it’s a nagging “why” Ray removed ADA Arnold from the initial Sandusky investigation in 1998. Too much at stake with such a high profile community member that he took the investigation into his own hands? Why would that matter if Arnold had to report back to Ray anyhow? Why would Ray care enough that he pulled Arnold from an investigation that was in her normal purview? Since he did care enough, and he didn’t take it beyond a few days of investigation, the only real logical answer is that Ray had a vested interest in the 1998 Sandusky investigation going away. No matter “why” he had that vested interest, it’s chilling. It’s not the straight shooter, by the book, get the bad guy no matter what Ray Gricar we have all learned about.

To Summarize the logic here: Ray pulled Arnold from the investigation, therefore Ray had a vested interest in overseeing the investigation. Ray ended the investigation very quickly, and prematurely by anyone’s standards, therefore Ray did not have a vested interest in charging Sandusky. If Ray did not have a vested interest in charging Sandusky, the only vested interest left for Ray is for the Sandusky investigation to go away.

 

[Betty P]

Snipped

The only place I have noticed that connection made is the Final Argument podcast. Her reason for making that connection was that Ray visited Vermont once and that’s where Freeh was living at the time Ray went there. This was years before Freeh was selected by PSU to perform his investigation. She provided no evidence that they met and a very weak theory on why they would do so, in my opinion. I have never seen or heard any evidence that Ray ever met with Freeh. If there is something out there besides Final Argument podcast making this connection it would be very interesting if you could link it.

No, my source is the same as yours. I have been reading about Freeh’s report. I would really like to blend those timelines for Ray and the Sandusky investigation.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped

The only place I have noticed that connection made is the Final Argument podcast. Her reason for making that connection was that Ray visited Vermont once and that’s where Freeh was living at the time Ray went there. This was years before Freeh was selected by PSU to perform his investigation. She provided no evidence that they met and a very weak theory on why they would do so, in my opinion. I have never seen or heard any evidence that Ray ever met with Freeh. If there is something out there besides Final Argument podcast making this connection it would be very interesting if you could link it.

I have heard of no connection. RFG was cross sworn as a federal prosecutor, but that was in 1986, well before Freeh was FBI director. I had several clients outside of Clayton, DE, and there about half a dozen times a year. That doesn't mean that I was talking to Joe Biden.

Freeh was not picked to head the Sandusky investigation until late November/early December 2012. Further, he was hired in response to the letter from Emmert, the head of the NCAA. The Freeh investigation was PSU's response to the NCAA.

 

[Betty P]

I have heard of no connection. RFG was cross sworn as a federal prosecutor, but that was in 1986, well before Freeh was FBI director. I had several clients outside of Clayton, DE, and there about half a dozen times a year. That doesn't mean that I was talking to Joe Biden.

Freeh was not picked to head the Sandusky investigation until late November/early December 2012. Further, he was hired in response to the letter from Emmert, the head of the NCAA. The Freeh investigation was PSU's response to the NCAA.

I thought it was the reverse - the Freeh investigation was the NCAAs response to PSU.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, my source is the same as yours. I have been reading about Freeh’s report. I would really like to blend those timelines for Ray and the Sandusky investigation.

Ironically, I just posted it. The Emmert letter was on 11/17/22.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I thought it was the reverse - the Freeh investigation was the NCAAs response to PSU.

No, and I just posted the letter. Freeh was hired by the PSU Board, though they considered Chertoff and Giuliani.

 

[Betty P]

No, and I just posted the letter. Freeh was hired by the PSU Board, though they considered Chertoff and Giuliani.

But it seemed to work against PSU, something many believed the NCAA wanted. They wanted to be rid of the scandal, IIRC.

OT, good thing they didn't choose Giuliani.

 

[Betty P]

DBM duplicate

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Since some links were posted by Betty P on the Sandusky theme, I bring up that it’s a nagging “why” Ray removed ADA Arnold from the initial Sandusky investigation in 1998. Too much at stake with such a high profile community member that he took the investigation into his own hands? Why would that matter if Arnold had to report back to Ray anyhow? Why would Ray care enough that he pulled Arnold from an investigation that was in her normal purview? Since he did care enough, and he didn’t take it beyond a few days of investigation, the only real logical answer is that Ray had a vested interest in the 1998 Sandusky investigation going away. No matter “why” he had that vested interest, it’s chilling. It’s not the straight shooter, by the book, get the bad guy no matter what Ray Gricar we have all learned about.

To Summarize the logic here: Ray pulled Arnold from the investigation, therefore Ray had a vested interest in overseeing the investigation. Ray ended the investigation very quickly, and prematurely by anyone’s standards, therefore Ray did not have a vested interest in charging Sandusky. If Ray did not have a vested interest in charging Sandusky, the only vested interest left for Ray is for the Sandusky investigation to go away.

Something should be added to that. RFG never interviewed Victim 6.

In 1998, there were two victims, Victim 6, who testified at the trial, and designated B.K. in the grand jury report. In 2011, B.K. was in the armed forces and out of the country; the AG could not interview him. RFG may have interviewed B.K.

As today, in 1998 about half the voting age population in Centre County either was going to Penn State, went to Penn State, worked directly for Penn State, or were retired from Penn State. That does not people whose relatives were at Penn State or who worked at jobs that were indirectly supported by Penn State, e.g. a merchant whose customers either worked at or went to Penn State. As we saw with prosecutors across multiple counties in PA and the Catholic Church, a lot of people tended to minimize this when it was a big, politically important institution.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

But it seemed to work against PSU, something many believed the NCAA wanted. They wanted to be rid of the scandal, IIRC.

OT, good thing they didn't choose Giuliani.

Not really.

The NCAA was considering suspending Penn State's membership in the NCAA, or expelling them. That would have meant that they could not have participated in any inter-collegiate sports.

Emmert, when deposed, said, "“-we talked about scenarios by which, you know, we would wind up asking people to pursue whether or not we would expel the university from the NCAA. I mean all those things were considered of the course of – of that period of time, just as my understanding is the Big Ten talked about if they would expel them from the Big Ten.” http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...NCAAS OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.pdf It is not searchable, but there is an index; look for "expel."

If PSU had not gotten ahead of this, the NCAA could have used the grand jury reports as evidence. Had Spainier or Curley refused to talk to the NCAA, it would have been considered non-cooperation and grounds for expulsion. Freeh was PSU's way to get ahead of this.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is a link to an article on just the NCAA disciplinary process in the PSU case: Procedural Aspects of the Penn State Scandal

 

[Black Diamond]

Snipped

Something should be added to that. RFG never interviewed Victim 6.

In 1998, there were two victims, Victim 6, who testified at the trial, and designated B.K. in the grand jury report. In 2011, B.K. was in the armed forces and out of the country; the AG could not interview him. RFG may have interviewed B.K.

If you read the article posted by Betty P in post #196, a second boy was interviewed by Schreffler in 1998. His name was Brendan according to the article, which obviously fits with the initials BK. I would think that Ray mostly relied on the police detectives to perform interviews, so I don’t find it that out of the ordinary that Scheffler interviewed both victims and Ray didn’t participate in the actual interviews.

It is out of the ordinary that he shut the door on the investigation so quickly with two victims providing statements that indicated Sandusky was grooming them.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped



If you read the article posted by Betty P in post #196, a second boy was interviewed by Schreffler in 1998. His name was Brendan according to the article, which obviously fits with the initials BK. I would think that Ray mostly relied on the police detectives to perform interviews, so I don’t find it that out of the ordinary that Scheffler interviewed both victims and Ray didn’t participate in the actual interviews.

It is out of the ordinary that he shut the door on the investigation so quickly with two victims providing statements that indicated Sandusky was grooming them.

Neither of those are good sources.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped



If you read the article posted by Betty P in post #196, a second boy was interviewed by Schreffler in 1998. His name was Brendan according to the article, which obviously fits with the initials BK. I would think that Ray mostly relied on the police detectives to perform interviews, so I don’t find it that out of the ordinary that Scheffler interviewed both victims and Ray didn’t participate in the actual interviews.

It is out of the ordinary that he shut the door on the investigation so quickly with two victims providing statements that indicated Sandusky was grooming them.

The problem I have is that RFG could not evaluate Victim 6 as a witness, if he never interviewed Victim 6.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Recent publicity, with some inaccuracies. https://thecrimewire.com/true-crime/The-Puzzling-Disappearance-of-District-Attorney-Ray-Gricar

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Since 1998 came up recently, here is a thread with a timeline: The 1998 Investigation

Note that there is one error on the timeline that is corrected later in the thread.

Black Diamond, there are at least three Gricar related questions in regard to 1998:

1. Why did RFG remove JKA from the case after "extensive disagreements?"

2. Why did RFG not interview Victim 6?

3. Why did RFG make the decision not to prosecute Sandusky before Sandusky was interviewed by Schreffler (University Police)?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Something should be added to that. RFG never interviewed Victim 6.

In 1998, there were two victims, Victim 6, who testified at the trial, and designated B.K. in the grand jury report. In 2011, B.K. was in the armed forces and out of the country; the AG could not interview him. RFG may have interviewed B.K.

As today, in 1998 about half the voting age population in Centre County either was going to Penn State, went to Penn State, worked directly for Penn State, or were retired from Penn State. That does not people whose relatives were at Penn State or who worked at jobs that were indirectly supported by Penn State, e.g. a merchant whose customers either worked at or went to Penn State. As we saw with prosecutors across multiple counties in PA and the Catholic Church, a lot of people tended to minimize this when it was a big, politically important institution.

Interesting perspective. And did I understand correctly that Mr. Gricar’s first wife also worked at or was a professor at Penn State? One would have to wonder if that could have affected something.

This is quite an involved and convoluted case, and unfortunate that it has still not been solved or resolved.
MOO

 

[Black Diamond]

Since 1998 came up recently, here is a thread with a timeline: The 1998 Investigation

Note that there is one error on the timeline that is corrected later in the thread.

Black Diamond, there are at least three Gricar related questions in regard to 1998:

1. Why did RFG remove JKA from the case after "extensive disagreements?"

2. Why did RFG not interview Victim 6?

3. Why did RFG make the decision not to prosecute Sandusky before Sandusky was interviewed by Schreffler (University Police)?

IMO, those questions all could be answered with one one broad answer. Ray had an interest in the whole 1998 Sandusky investigation going away. Further specifics like “why” he wanted it to go away will probably never be known.

 

[thefragile7393]

IMO, those questions all could be answered with one one broad answer. Ray had an interest in the whole 1998 Sandusky investigation going away. Further specifics like “why” he wanted it to go away will probably never be known.

or he had an interest in having it come to light.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Interesting perspective. And did I understand correctly that Mr. Gricar’s first wife also worked at or was a professor at Penn State? One would have to wonder if that could have affected something.

This is quite an involved and convoluted case, and unfortunate that it has still not been solved or resolved.
MOO

His ex-wife did work at PSU, as a full professor, but it should not have effected her at all.

BG, the first wife, got tenure in 1985. There was basically no way that she would be impacted. Spanier retained his $600 k/year tenured professorship after resigning as president and being convicted. That is how safe the job is.