PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #12

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J. can you elaborate on this piece you wrote. The number "7" reference is missing. What was dismissed or pending? Thank you in advance.

"Also on 4/19/05, Mr. Smith was suddenly found his job duties dramatically changed. He had his normal job duties as first assistant, plus those of the actual district attorney. There were further problems. One veteran assistant district attorney, Steve Sloane, was on medical leave on 4/19/05 and would be for several weeks. It would be eventually dismissed, but it was still pending at the time. So Mr. Smith was facing a notable manpower problem, one that could be getting worse. There was even more. The police had to look at Mr. Gricar’s official actions, his case records and at the any accounts in the office. That was more of a strain on the limited resources of the office.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/07/...d-the-gricar-disappearance.html#storylink=cpy

It is explained here: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/07/26/2397478_e-mails-from-mr-heisse-and-ms.html

I just removed that line.

 

[SuperSmith]

It is explained here: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/07/26/2397478_e-mails-from-mr-heisse-and-ms.html

I just removed that line.

Do you happen to know where and what year SS received his bachelor degree?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Do you happen to know where and what year SS received his bachelor degree?

1985 Penn State, University Park Campus.

 

[SuperSmith]

1985 Penn State, University Park Campus.

So he graduated the same year as RG was elected as Centre County DA. I wonder how they became such "close" friends?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So he graduated the same year as RG was elected as Centre County DA. I wonder how they became such "close" friends?

His two closest friends in the area were much younger, as was his girlfriend (19 years). I think Sloane served in the Air Force prior to school and is 59, so there is an 8-9 year difference in age.

 

[Salem]

You guys have probably already discussed this, but is it possible that RFG was sick? Maybe terminally ill? I would think that would have come out in the investigation already, but reading some of today's posts brought it to my mind.

Was RFG good about having annual checkups and taking care of himself?

Salem

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You guys have probably already discussed this, but is it possible that RFG was sick? Maybe terminally ill? I would think that would have come out in the investigation already, but reading some of today's posts brought it to my mind.

Was RFG good about having annual checkups and taking care of himself?

Salem

Sloane said he wouldn't even take an aspirin. He was not known as someone who ran to doctors all the time (unlike me). A blog exploring some of RFG's feeling about how he regarded medicine and psychology is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3140008/psychology.html

LE did check his medical records within the first week, with a warrant: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20050422&slug=missing22 They not indicated that they found anything, except RFG was not treated for depression.

Unless the condition was considered very embarrassing, I could not imagine why it wouldn't be released. Let's say that RFG was diagnosed with cancer. There isn't anything shameful in that. In the 50's or early 60's it might have been considered "delicate," but not in 2005 or 2013. He wasn't the most progressive person in regard to mental illness, but his brother was known to have suffered from depression, so I don't think it would have been too much of a stigma.

 

[Trackergd]

Look at the possibilities.

First, assume that RFG wasn't falsifying the forms, and wasn't incredibly stupid. The reason he didn't report interest was he didn't have $1300 in single source interest.

Okay, two possibilities. He moved money someplace else prior to 2003. Estate planning, he transferred it to his daughter or to some estate planning vehicle. A single premium life insurance policy is not subject to estate tax, so we can knock that out for a reason not to report the estate tax (Trackergd's point and Smith's counterpoint).

LE is giving strong indications this is walkaway or suicide:

Could Gricar have been lured to the Susquehanna River by a mistress, killed by the woman’s husband?

Could Gricar have been kidnapped by a criminal or a local gang seeking revenge?

“Throw in hard-drive searches and it doesn’t kill the theories, but it makes them virtually impossible,” he said.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/ray_gricar_mystery.html

If RFG had previously put most of his money in LG's name, solely, why not just announce that?

Let's go with moved money, for now. How would that be done? Cash is limited to $10 k.

RBBM

Why would RG need a mistress when he was not married to his partner? If things were not to his liking, would he not just break ties, divide joint items and move on?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RBBM

Why would RG need a mistress when he was not married to his partner? If things were not to his liking, would he not just break ties, divide joint items and move on?

Some men are not one woman men. Was RFG one of them? Possibly.

There was a woman mentioned on p. 68 of the pdf of RFG's FBI file as a "close personal associate." She noted his physical appearance. It wasn't Petito, but Petito also noted his physical appearance. They were still close, even though he had moved to the Warrior's Mark address five years before.

There was also the possibility that, if there was another woman, she was married.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just to keep everyone on the same page, I wanted to repost a link to RFG's redacted FBI file: http://deadspin.com/5890077/what-is...ecute-jerry-sandusky-in-1998-probably-nothing

 

[Trackergd]

Are there any records or circumstantial indications that RG had an independent legal counsel on retainer or one he had used for divorce cases? If so, male or female?

I am pondering J.J.'s question about why RG felt the need to use deception about his whereabouts, both to his staff and this domestic partner.

I am thinking less a love interest and more someone either helping him arrange an exit or someone to quietly "look after things" after his exit (who would not raise any red flags) or if something happened to him.

How well did RG know the woodlands in and around Centre County? Since he he was not a "gun person", one would assume he did not hunt. If he was not a hiker, how would he know where to dump the computer where it might not be found or at least not for a long time?

I would have thought by now, hikers, hunters or kids would have found remains if he had wandered off into the woods and committed suicide.

I would also think that if he had a great concern that he was a target, he would have discussed this with the State Police. I doubt RG was a willing lamb gone to slaughter.

Most of the above is an opinion based on years of searching for people in woodlands, either by choice, accident or suicide.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Are there any records or circumstantial indications that RG had an independent legal counsel on retainer or one he had used for divorce cases? If so, male or female?

I have heard that he did not handle his divorce. I'd assume it was Goodall.

I am pondering J.J.'s question about why RG felt the need to use deception about his whereabouts, both to his staff and this domestic partner.

I am thinking less a love interest and more someone either helping him arrange an exit or someone to quietly "look after things" after his exit (who would not raise any red flags) or if something happened to him.

There is some circumstantial evidence the trip was not a random trip. If RFG wasn't planning something voluntarily (suicide/walkaway), that limits the purposes of the trip.

How well did RG know the woodlands in and around Centre County? Since he he was not a "gun person", one would assume he did not hunt. If he was not a hiker, how would he know where to dump the computer where it might not be found or at least not for a long time?

He did hike, but I've never found any reference to camping. This was more like going for a walk in the woods for an afternoon. I have never heard of him going for walks in the Lewisburg area.

The laptop and drive were in built up area. Here are some photos: https://picasaweb.google.com/LookingforRay

I would have thought by now, hikers, hunters or kids would have found remains if he had wandered off into the woods and committed suicide.

There is a wetland area within a mile of a bridge on the opposite side of the river. I have never heard of a formalized search of it. You might find this interesting: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/03/17/2397229/roads-not-taken-the-bridgehead.html

I would also think that if he had a great concern that he was a target, he would have discussed this with the State Police. I doubt RG was a willing lamb gone to slaughter.

Most of the above is an opinion based on years of searching for people in woodlands, either by choice, accident or suicide.

Several things that RFG did strongly argue against RFG feeling threatened.

1. There were no overt notes about where he would be going, and he didn't tell anyone who he would be meeting or where he would be.

2. He drove through an area with no cell coverage, despite a technically quicker route (I-80) that did have cell coverage. The route was through a rural area, not regularly patrolled by police, where there would be little chance of getting help.

3. In Lewisburg, he did not seem to have turned his cell phone on, so that the towers could have registered where the phone was. Even though witnesses put him alive and well in the late afternoon, he didn't phone home from Lewisburg to say, **Patty, I'm out driving and enjoying myself, I won't be home for dinner.**

On those rare occasions when I travel, I do keep my phone on and check in, just in case something does happen.

4. He traveled the day before, though he might have taken precautions. Some of that was through rural areas.

 

[Saunterer]

"A living trust operates during the life of the trustor and may include some or all of the trustor's property and assets. One of the biggest advantages of a "living trust" is the substantial tax benefit to the trustor. Assets placed in an irrevocable living trust are not attributable to the trustor (although the trust itself may be taxed). A living trust may also allow estate taxes to be avoided."
http://www.centrelaw.com/practice-areas/details.php?id=11 Bolding by me.

If RG had placed assets into an irrevocable living trust, the income on those assets would not be attributable to him and would, therefore, not be reportable under the PA Ethics Act.

Interestingly, LG filed a Statement of Financial Interest for RG for the year 2005 but perhaps not (JJ?) for 2006 (the year after leaving office), as required by the Ethics Act.
http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ethics/8995/the_ethics_act/539789

On the one hand I can see why filing statements for these two years would be senseless, since RG was not around to be punished for such a meaningless infraction. On the other hand it looks like maybe LG was still holding out some hope early in 2006 for RG's return...but not one year later.

ETA: Thanks for posting those statements JJ. You were right...they do not tell us anything! BTW, did your request include the statement and all attachments? Also, did you request a statement covering the year 2006?

 

[Saunterer]

I'm still stuck on the document showing the petition to keep the tax return private. What could be that private one might ask.... I would "assume" that the settlement of small estate clearly shows that there were no assets or large sums of money. The tax return might have shown investments. I am unsure why it was felt necessary to keep it private since he was ruled deceased.

Something is not adding up. More of a 6th sense thing.....

It is permitted in regard to what information is publicly available. Full documentation must still be filed with the state. (Links previously provided)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"A living trust operates during the life of the trustor and may include some or all of the trustor's property and assets. One of the biggest advantages of a "living trust" is the substantial tax benefit to the trustor. Assets placed in an irrevocable living trust are not attributable to the trustor (although the trust itself may be taxed). A living trust may also allow estate taxes to be avoided."
http://www.centrelaw.com/practice-areas/details.php?id=11 Bolding by me.

If RG had placed assets into an irrevocable living trust, the income on those assets would not be attributable to him and would, therefore, not be reportable under the PA Ethics Act.

That would point to estate planning as opposed to retirement planning. What this doesn't tell if there was estate planning.

Interestingly, LG filed a Statement of Financial Interest for RG for the year 2005 but perhaps not (JJ?) for 2006 (the year after leaving office), as required by the Ethics Act.
http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ethics/8995/the_ethics_act/539789

On the one hand I can see why filing statements for these two years would be senseless, since RG was not around to be punished for such a meaningless infraction. On the other hand it looks like maybe LG was still holding out some hope early in 2006 for RG's return...but not one year later.
[/quote]

As trustee, it would have been possible to charge LG, had she failed to file. Same with RFG while he was there.

ETA: Thanks for posting those statements JJ. You were right...they do not tell us anything! BTW, did your request include the statement and all attachments? Also, did you request a statement covering the year 2006?

I requested all statements filed from 1997 to 2006. The attachments should be part of the statements. I can double check.

RFG was not holding office in 2006, as Madeira was sworn in in 12/31/05.

These do show something, i.e. no savings generating $1300 in interest. Estate planning in 2004, to the extent suggested, i.e. an irrevocable trust with most assets in it, would be strong indication RFG was not planning to retire. So would a single premium life insurance policy.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It is permitted in regard to what information is publicly available. Full documentation must still be filed with the state. (Links previously provided)

This was previously linked, but it should be noted that joint assets, while subject to inheritance tax, do not go into probate.

In other words, if RFG had a joint account with LG, with total assets of $100 k, LG would pay tax on half of it ($50 K at 4.5% or $2,250), but that would be captured in probate. If she paid $2,250, we could all say, "Hey, RFG had $100 K in a joint account."

The problem is, that hypothetical $100 K should have generated more than $1300 in interest in 2004 (unless it all in Savings Bonds).

 

[Saunterer]

Are there any records or circumstantial indications that RG had an independent legal counsel on retainer or one he had used for divorce cases? If so, male or female?

I am pondering J.J.'s question about why RG felt the need to use deception about his whereabouts, both to his staff and this domestic partner.

I am thinking less a love interest and more someone either helping him arrange an exit or someone to quietly "look after things" after his exit (who would not raise any red flags) or if something happened to him.

Notwithstanding that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever publicly presented that RG felt the need to use deception about his whereabouts, it defies all credulity that RG's personal attorney (who also represents LG) would help RG thwart LE's efforts to find him.

How well did RG know the woodlands in and around Centre County? Since he he was not a "gun person", one would assume he did not hunt. If he was not a hiker, how would he know where to dump the computer where it might not be found or at least not for a long time?

I have to believe that everyone would know how to make a laptop disappear forever, if that was a goal.

I would have thought by now, hikers, hunters or kids would have found remains if he had wandered off into the woods and committed suicide.

If he had just wandered off into the woods, I agree.

I would also think that if he had a great concern that he was a target, he would have discussed this with the State Police. I doubt RG was a willing lamb gone to slaughter.

You presume that elements of the State Police were not involved in the disappearance. Remember that the BPD has continuously rejected calls to turn the investigation over to the state.

Most of the above is an opinion based on years of searching for people in woodlands, either by choice, accident or suicide.

This disappearance and investigation has always...always...been unique. All JMOO.

 

[Saunterer]

That would point to estate planning as opposed to retirement planning. What this doesn't tell if there was estate planning.

Agreed.

As trustee, it would have been possible to charge LG, had she failed to file. Same with RFG while he was there.

I disagree as to LG. The whole point of the Ethics Law is to keep public officials/employees (RG in this case) honest.

I requested all statements filed from 1997 to 2006. The attachments should be part of the statements. I can double check.

I suspect you will come up empty. Also, statements more than five years old can be destroyed.

RFG was not holding office in 2006, as Madeira was sworn in in 12/31/05.

Public officials/employees are required to file for the year after leaving office/employment (statute link previously provided).

These do show something, i.e. no savings generating $1300 in interest. Estate planning in 2004, to the extent suggested, i.e. an irrevocable trust with most assets in it, would be strong indication RFG was not planning to retire. So would a single premium life insurance policy.

I disagree, for the reasons previously stated.

 

[Saunterer]

This was previously linked, but it should be noted that joint assets, while subject to inheritance tax, do not go into probate.

In other words, if RFG had a joint account with LG, with total assets of $100 k, LG would pay tax on half of it ($50 K at 4.5% or $2,250), but that would be captured in probate. If she paid $2,250, we could all say, "Hey, RFG had $100 K in a joint account."

The problem is, that hypothetical $100 K should have generated more than $1300 in interest in 2004 (unless it all in Savings Bonds).

However, if LG (as joint account holder and trustee of RG) put those funds into the trust (assuming...logically I think...that a trust already existed), those assets disappear, at least from public view. JMOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A personal attorney would be subject to attorney client privilege. Perhaps a court order could cause that to be abridged, but in the case at hand, I do not believe has been issued.

RFG did not leave any notes of where he was going, that would be readily available, nor was he inform anyone on staff (including his girlfriend). He also, apparently, did not leave his phone on in Lewisburg. This isn't "deceptive," but it does indicate that he was not advertizing where he would be. Coupled with traveling through a rural area with no cell phone coverage, that would indicate that RFG was not worried about his safety.