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

[J. J. in Phila]

I watched the episode again this afternoon on ID. There is a brief mention of the Sandusky Scandal around the 59 minute mark.

I'm still waiting on a hard journalistic look at the 98 investigation. Surely, someone is looking into the investigation. Maybe he or she is waiting for the results of the Spanier/Curley/Schultz trials before publishing it. That's my hope anyway.

I strongly suspect that we will hear about it during the trial.

 

[SeekingJana]

Good to see you post.

While RFG wasn't a "fringe" type person, he dealt with a lot of people that were for decades. In that regard, he was a lot like Mel Wiley. Wiley was a police chief and knew what others had done to obscure their identities.

An average person would have difficulty. RFG was well above average.

Yes, we have discussed many times over the years that Ray would have knowledge greater than most people regarding erasing identity, electronically traceable movements, and so on.
Probably the only groups of people more aware of how to disappear would be covert operatives in FBI, CIA, and the NSA.

However, even Edward Snowden couldn't disappear, couldn't get to the countries he publicly said he wanted asylum with, and is pretty much stuck in Russia, it seems. It may seem to be a beneficial relationship for both Snowden and Putin, but Putin holds all the power, and Snowden is more than likely only a pawn now.

 

[SeekingJana]

I watched the episode again this afternoon on ID. There is a brief mention of the Sandusky Scandal around the 59 minute mark.

I'm still waiting on a hard journalistic look at the 98 investigation. Surely, someone is looking into the investigation. Maybe he or she is waiting for the results of the Spanier/Curley/Schultz trials before publishing it. That's my hope anyway.

What are you wanting or hoping to know about the 98 investigation and Victim 6?
Do you think Gricar was negligent, was pressured from PSU, or ???

If there's no file available from the Centre County DA's office related to the 98 investigation, and we have been told there's not, how fair and how deep an investigation can there be? And who is going to speak for or defend Mr. Gricar, should he be made the scapegoat? I see many potential problems with the 98 case which are related to the DA being missing for 9 years. It's easy to blame the one who isn't around to defend his actions, inactions, etc. with his own words and plan which were known to him at the time, IMO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What are you wanting or hoping to know about the 98 investigation and Victim 6?
Do you think Gricar was negligent, was pressured from PSU, or ???

If there's no file available from the Centre County DA's office related to the 98 investigation, and we have been told there's not, how fair and how deep an investigation can there be? And who is going to speak for or defend Mr. Gricar, should he be made the scapegoat? I see many potential problems with the 98 case which are related to the DA being missing for 9 years. It's easy to blame the one who isn't around to defend his actions, inactions, etc. with his own words and plan which were known to him at the time, IMO.

In theory, there could be a connection, either to voluntary departure or to homicide. There is not any solid evidence to either.

Obviously, if there is evidence that RFG did something illegal, that could have cost him his pension, that would provide a solid reason to walk away.

If RFG were somehow pushing on the case, that could provide a motive for murder.

That this case was handled so strangely, indicates that we should be looking at, just in regard to the disappearance.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Repectfully snipped:

.

However, even Edward Snowden couldn't disappear, couldn't get to the countries he publicly said he wanted asylum with, and is pretty much stuck in Russia, it seems. It may seem to be a beneficial relationship for both Snowden and Putin, but Putin holds all the power, and Snowden is more than likely only a pawn now.

Snowden has nowhere near the experience of RFG. He is a tech guy that worked with computers, very bright, but someone with criminal justice experience.

 

[BigCat]

What are you wanting or hoping to know about the 98 investigation and Victim 6?
Do you think Gricar was negligent, was pressured from PSU, or ???

If there's no file available from the Centre County DA's office related to the 98 investigation, and we have been told there's not, how fair and how deep an investigation can there be? And who is going to speak for or defend Mr. Gricar, should he be made the scapegoat? I see many potential problems with the 98 case which are related to the DA being missing for 9 years. It's easy to blame the one who isn't around to defend his actions, inactions, etc. with his own words and plan which were known to him at the time, IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by making him the scapegoat. After all, it was his decision not to prosecute. I don't see how it could get much worse for RFG's reputation, unless he engaged in criminal behavior. I think an investigation might potentially exonerate him for what looks like, on the surface, a colossally poor decision not to prosecute. Something just isn't right, IMO. I tend to give RFG the benefit of the doubt that he knew something we don't or we know something he didn't. But what?

There's a lot I would like to know about the 98 investigation. Tops on my list are:

1) I want to know everything about Seasock's involvement in the investigation. What happened that DPW's own investigator never saw his report (so he claims, anyway)?

2) What was discussed at the October 98 meeting involving the investigating officers, RFG, Steve Sloane and a member of the Penn State football staff?

Ultimately, I just want to know the truth, or as close to it as we can ever get, about the 98 investigation.

 

[SeekingJana]

Thank you for explaining more. I really appreciate it.
There is talk, in some circles, which go so far as to link him WITH Sandusky... yes, criminal behavior. I don't believe this at all, but it's been said and it's being said.

I think he was or is a good DA and used his judgment, which was within his duty and right to do.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In terms of the Sandusky case and the disappearance, this got me thinking:

1. In 1998, JKA originally got the case, and RFG removed her from it within a week after the incident. The PSP report says that this was after "extensive disagreements." JKA says she was involved, the police reports back her up, and the redacted police report is consistent with her claim that she was removed. It wasn't her decision; it was RFG's. She does however know that there was a 1998 Sandusky incident.

2. 2005. RFG, announces a year before that he won't be running for reelection. His seat is open. 2 candidates are running for the Republican (R) nomination and 2 are running for the Democratic (D) nomination; the two people that win each nomination will face each other in the fall Municipal Election. The primary, that chooses who the nominee will be, will be in may.

On the R side, the candidates are Madeira (MTM) and Robert Bascom (RB). RB ran in the primary in 2001 against RFG and lost, but he got 45% of the vote. That is a lot against a 16 year incumbent in an R primary. MTM has had a lot of high profile drug cases an a Deputy AG, and is a member of the R state committee (which is elected in the R primary). It is not clear who the R nominee will be.

On the D side, JKA is running, but her opponent is fresh out of law school, pretty much unknown. JKA was an ADA since 1988, and has at least run for a delegate for the DNC once before. It was very clear that JKA would get the D nomination. An account is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/05/14/2397375_politics-2005-part-i.html

In 2005, the county leaned slightly Republican, but you do have a number of other row offices that go to the Democrats, so it is not for sure that the next DA will be Republican. Primaries can be divisive, so it was possible that whomever gets the R nomination will not be elected DA in the fall.

You have to collect signatures and petition to run in the primary (though write-ins are possible). There is about a three week window when you can circulate them, and in 2005, that period ended around 3/8/05. It was at the time that RFG started to act strangely.

Hail Mary pass: Could RFG been worried that JKA, who knew about the 1998 Sandusky investigation, would get elected, and reopen that investigation? She obviously knew about out in 1998, and she may have wanted to be much more aggressive than RFG was. The statute of limitation had not expired.

 

[BigCat]

Thank you for explaining more. I really appreciate it.
There is talk, in some circles, which go so far as to link him WITH Sandusky... yes, criminal behavior. I don't believe this at all, but it's been said and it's being said.

I think he was or is a good DA and used his judgment, which was within his duty and right to do.

Yes, I remember when the Sandusky Scandal first broke, there was a lot of crazy speculation, including whether or not RFG's computer contained child *advertiser censored*. Apparently, some people believe it plausible that RFG was not only corrupt but also the world's dumbest DA to place child *advertiser censored* on his county-issued laptop.

 

[BigCat]

In terms of the Sandusky case and the disappearance, this got me thinking:

1. In 1998, JKA originally got the case, and RFG removed her from it within a week after the incident. The PSP report says that this was after "extensive disagreements." JKA says she was involved, the police reports back her up, and the redacted police report is consistent with her claim that she was removed. It wasn't her decision; it was RFG's. She does however know that there was a 1998 Sandusky incident.

2. 2005. RFG, announces a year before that he won't be running for reelection. His seat is open. 2 candidates are running for the Republican (R) nomination and 2 are running for the Democratic (D) nomination; the two people that win each nomination will face each other in the fall Municipal Election. The primary, that chooses who the nominee will be, will be in may.

On the R side, the candidates are Madeira (MTM) and Robert Bascom (RB). RB ran in the primary in 2001 against RFG and lost, but he got 45% of the vote. That is a lot against a 16 year incumbent in an R primary. MTM has had a lot of high profile drug cases an a Deputy AG, and is a member of the R state committee (which is elected in the R primary). It is not clear who the R nominee will be.

On the D side, JKA is running, but her opponent is fresh out of law school, pretty much unknown. JKA was an ADA since 1988, and has at least run for a delegate for the DNC once before. It was very clear that JKA would get the D nomination. An account is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/05/14/2397375_politics-2005-part-i.html

In 2005, the county leaned slightly Republican, but you do have a number of other row offices that go to the Democrats, so it is not for sure that the next DA will be Republican. Primaries can be divisive, so it was possible that whomever gets the R nomination will not be elected DA in the fall.

You have to collect signatures and petition to run in the primary (though write-ins are possible). There is about a three week window when you can circulate them, and in 2005, that period ended around 3/8/05. It was at the time that RFG started to act strangely.

Hail Mary pass: Could RFG been worried that JKA, who knew about the 1998 Sandusky investigation, would get elected, and reopen that investigation? She obviously knew about out in 1998, and she may have wanted to be much more aggressive than RFG was. The statute of limitation had not expired.

If I recall correctly, JKA defended RFG on one of your blog postings. Her comments caught me off guard. I wouldn't have expected her to go out of her way to defend him, if she had had a strong disagreement with him over the decision not to prosecute.

Of course, all that being said, it doesn't disapprove your theory. Your theory hinges on what RFG thought she might do if she were elected. He could have been paranoid, which explains the strange behavior.

I use the term "paranoid," but considering the eventual outcome of the Sandusky Scandal, if he did have any worries about the decision not to prosecute in 98, those fears were justified.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If I recall correctly, JKA defended RFG on one of your blog postings. Her comments caught me off guard. I wouldn't have expected her to go out of her way to defend him, if she had had a strong disagreement with him over the decision not to prosecute.

IIRC, she complained that I was criticizing the decision, indicated that she didn't like me, and then said that there was the possibility that had it been her decision, she would have prosecuted. She has complained about the "excessive disagreements," but she did not deny that they did occur.

It is interesting that, of the people known to have been involved in the 1998 decision, Schreffler, JKA, and Sloane, none have come out and said, *There was not enough evidence.**

Of course, all that being said, it doesn't disapprove your theory. Your theory hinges on what RFG thought she might do if she were elected. He could have been paranoid, which explains the strange behavior.

I use the term "paranoid," but considering the eventual outcome of the Sandusky Scandal, if he did have any worries about the decision not to prosecute in 98, those fears were justified.

I wouldn't say "paranoid." He drove into an area with no cell coverage, few people, and without telling anyone his travel plans. He was not worried about some ambush some place along the way. Worried, possibly.

 

[SeekingJana]

I've always thought that Karen Arnold was attempting to manipulate and "damn with faint praise" in her " Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury" blog regarding Gricar's disappearance.
Her references to his girlfriend within a committed relationship as a " paramour" was stilted at best and a slur in these modern times at worst( as we have discussed in previous threads here for quite some time) , and I always questioned some of the things she assumed regarding Mr. Gricar's movements, thoughts, and motives...
It was almost as if she wanted to tell HER side of a story and tell it first. Be seen as a sympathetic friend.
Why did she go to so much trouble if the two of them didn't get along?

And she threw shade on several people in the same office, discussing a woman Mr. Gricar didn't talk to and would have slammed his door to avoid.
When read with a wary eye, it isn't exactly professional in the presentation, IMO.

If you want to discuss a friend you believe was murdered, then you discuss the reason or reasons you think the friend was murdered. If you want to discuss people in your office whom you don't like and internet posters who are discussing the case, then, IMO, that's sleazy and underhanded, regardless of who they are or what they believe unless they are impugning Mr. Gricar's character, which certainly doesn't happen at WS.

I don't care that Karen Arnold is said to have posted with people for a while on another site. I care about what her actions have been. Maybe she wanted to open up the 98 case again to try to make Mr. Gricar look as bad as possible? Maybe she had a great deal of guilt after he disappeared, knowing her own motives regarding the DA position. People do MANY things out of displaced guilt..
I don't know, but I don't think Ray Gricar had fears for his career because of her, not in any way. I think she is the insecure person of the two. Just my observation from a great distance. Up close in PA it may have looked quite different.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

First, I don't want to get into what JKA did post-April 2005. That is a different story.

Snipped a bit:

I don't care that Karen Arnold is said to have posted with people for a while on another site. I care about what her actions have been. Maybe she wanted to open up the 98 case again to try to make Mr. Gricar look as bad as possible? Maybe she had a great deal of guilt after he disappeared, knowing her own motives regarding the DA position. People do MANY things out of displaced guilt..
I don't know, but I don't think Ray Gricar had fears for his career because of her, not in any way. I think she is the insecure person of the two. Just my observation from a great distance. Up close in PA it may have looked quite different.

First, some of the information that has come out does at least point to JKA wanting to be more aggressive in investigating/prosecuting the Sandusky case in 1998. If so, JKA was absolutely right.

Second, we do know two things:

A. In 1998, JKA was familiar with the Sandusky case, though possibly not all of it. RFG knew that, obviously. It was not her decision on if to prosecute the case.

B. In 2005, it was possible that by January 2006, JKA would be in the position to prosecute the Sandusky case, and had at least partial knowledge of the case. RFG knew that as well.

While not necessarily related, at the point where JKA was getting to point B, RFG began acting uncharacteristically. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, but it could be correct at this point; we just don't know.

 

[SeekingJana]

First, I don't want to get into what JKA did post-April 2005. That is a different story.

Snipped a bit:



First, some of the information that has come out does at least point to JKA wanting to be more aggressive in investigating/prosecuting the Sandusky case in 1998. If so, JKA was absolutely right.

Second, we do know two things:

A. In 1998, JKA was familiar with the Sandusky case, though possibly not all of it. RFG knew that, obviously. It was not her decision on if to prosecute the case.

B. In 2005, it was possible that by January 2006, JKA would be in the position to prosecute the Sandusky case, and had at least partial knowledge of the case. RFG knew that as well.

While not necessarily related, at the point where JKA was getting to point B, RFG began acting uncharacteristically. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, but it could be correct at this point; we just don't know.

Obviously, I meant that IF she had been elected to the position of DA, she might, by your own words, choose to open the investigation re: Vic. 6 . We do not know if she was " absolutely right". This is opinion, not factual.

Based upon the eventual known testimony of Victim 6, he stated that there was no sexual abuse. His mother stated otherwise in 1998. His story, as we know it, has remained the same- no abuse occurred.

Respectfully, I don't think we have enough hard copy evidence to know why Mr. Gricar closed it except doubts about what did or didn't occur and the reliability of the witness. I'm not going to fault him for closing a very weak case until or unless there is clear cut evidence that he was premature in doing so.
I don't believe your " colossal lapse in judgment" pronouncement against D.A. Gricar though. It was a weak case because of the witness. His mother was saying Sandusky molested him, and the boy was saying he didn't. He never has said Sandusky molested him.
The entire case re: Victim 6 is somewhat emotionally tainted because of our knowledge of the other abuses which happened later and how this early case COULD have POSSIBLY have stopped Sandusky IF the case had been strong enough. I do not believe it was, based upon the boy's own words, which didn't seem coached or rehearsed to me.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Obviously, I meant that IF she had been elected to the position of DA, she might, by your own words, choose to open the investigation re: Vic. 6 . We do not know if she was " absolutely right". This is opinion, not factual.

Hopefully she will be called to testify or her grand jury testimony will be unsealed.

Based upon the eventual known testimony of Victim 6, he stated that there was no sexual abuse. His mother stated otherwise in 1998. His story, as we know it, has remained the same- no abuse occurred.

That is not correct. There was no rape, but there was sexual abuse. Sandusky was found guilty of a felony in relation to Victim 6.

Respectfully, I don't think we have enough hard copy evidence to know why Mr. Gricar closed it except doubts about what did or didn't occur and the reliability of the witness. I'm not going to fault him for closing a very weak case until or unless there is clear cut evidence that he was premature in doing so.

We do that all charges were sustained against Sandusky in regard to Victim 6 and that he was convicted on 3 of the 4 charges, with a finding of not guilty on one of the misdemeanors. We also know that RFG had a second victim, B. K., who was unavailable in 2011-12. We also know that RFG never interviewed Victim 6, so he could not evaluate Victim 6's reliability.

I don't believe your " colossal lapse in judgment" pronouncement against D.A. Gricar though. It was a weak case because of the witness. His mother was saying Sandusky molested him, and the boy was saying he didn't. He never has said Sandusky molested him.

No, the mother did not say that, as per the Chambers Report.

At this point, I think the likelihood is that RFG chose not to prosecute the case. Not involving JKA, not interviewing one of the victims, and not interviewing Sandusky prior to deciding, points to something other that lapse of judgment, even a colossal one.

That, however, is neither illegal nor unethical.

The entire case re: Victim 6 is somewhat emotionally tainted because of our knowledge of the other abuses which happened later and how this early case COULD have POSSIBLY have stopped Sandusky IF the case had been strong enough. I do not believe it was, based upon the boy's own words, which didn't seem coached or rehearsed to me.

I've tried to limit it to just what RFG, et al., knew in 1998.

 

[SeekingJana]

Hopefully she will be called to testify or her grand jury testimony will be unsealed.



That is not correct. There was no rape, but there was sexual abuse. Sandusky was found guilty of a felony in relation to Victim 6.



We do that all charges were sustained against Sandusky in regard to Victim 6 and that he was convicted on 3 of the 4 charges, with a finding of not guilty on one of the misdemeanors. We also know that RFG had a second victim, B. K., who was unavailable in 2011-12. We also know that RFG never interviewed Victim 6, so he could not evaluate Victim 6's reliability.



No, the mother did not say that, as per the Chambers Report.

At this point, I think the likelihood is that RFG chose not to prosecute the case. Not involving JKA, not interviewing one of the victims, and not interviewing Sandusky prior to deciding, points to something other that lapse of judgment, even a colossal one.

That, however, is neither illegal nor unethical.



I've tried to limit it to just what RFG, et al., knew in 1998.

Sandusky is slime, and was a slimy criminal for a long time while many smart men ( and some women) looked the other way.
However, we have discussed this in the past on this forum and have questioned whether the testimony by Victim 6 of Sandusky showering with him reached the threshold of being a strong case for sexual molestation. The consensus at that time was that it was " iffy".
I believe that if Sandusky had been tried in 1998 for the single incident involving victim 6 alone, it would have been a weak case. He might have walked.

Some DAs don't take weak cases to court. The definitions of abuse have changed legally and culturally in the 21st century on the side of the victim, where they should be. I don't fault Mr. Gricar for not trying the case based upon the known statements of the child at that time.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Victim 6's testimony was not "iffy." It was not rape, but it was "Unlawful Contact with Minor" which is a felony and one of the charges from 1998 for which Sandusky was convicted. He was acquitted of the misdemeanor "Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Years of Age." He was also convicted of the two other misdemeanors.

The judge let all four go to the jury, though he noted that the Indecent Assault charge was weak. Sandusky was found not guilty on that one.

Now, in 1998, there was another victim, B. K., who is in the military now and could not testify. RFG had him in 1998, however, so he could have gone forward with everything, plus another victim/witness. We also had Sandusky's actual admission.

Also, at least with Victim 6, RFG never interviewed him directly, and could not evaluate how strong or weak he might be. He relied on Schreffler, who recommended charges.

Now, there are three activities that RFG did that are unusual:

1. He removed JKA, even though she was the lead person for abuse cases and even though he retained her as the lead person until the day he disappeared. [Stated by JKA, and supported by the police report and Schreffer's testimony.]

2. He never interviewed Victim 6. [Stated in the trial by Schreffler.]

3. He made his decision not to prosecute prior to Schreffler interviewing Sandusky (and prior to DPW's decision). [Stated in Spanier grand jury presentment.]

Though it might have been due to Point 1, there also appears to be a lack of coordination between the DA's Office and DPW; Lauro says he never saw any reports. That does not absolve Lauro or DPW, but it is strange. There is no case file on Sandusky in the DA's Office, which might not be unusual. There is also the 10/13/98 meeting, which may or may not be related.

Now, we have a strong case, one that was was stronger than the 2011-12 case (which was strong). We also have these three unusual things that RFG did in regard to the investigation, which do show a reluctance to investigate and prosecute. Considering Sandusky's and PSU's standing in the community, I can understand the reluctance, though I would have hoped for more from RFG.

None of that is either illegal or unethical; a prosecutor has some discretion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Though it might have been due to Point 1, there also appears to be a lack of coordination between the DA's Office and DPW; Lauro says he never saw any reports. That does not absolve Lauro or DPW, but it is strange. There is no case file on Sandusky in the DA's Office, which might not be unusual. There is also the 10/13/98 meeting, which may or may not be related.

We have these three things that are unknown, but let's, hypothetically, assume the worst.

A. RFG deliberately set up the lack of coordination, intentionally removing JKA.

B. RFG deliberately made sure the record was not there.

C. The 10/13/98 was about Sandusky and, to take the hypothetical a bit further, RFG told PSU that there was a Sandusky "problem."

Even with everything else, it still would not rise to the level of being criminal or even unethical. He probably could not be elected to anything after that, but he wasn't planning to run for anything.

Even with the near worst case hypothetical, it would not have made a difference. RFG wouldn't be go to jail, wouldn't be fined, and would keep his pension. If there was a civil suit, which would be difficult, the county liability insurance master policy would cover it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Schreffler's testimony is here: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_ JT.pdf

1. RFG made his decision not to prosecute prior to Sandusky being interviewed (pp. 63-4)

2. Schreffler spoke with Gricar after the interview and recommended charges (p. 68).

3. Under cross, he speaks quite highly Gricar (pp. 69-70.)

4. Schreffler indicates that Gricar did not interview Victim 6 (pp. 79-80).

Also on p. 20, Victim 6 said he talked to the police and Seasock, but no one else.

 

[BigCat]

We have these three things that are unknown, but let's, hypothetically, assume the worst.

A. RFG deliberately set up the lack of coordination, intentionally removing JKA.

B. RFG deliberately made sure the record was not there.

C. The 10/13/98 was about Sandusky and, to take the hypothetical a bit further, RFG told PSU that there was a Sandusky "problem."

Even with everything else, it still would not rise to the level of being criminal or even unethical. He probably could not be elected to anything after that, but he wasn't planning to run for anything.

Even with the near worst case hypothetical, it would not have made a difference. RFG wouldn't be go to jail, wouldn't be fined, and would keep his pension. If there was a civil suit, which would be difficult, the county liability insurance master policy would cover it.

Hypotheticals A, B, and C may not be illegal or unethical, but they are certainly shameful. In that scenario, he knew there was a "problem" and actively covered it up.