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

[BigCat]

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.

I know that Schreffler had a discussion with Karen Arnold and she told him to hold off on a second psychology evaluation of victim 6 until the allegations could be further investigated. But Seasock did evaluate the boy. Do we know if RFG pulled Arnold before Seasock interviewed the boy?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

Victims 6 and B. K. were properly reported. In that respect, RFG did not cover it up, in this hypothetical. He chose not to prosecute.

"Shameful," possibly. Would people be pointing their fingers at RFG, like they are with, the McQuearys, Dranov, Petrosky, Calhoun, Lauro and maybe Paterno? Sure. RFG would never be elected DA again, but he'd never run for DA again either; that easily could have been the same result had he prosecuted Sandusky in 1998, except that the end year would be 2001, not 2005.

Notice that of the five people that I named, that are competent to stand trial, none have been charged or received immunity.

Assume that RFG did back off in 1998, that he was afraid of the "Tickle Monster," or more importantly, that he was afraid of that substantial monolith called PSU, one where more than half the electorate had a direct connection. Maybe he was less afraid in 2004-5, when he didn't have to worry about reelection. That is one possible scenario, though a lot of elements don't fit.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I know that Schreffler had a discussion with Karen Arnold and she told him to hold off on a second psychology evaluation of victim 6 until the allegations could be further investigated. But Seasock did evaluate the boy. Do we know if RFG pulled Arnold before Seasock interviewed the boy?

We don't know. Seasock interviewed Victim 6 on 5/8/98. His report was faxed to University Police on 5/21/98. The last reference to JKA was 5/7/98, when she recommended against it. Schreffler testified that the DA's Office was opposed to the evaluation, as was he.

Keep in mind that neither Chambers' nor Seasock's conclusions were admissible in court in 1998 (nor in 2012). The could testify to what Victim 6 told them, and when they talked to him.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I do want to stress that the reason for JKA's removal is hypothetical.

There could have been some conflict between her and DPW for wanting to wait prior to Seasock interviewing Victim 6. I was with a different branch (assistance) of the same agency, and my branch tended to be very territorial and hugely bureaucratic. I could very easily see someone at DPW calling up RFG and saying, **We run an independent investigation and an no ADA in the middle of nowhere is going to tell us who we can interview.** That could have led to a conflict between RFG and JKA, if the "extensive disagreements" are accurate.

 

[BigCat]

We don't know. Seasock interviewed Victim 6 on 5/8/98. His report was faxed to University Police on 5/21/98. The last reference to JKA was 5/7/98, when she recommended against it. Schreffler testified that the DA's Office was opposed to the evaluation, as was he.

Keep in mind that neither Chambers' nor Seasock's conclusions were admissible in court in 1998 (nor in 2012). The could testify to what Victim 6 told them, and when they talked to him.

Here's a paragraph about Seasock's report from the Freeh Report:

“Sometime between May 27, 1998 and June 1, 1998, the local District Attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998. A senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was ’severely hampered’ by Seasock’s report.”

If the DA's office was opposed to the evaluation, why was the report given so much weight by the DA? Schreffler even followed Seasock's recommendations and counseled Sandusky about no longer showering with boys.

On the PSU football board, the conspiracy theorists see Seasock as a puppet of nefarious forces in Harrisburg. The problem with that theory is DPW's own investigator claims to never have seen Seasock's report. If Seasock's sole purpose was to contradict Chambers and give DPW cover to not press charges, then, I would think, Lauro would have referenced the report in defense of his decision not to further investigate. JMO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here's a paragraph about Seasock's report from the Freeh Report:

“Sometime between May 27, 1998 and June 1, 1998, the local District Attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998. A senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was ’severely hampered’ by Seasock’s report.”

If the DA's office was opposed to the evaluation, why was the report given so much weight by the DA? Schreffler even followed Seasock's recommendations and counseled Sandusky about no longer showering with boys.

I quite strongly disagree with Freeh's conclusions (and assigning of fault) for 1998-01. The person they interviewed was not with the DA's Office. The Seasock Report, as noted, was not admissible in court in regard to its conclusions.

No one involved in the 1998 investigation has ever stated that there was not enough evidence.

On the PSU football board, the conspiracy theorists see Seasock as a puppet of nefarious forces in Harrisburg. The problem with that theory is DPW's own investigator claims to never have seen Seasock's report. If Seasock's sole purpose was to contradict Chambers and give DPW cover to not press charges, then, I would think, Lauro would have referenced the report in defense of his decision not to further investigate. JMO.

As noted, neither of these reports were admissible in the criminal case. Lauro claims to have never seen either. While neither was admissible for RFG, Lauro could have used either.

The PSU football boards are looking for conspiracies, but in 1998, Corbett was not AG; he was a defense attorney. He left his interim term as AG in January 1997 and wouldn't be back in until January 2005.

 

[Steely Dan]

I quite strongly disagree with Freeh's conclusions (and assigning of fault) for 1998-01. The person they interviewed was not with the DA's Office. The Seasock Report, as noted, was not admissible in court in regard to its conclusions.

No one involved in the 1998 investigation has ever stated that there was not enough evidence.



As noted, neither of these reports were admissible in the criminal case. Lauro claims to have never seen either. While neither was admissible for RFG, Lauro could have used either.

The PSU football boards are looking for conspiracies, but in 1998, Corbett was not AG; he was a defense attorney. He left his interim term as AG in January 1997 and wouldn't be back in until January 2005.

The more I think about this the more I'm leaning toward suicide. I think the Sandusky thing may have gnawed at his conscience and finally led him to suicide, probably among a lot of other things.

 

[MissJ]

The more I think about this the more I'm leaning toward suicide. I think the Sandusky thing may have gnawed at his conscience and finally led him to suicide, probably among a lot of other things.

I lean toward suicide or homicide. More suicide recently.:moo::twocents:

 

[Trackergd]

Any chance JKA was the "mystery woman" he was seen talking to by witnesses?

I wonder if the witnesses were shown a photo array with a picture of JKA in it?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Any chance JKA was the "mystery woman" he was seen talking to by witnesses?

I wonder if the witnesses were shown a photo array with a picture of JKA in it?

JKA does not even come close to matching the description of the "Mystery Woman." Hair, age and build are different.

I also think her whereabouts were known for most of the day. It wouldn't make too much sense for RFG to go down to Lewisburg and wait for her for six hours (unless this walkaway).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I lean toward suicide or homicide. More suicide recently.:moo::twocents:

A lot of the evidence points to voluntary action on RFG's part. Both walkaway and suicide are voluntary.

 

[BigCat]

A lot of the evidence points to voluntary action on RFG's part. Both walkaway and suicide are voluntary.

There must be a high degree of difficulty involved in committing suicide and making your body disappear. Though, if a person intended to do so, drowning in a large body of water would probably be the best way. But that still leaves the question, why would someone want to make his body disappear?

I'm sure you've answered this question before; however, I haven't seen it: would a ruling of suicide have effected the monetary benefits received by RFG's daughter?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There must be a high degree of difficulty involved in committing suicide and making your body disappear. Though, if a person intended to do so, drowning in a large body of water would probably be the best way. But that still leaves the question, why would someone want to make his body disappear?

I'm sure you've answered this question before; however, I haven't seen it: would a ruling of suicide have effected the monetary benefits received by RFG's daughter?

The only thing would be related to life insurance, if RFG committed suicide within two years after the contract was finalized. I think that PA requires companies to pay off if the insurance was purchased more than two years prior to the suicide: http://thereinhangsatale.blogspot.com/2012/09/understand-suicide-clause-in-life.html

Hypothetically, RFG could have bought a taken about $105-120 K from the bank and bought a single premium life insurance policy worth $200 K in January 2004; if he killed himself before January 2006, his beneficiaries would only get the $105-120 K back.

The problem is, absolutely no one has suggested that RFG suddenly bought additional life insurance after 4/15/03. If he bought it in January 2003, for example, it would not make a difference.

We've talked about irrevocable trusts in the past, and generally, this time rule would not apply: http://www.willandtrustcenter.com/irrevocable_trusts.asp

 

[MissJ]

JMO but the fact that he was retiring and making plans with PF for their future travels and counting down the days doesn't sound like someone planning a suicide. If he did suicide I think something came up suddenly that worried him. I still haven't given up on homicide for the fact that people don't usually hide their bodies.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JMO but the fact that he was retiring and making plans with PF for their future travels and counting down the days doesn't sound like someone planning a suicide. If he did suicide I think something came up suddenly that worried him. I still haven't given up on homicide for the fact that people don't usually hide their bodies.

I'm not sure he was actually making plans, except for a trip to Ohio.

It did not look like he had cash for retirement.

 

[SeekingJana]

I'm not sure he was actually making plans, except for a trip to Ohio.

It did not look like he had cash for retirement.

So you think Patty F.'s statements about their planned road trips after his retirement later that year were a lie? Just for the he!! of it-she lied about what they were planning?
Why not make it something truly spectacular like they were planning a beautiful wedding in Maui when he retired? To build the house of their dreams in whatever part of PA is considered " posh" these days?
Her statements that they were going to tour the country in the Mini and see the national parks sounds extremely plausible and likely to me. She said he wanted to travel and that he was taking her with him.

You have seen the " Disappeared" episode as many times as I have, I'm sure. Patty apparently wasn't much of a traveler- so why would she make up a story about simple U.S.travel by car ?

I'm with MissJ on this. I don't think Patty was lying or embellishing. I think she was repeating what Ray had told her and what they had planned. She would have thought of the money needed, the disposition of the house while they were traveling, etc. She was not a dumb person.

I think they made plans for his post-retirement life with the woman he loved, but something happened to him and he never made it to retirement.

We do not know about the distribution of assets while he was working. Is there any reason he couldn't have given large amounts of money to Patty for safekeeping in her name? It has always seemed that he didn't want to own property in his name. Maybe this trait applied to bank deposits as well.

 

[Trackergd]

There must be a high degree of difficulty involved in committing suicide and making your body disappear. Though, if a person intended to do so, drowning in a large body of water would probably be the best way. But that still leaves the question, why would someone want to make his body disappear?

I'm sure you've answered this question before; however, I haven't seen it: would a ruling of suicide have effected the monetary benefits received by RFG's daughter?

Knowing the are well, the wooded areas in that part of Pennsylvania are so extensive that it would be very possible for remains to be undetected for quite a few years. Discovery would be accidental by a hunter or hiker.

 

[Hbgchick]

So you think Patty F.'s statements about their planned road trips after his retirement later that year were a lie? Just for the he!! of it-she lied about what they were planning?

Personally, I don't think she deliberately lied about anything. I think that what 'she' thought/wanted and what 'he' thought/wanted were just different. I don't know about all of you, but I know that I have been in some relationships that I wanted to be a lot more than they were in reality (and conversely, have been in some where the other party wanted much 'more' than I was interested in). In that sort of situation it's very easy to read what you want to hear into what the other person is actually saying. I'm not saying in any way that I don't think RFG cared for PF, but this "soul mate/forever true love" assumption might be a bit of an exaggeration.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped:

So you think Patty F.'s statements about their planned road trips after his retirement later that year were a lie? Just for the he!! of it-she lied about what they were planning?
Why not make it something truly spectacular like they were planning a beautiful wedding in Maui when he retired? To build the house of their dreams in whatever part of PA is considered " posh" these days?
Her statements that they were going to tour the country in the Mini and see the national parks sounds extremely plausible and likely to me. She said he wanted to travel and that he was taking her with him.

We do know that there no plans, dates when he planned to take off reservations, or anything like that, except for a trip to Ohio.

We do not know about the distribution of assets while he was working. Is there any reason he couldn't have given large amounts of money to Patty for safekeeping in her name? It has always seemed that he didn't want to own property in his name. Maybe this trait applied to bank deposits as well.

Yes, it would be taxable. It also would be too great an idea to give someone, other than a spouse, a huge sum of money.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Knowing the are well, the wooded areas in that part of Pennsylvania are so extensive that it would be very possible for remains to be undetected for quite a few years. Discovery would be accidental by a hunter or hiker.

There was a suicide in the area in late May of 2009, Rev. Jose Rosa. He committed suicide by hanging himself in the woods north of Lewisburg. His body was found in early April of 2010.

It is possible for a body to go undiscovered for just under 9 years, but it is unlikely in my estimation.