PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #13

[J. J. in Phila]

The one, Bob Buehner, said that any DA would; he opined that RFG would, but he had no personal knowledge of it. However, according to both Schreffler and Victim 6, RFG did not interview Victim 6. They said it under oath at the Sandusky trial. http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_ JT.pdf pp. 80-81, 20

That is one of three known things about the 1998 investigation that raises red flags.

RFG was smart enough to pull off a vanishing act. That doesn't prove that he did it, however.

I just wanted to follow up on this a bit.

First, there was a second victim, B. K., in the 1998 incident. We don't know if RFG interviewed him or not.

Second, B. K. was not "Victim 4," and I have no information that RFG knew about Victim 4. It has been suggested, on-line, that he could have known about Victim 4, but I have had no suggestion that he did, publicly or privately. Because I don't know about, however, does not mean that RFG did not know about Victim 4; it just means that I have no knowledge to that effect.

Third, I do want to be clear that Buehner was talking in the general case, i.e. that a DA would likely interview a victim in a case such as this. He was not claiming knowledge that RFG actually did interview Victim 6, which would have been refuted by Victim 6 and Schreffler.

 

[shadow of my mind]

They have the route. It might not be door to door, just Bellefonte or State College to Lewisburg. Someone can map that out. I just used Google Maps and got directions from State College to Lewisburg, just using those terms.

It is also possible RFG was looking at the drive time if he was driving below the speed limit. One walkaway theory is that he was picked up by a helper who drove him back to Centre County on the night of 4/15. He may have returned on the morning of 4/16 to give LE the impression he was there on the night of 4/15-4/16. Driving back to Lewisburg on the morning of 4/16, he would not want to exceed the speed limit and be pulled over by the police, so he would drive more slowly.

Well, this brings to mind the report of the women who worked with RFG at the courthouse who said she saw RFG driving a cream or light tan colored car, at the court house about 3:00pm on Friday. I believe there was another person from the court house; a judge, but his recollection was not clear as to the actual day he had seen RFG. I don't remember the women's name. I'm also not sure I have the correct time, and car color on this but its close enough for the purpose of discussion on the fact that RFG may have returned to Centre Valley and then went back to Lewisburg the next day.

My question is why? Logically, if you are going to walk away, why take the chance on going back to the town that he lived in and then back to the town you used to set up your escape point from. It just gives someone in LE, a co-worker or friend or an otherwise observant individual who is a news junky another chance on spotting you. Unless you forgot something important and had no choice but to return. The laptop itself ????? Possibly the hard drive had already been taken out and tossed but lingering doubts remained that nothing would actually remain in the RAM.

And just one other thought ...... could he have been forced to drive back to the house to get the laptop, but in a car that no one would notice. As far as being seen outside the courthouse, could RFG have managed to take a route to his home that would go directly by the courthouse on purpose in hopes that someone may see him, take notice that he was in a different car and remember that.
Yes a stretch for sure, and I think rather unlikely, but there have been cases where victims have been forced to drive a great distance.

I have said before, as well as many others on this thread, there is just something that we are not seeing.

Also, and this is a pet peeve of mine, the statement by this woman from the court house was basically dismissed and it appears to have never been seriously looked into by the police. Their reason "because it did not fit the timeline they had developed".

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit.

Well, this brings to mind the report of the women who worked with RFG at the courthouse who said she saw RFG driving a cream or light tan colored car, at the court house about 3:00pm on Friday. I believe there was another person from the court house; a judge, but his recollection was not clear as to the actual day he had seen RFG. I don't remember the women's name. I'm also not sure I have the correct time, and car color on this but its close enough for the purpose of discussion on the fact that RFG may have returned to Centre Valley and then went back to Lewisburg the next day.

Her name was Fenton; she was a clerk to Judge David Grine (father of Jonathan), who was the DA that hired RFG in 12/80. Fenton said that she was sure it was on 4/15; Grine said 4/14 or 4/15. It was not on the 4/15 tape, which means:

A. Fenton didn't see RFG.

B. Fenton didn't see it in the parking lot (he could have been on the street).

C. Fenton has the wrong day (which would be consistent with Grine).

D. Lucasfilm had the tape and altered it.

From what has been reported, RFG did have the time to drive to Lewisburg, leave 1:30 PM and2:00 PM, drive to Bellefonte by 3:00 PM and be back Lewisburg by between 4:00 and 5:00 PM, even if he stayed under the speed limit.

My question is why? Logically, if you are going to walk away, why take the chance on going back to the town that he lived in and then back to the town you used to set up your escape point from.

Dropping off the person who brought him the other car would be the major possibility.

And just one other thought ...... could he have been forced to drive back to the house to get the laptop, but in a car that no one would notice.

It is next to impossible to force someone to drive that distance at gunpoint. He could simply run the car off the road, or into a tree, or drive right in front of BPD Office and stop.

Think about it. Assume that a killer/kidnapper holding a gun on someone who is driving. If the driver doesn't listen, what is the killer going to do, shoot a guy driving at 60 MPH?

 

[BigCat]

I just wanted to follow up on this a bit.

First, there was a second victim, B. K., in the 1998 incident. We don't know if RFG interviewed him or not.

Second, B. K. was not "Victim 4," and I have no information that RFG knew about Victim 4. It has been suggested, on-line, that he could have known about Victim 4, but I have had no suggestion that he did, publicly or privately. Because I don't know about, however, does not mean that RFG did not know about Victim 4; it just means that I have no knowledge to that effect.

Third, I do want to be clear that Buehner was talking in the general case, i.e. that a DA would likely interview a victim in a case such as this. He was not claiming knowledge that RFG actually did interview Victim 6, which would have been refuted by Victim 6 and Schreffler.

I went back and watched the video; it was actually Madeira who says "If he met with that victim, and I believe he did...."

Buehner says the bit about RFG putting on his game face because "that's the one that really gets us..." ("one" being a case of child abuse).

I think both men honestly believed RFG did everything he could to investigate the allegations against Sandusky and that's why they were confident in saying so before the trial took place. But there is a little evidence to suggest that was the case. I would like to hear follow-up interviews with both men. I bet they wouldn't defend RFG's decision so vociferously now.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I went back and watched the video; it was actually Madeira who says "If he met with that victim, and I believe he did...."

Buehner says the bit about RFG putting on his game face because "that's the one that really gets us..." ("one" being a case of child abuse).

I think both men honestly believed RFG did everything he could to investigate the allegations against Sandusky and that's why they were confident in saying so before the trial took place. But there is a little evidence to suggest that was the case. I would like to hear follow-up interviews with both men. I bet they wouldn't defend RFG's decision so vociferously now.

Madeira actually said that he would have prosecuted, IIRC, but that he wouldn't second guess RFG. I don't question the motives of either man. Even looking at RFG's record, and not knowing him personally, my initial reaction was it was bad judgment.

The day the grand jury report was released, I talked with someone who new RFG slightly. When the news came out, the person was talking about other aspects of the case, and the person was leaning toward foul play. As soon at the person read the presentment, conspiracy and bribery came up, and I did not raise it. I said this:

"Now for the Sandusky case, Ray was one of three things: Stupid, Scared, or Shady."

1. "Stupid" would be the bad judgment (okay, a colossal collapse of judgment). He didn't realize the new law was on the books or that the case was as strong as it was. He made an uncharacteristic mistake. I cannot, however, believe that even on a bad day, he would not listen to the person that conducted the interview and go against that without interviewing the victim. He would not make his decision until the suspect was interviewed. This guy was not an idiot and specifically removed the case from JKA.

2. "Scared" would be that he didn't want to up against "The Great Sandusky" and feared that he would not only not getting a conviction, but that he would lose the next election. I have seen him prosecute weaker cases, and ones that could be politically damaging. Sandusky, however, could have created a backlash bigger than any he faced.

3. "Shady" would be conspiracy or bribery. I still cannot wrap my mind around that possibility, completely.

What we now know points more strongly to #2 and #3 than to #1. There is no additional evidence supporting #3, at this point, and there is no evidence that he interfered with the DPW investigation, and we might see #1 and #2 in combination.

The more that has come out, however, the worse RFG looks. In that case, I would draw a parallel with Paterno.

 

[MissJ]

JMO, nothing I have heard about RFG makes me think "shady". Nor scared for that matter.

 

[Hbgchick]

I don't think we ever identified him, but I would expect that he was known to the police. I suspect it was an employee taking a cigarette break.
.

Well, sure. That's what I suspect, also. It just struck me watching it through this time...was that man interviewed by LE? I have been known to grasp at straws before but...it's just a curious thing that I would like to have resolution to coupled with the cigarette smell/ash in the Mini. Granted, yet curiously, a whole lot more people smoke in Centre County than in most other places I have lived/visited (just a personal observation).

RE/Sandusky. I still think that the Sandusky connection has nothing at all to do with RFG's disappearance. In fact, I think that the most simple explanation is the truth re/that matter: At that time, in 1998, RFG felt that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Sandusky, so he didn't.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JMO, nothing I have heard about RFG makes me think "shady". Nor scared for that matter.

First, as indicated, I have no indication of "shady," which is good. We can't say, however, say it is impossible, as a matter of logic.

Second, in terms of "scared," that refers to a huge reluctance to prosecute Sandusky. It includes:

A. Removing JKA.

B. Not interviewing Victim 6 and acting against the recommendation of the person who did interview Victim 6.

C. Making his decision prior to the police/DPW interviewing Sandusky.

Now, I can understand RFG not being familiar with what was then a new statute, Unlawful Contact, but that does not explain removing the person from the case who probably would be familiar with it or at least consulting with her on if there were grounds to charge. (There are also questions about why documents, i.e. the reports, were never forwarded to DPW, but they may have an innocent explanation.)

I could understand RFG interviewing the witness and making a judgment call that the witness would not be believed by a jury. I could not understand any prosecutor making that decision without interviewing the witness or at least relying on the judgment of the person who did.

I could understand, after an interview was conducted with the suspect and based on that interview, not prosecuting. I could not understand making that decision prior to that interview.

At best, RFG took a series of questionable actions that would raise questions of his competence as a DA. The problem is, in all cases that I have been able to look at, RFG was highly competent, if not brilliant.

The only answer that I can come up with between the first two S's is that RFG did not want to prosecute Sandusky; that is what I mean by "scared." He didn't want to anger 50%+ of the electorate or he thought that Sandusky would never be convicted by a Centre County jury, especially for something that was not rape. It isn't unethical or illegal and DA's do make those types of decisions.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, sure. That's what I suspect, also. It just struck me watching it through this time...was that man interviewed by LE? I have been known to grasp at straws before but...it's just a curious thing that I would like to have resolution to coupled with the cigarette smell/ash in the Mini. Granted, yet curiously, a whole lot more people smoke in Centre County than in most other places I have lived/visited (just a personal observation).

I don't know if he was.

RE/Sandusky. I still think that the Sandusky connection has nothing at all to do with RFG's disappearance. In fact, I think that the most simple explanation is the truth re/that matter: At that time, in 1998, RFG felt that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Sandusky, so he didn't.

I'm not convinced that it is, but we can't rule it out, either for foul play or walkaway.

If RFG had made his decision not to prosecute after interviewing Victim 6 and after the police interviewed Sandusky, I would chalk it up a case of exceedingly poor judgment. The problem is, he made his decision in the absence of those things.

 

[BigCat]

Respectfully snipped

I could understand RFG interviewing the witness and making a judgment call that the witness would not be believed by a jury. I could not understand any prosecutor making that decision without interviewing the witness or at least relying on the judgment of the person who did.

I could understand, after an interview was conducted with the suspect and based on that interview, not prosecuting. I could not understand making that decision prior to that interview.

If anyone doubts how unusual that decision was, they should check out the interviews with Madeira and Beuhner. Both men are experienced DAs who are defending RFG's decision and both assumed RFG interviewed the victim.

At best, RFG took a series of questionable actions that would raise questions of his competence as a DA. The problem is, in all cases that I have been able to look at, RFG was highly competent, if not brilliant.

The only answer that I can come up with between the first two S's is that RFG did not want to prosecute Sandusky; that is what I mean by "scared." He didn't want to anger 50%+ of the electorate or he thought that Sandusky would never be convicted by a Centre County jury, especially for something that was not rape. It isn't unethical or illegal and DA's do make those types of decisions.

True. It isn't unethical or illegal and DA's do make those types of decisions, but would they say that publicly when defending their decisions not to prosecute a child abuser?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit.

True. It isn't unethical or illegal and DA's do make those types of decisions, but would they say that publicly when defending their decisions not to prosecute a child abuser?

Something like this:

**In 1998, Jerry Sandusky was very popular in Centre County. I doubt that had I prosecuted on the charge of Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Years of Age, I would have been able to get a conviction. Mr. Sandusky was acquitted on that charge in 2011. A conviction on his charge would have placed Mr. Sandusky in the Meagan's List registry.

I did not realize that I could charge Mr. Sandusky with Unlawful Contact with Minor, as the statute was less than 6 months old. I did not realize that a conviction on this charge would have also put Mr. Sandusky on Meagan's list. I had had decided to take over this personally and not let our child abuse person handle it and was familiar with this. That was a mistake.

Because of these mistakes, I decided not to pursue Mr. Sandusky in 1998.

I would add that, in regard to this incident, Mr. Sandusky was never accused of rape or of any penetration and it was not clear that he had any genital contact with Victim 6. Victim 6's does not claim that his genitals ever contacted Mr. Sandusky. **

Or:

**It wasn't rape and I didn't want to take on Penn State.**

It would not have been RFG's finest hour, but it was survivable.

 

[BigCat]

Snipped a bit.



Something like this:

**In 1998, Jerry Sandusky was very popular in Centre County. I doubt that had I prosecuted on the charge of Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Years of Age, I would have been able to get a conviction. Mr. Sandusky was acquitted on that charge in 2011. A conviction on his charge would have placed Mr. Sandusky in the Meagan's List registry.

I did not realize that I could charge Mr. Sandusky with Unlawful Contact with Minor, as the statute was less than 6 months old. I did not realize that a conviction on this charge would have also put Mr. Sandusky on Meagan's list. I had had decided to take over this personally and not let our child abuse person handle it and was familiar with this. That was a mistake.

Because of these mistakes, I decided not to pursue Mr. Sandusky in 1998.

I would add that, in regard to this incident, Mr. Sandusky was never accused of rape or of any penetration and it was not clear that he had any genital contact with Victim 6. Victim 6's does not claim that his genitals ever contacted Mr. Sandusky. **

Or:

**It wasn't rape and I didn't want to take on Penn State.**

It would not have been RFG's finest hour, but it was survivable.

**Mr Gricar, did you speak to anyone employed by Penn State University about Jerry Sandusky before or after your decision not to prosecute?**

Are you taking questions?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

**Mr Gricar, did you speak to anyone employed by Penn State University about Jerry Sandusky before or after your decision not to prosecute?**

Are you taking questions?

I'm assuming, for these purposes that he didn't.



I would not necessarily assume that in real life.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Some comments on the case from Rendell: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...sks_Ed_Rendell_about_Jerry_Sandusky_case.html


RFG is "the guy who disappeared."

 

[SeekingJana]

Some comments on the case from Rendell: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...sks_Ed_Rendell_about_Jerry_Sandusky_case.html


RFG is "the guy who disappeared."

IDK if the article has been modified, but Ray Gricar is called by his name, as he should be. He has a name, it is used.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

IDK if the article has been modified, but Ray Gricar is called by his name, as he should be. He has a name, it is used.

This is Rendell's quote from the article:

“What you’re talking about Howard is one of the very first incidents that was turned over to the Penn State police force. And I think they turned it over to their administration. ... Actually, I take it back, the first case , you remember, was turned over to the Center County district attorney, the fellow who disappeared. And he decided not to prosecute because he said there wasn’t enough corroborating evidence.”

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports..._Jerry_Sandusky_case.html#TmYMF2XgqxIUyIJS.99

Emphasis added.

I am not Captain Cheesesteak saying it.

 

[Hbgchick]

The problem is, he made his decision in the absence of those things.[/B]

Emphasis added. Exactly. We all have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and it's easy to say that RFG had all of this information and blatantly ignored it and did not prosecute JS due to 'fear' or 'apprehension' that Big, Bad Penn State University would come after him. The reality is that A.) he didn't have that information in the first place and B.) if he did, he doesn't really strike me as the type of person who would have given a rat's butt what Penn State or anyone else thought of the decision. If he had a clear indication of child sexual abuse that he felt he could prosecute, against anyone, I believe he would have done so. The fact is that he didn't, not at the time. NOBODY did.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Emphasis added. Exactly. We all have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and it's easy to say that RFG had all of this information and blatantly ignored it and did not prosecute JS due to 'fear' or 'apprehension' that Big, Bad Penn State University would come after him. The reality is that A.) he didn't have that information in the first place and B.) if he did, he doesn't really strike me as the type of person who would have given a rat's butt what Penn State or anyone else thought of the decision. If he had a clear indication of child sexual abuse that he felt he could prosecute, against anyone, I believe he would have done so. The fact is that he didn't, not at the time. NOBODY did.

The problem is, that RFG did not even try to get the information, i.e. he did not interview Victim 6, he did not interview Sandusky, or wait for the police to bring it to him, and after that, did not talk to JKA about what charges could be filed.

Had he gotten the report from Schreffler, and it was that Sandusky didn't do anything wrong, I could understand his action. That is not what happened. RFG even made his decision prior to Lauro's decision.

 

[SeekingJana]

This is Rendell's quote from the article:

“What you’re talking about Howard is one of the very first incidents that was turned over to the Penn State police force. And I think they turned it over to their administration. ... Actually, I take it back, the first case , you remember, was turned over to the Center County district attorney, the fellow who disappeared. And he decided not to prosecute because he said there wasn’t enough corroborating evidence.”

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports..._Jerry_Sandusky_case.html#TmYMF2XgqxIUyIJS.99

Emphasis added.

I am not Captain Cheesesteak saying it.

We're both right. The Rendell dude calls him " guy who disappeared" but a paragraph later, he is called by his name by the reporter who wrote the article.

 

[SeekingJana]

The problem is, that RFG did not even try to get the information, i.e. he did not interview Victim 6, he did not interview Sandusky, or wait for the police to bring it to him, and after that, did not talk to JKA about what charges could be filed.

Had he gotten the report from Schreffler, and it was that Sandusky didn't do anything wrong, I could understand his action. That is not what happened. RFG even made his decision prior to Lauro's decision.

Since there's no file, and since Mr. Gricar has been missing for 9.5 years and cannot attest to his actions or reasoning for them, how can you assume that there was never anything done by Mr. Gricar at all? The file is not there.. but there may have been one at the time.You can't prove a negative.
The man himself is not here to say who he talked to and what he thought and why he didn't prosecute.. and that's why we are here.