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

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

I cannot attest to RFG's actions, but Victim 6 and Schreffler can. They both testified under oath, during Sandusky's trial, that RFG never interviewed Victim 6.

We also have the interviews with MTM and BB, both former DA's, who both assumed in December of 2011 that RFG had interviewed Victim 6. That is how reasonable it was for a district attorney to have interviewed the victim.

Now, in 1998, RFG had a been prosecutor in PA for 17 years, and in Ohio for 8 years. The standard thing for a prosecutor to do would be to interview the victim, or take the word of the person who did interview victim; RFG did neither.

Now, perhaps RFG made a grave mistake and didn't realize that there was a statute that Sandusky could be charged under. If so, he chose not to rely on the person he designated as the child abuse person, JKA. He also chose not to charge prior to hearing from the suspect, which is a bit unusual. All of these things point to a lack of competence on RFG's part, which present a problem. RFG was usually competent, no, highly competent; he learned something in those 25 years of being a prosecutor.

The problem is everything that I look at case-wise, RFG was a hard hitting prosecutor, who prosecuted much weaker cases. I would not use the word "incompetent" to describe him.

 

[Hbgchick]

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.

Are you saying he should have? I mean, should he have tried to get the information and didn't try? I

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Are you saying he should have? I mean, should he have tried to get the information and didn't try? I

It is standard practice for the prosecutor to interview the victim/witness for credibility or at least take the word of the person who did.

It is probably standard practice to talk to the suspect (if he is willing), or wait until the police talk to him, to make a decision.

Neither of those things happened with RFG's handling of the Sandusky case in 1998. :what:

 

[SeekingJana]

I cannot attest to RFG's actions, but Victim 6 and Schreffler can. They both testified under oath, during Sandusky's trial, that RFG never interviewed Victim 6.

We also have the interviews with MTM and BB, both former DA's, who both assumed in December of 2011 that RFG had interviewed Victim 6. That is how reasonable it was for a district attorney to have interviewed the victim.

Now, in 1998, RFG had a been prosecutor in PA for 17 years, and in Ohio for 8 years. The standard thing for a prosecutor to do would be to interview the victim, or take the word of the person who did interview victim; RFG did neither.

Now, perhaps RFG made a grave mistake and didn't realize that there was a statute that Sandusky could be charged under. If so, he chose not to rely on the person he designated as the child abuse person, JKA. He also chose not to charge prior to hearing from the suspect, which is a bit unusual. All of these things point to a lack of competence on RFG's part, which present a problem. RFG was usually competent, no, highly competent; he learned something in those 25 years of being a prosecutor.

The problem is everything that I look at case-wise, RFG was a hard hitting prosecutor, who prosecuted much weaker cases. I would not use the word "incompetent" to describe him.

BBM for emphasis. I do not think in any way, for one minute, that Ray Gricar was either incompetent, corrupt, or otherwise unduly influenced in the matter regarding Victim 6.

My point was- the man is missing and therefore cannot speak for himself as to what his thoughts or actions might have been. There could have been discussions between him and one of his ADAs, we do not know. Some of them might have their own reasons for remaining silent, being far less honorable than Mr. Gricar- I'll leave it at that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM for emphasis. I do not think in any way, for one minute, that Ray Gricar was either incompetent, corrupt, or otherwise unduly influenced in the matter regarding Victim 6.

They the question is why didn't RFG prosecute in 1998? RFG was a competent prosecutor. A competent prosecutor would interview the victim/witness to determine if the witness was credible. Victim 6 was not interviewed. So, we have to look at another reason why RFG made his decision without interviewing Victim 6.

My point was- the man is missing and therefore cannot speak for himself as to what his thoughts or actions might have been. There could have been discussions between him and one of his ADAs, we do not know. Some of them might have their own reasons for remaining silent, being far less honorable than Mr. Gricar- I'll leave it at that.

First, there have been only two ADA's that were known to have some involvement in the case. One has talked publicly, JKA. She has stated that RFG took over the case, and the police report has indicated that there were "extensive disagreements" between the two. The redacted police report supports that claim that she was not on the case.

As many here know, there is a history between JKA and I. There is no reason for me to come her defense, as it where. However, based on both what I know about her, and what the released documents show, I believe her beyond a reasonable doubt when she said she was removed early on by RFG. Some of that is a personal judgment, but most of that is from the evidence.

Second, and more importantly, Victim 6 does not claim that anyone from the DA's Office interviewed him.

Third, while Amendola made the argument in court that RFG would have prosecuted Sandusky if RFG thought it was a strong case, he produced no witness that anyone from the DA's Office ever interviewed Victim 6 and assessed that victim's credibility. That could have helped Sandusky.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There are cases where a DA cannot prosecute because the witness is weak. Here is one from Union County:

http://www.dailyitem.com/news/article_ab104173-5c69-56c5-a0ef-2043ef48beaa.html?mode=jqm

In that case, there was a second victim, who had reported the molester, Harclerode, first. The victim, at the time, had recanted at some points and was a convicted murderer at the time he reported it. The DA in Union County, D. Peter Johnson, has said at various points that the first victim just was not credible enough to bring charges against Harclerode. That is understandable.

Johnson, however, had to know the first victims background in order to make that decision, either interview him directly or rely on the interview of the police.

 

[SeekingJana]

There are cases where a DA cannot prosecute because the witness is weak. Here is one from Union County:

http://www.dailyitem.com/news/article_ab104173-5c69-56c5-a0ef-2043ef48beaa.html?mode=jqm

In that case, there was a second victim, who had reported the molester, Harclerode, first. The victim, at the time, had recanted at some points and was a convicted murderer at the time he reported it. The DA in Union County, D. Peter Johnson, has said at various points that the first victim just was not credible enough to bring charges against Harclerode. That is understandable.

Johnson, however, had to know the first victims background in order to make that decision, either interview him directly or rely on the interview of the police.

I remember when we discussed Vic. 6 initially. It was reported that Mr. Gricar instructed police to conduct a " sting" by hiding and listening in on a face to face conversation between Vic. 6's mother and Sandusky. It was then reported that Sandusky told the mother he was sorry, and that he wished he ( Sandusky) were dead.
It was my understanding at the time that Mr. Gricar knew what had been said by both parties as reported to him by the police inside the house.

I would expect a D.A. to speak with LE first. There's a complaint, there's a police report, there's an investigation by the police, and we were told that they thought they could get good info when the mother and Sandusky conversed in person.
Is it not possible that the result of this part was enough to convince him that the case was too weak to proceed? We do NOT know the impressions of the police present ( and I do not know if the convo was recorded)- whether they thought the mother was sincere or out for money, what the child said if present, but we do know that the person known to us as Victim 6 stayed in the company of Sandusky for years afterwards. How upset was his mother then? Why didn't she stop him as he was a minor?

This is just my opinion, but I don't think laying this at Mr. Gricar's feet is fair when he was NOT the investigating body.
People call the police when they suspect or believe a crime has been committed, not the local DA's office. We have knowledge that the police did investigate the charges, hence the conversation being covertly witnessed.
It's too easy to blame a missing man who cannot defend himself.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit.

I remember when we discussed Vic. 6 initially. It was reported that Mr. Gricar instructed police to conduct a " sting" by hiding and listening in on a face to face conversation between Vic. 6's mother and Sandusky.

Yes, this is the one where Sandusky admitted to being in the shower and hugging the child, lifting him up from behind.

I would expect a D.A. to speak with LE first. There's a complaint, there's a police report, there's an investigation by the police, and we were told that they thought they could get good info when the mother and Sandusky conversed in person.
Is it not possible that the result of this part was enough to convince him that the case was too weak to proceed? We do NOT know the impressions of the police present ( and I do not know if the convo was recorded)- whether they thought the mother was sincere or out for money, what the child said if present, but we do know that the person known to us as Victim 6 stayed in the company of Sandusky for years afterwards. How upset was his mother then? Why didn't she stop him as he was a minor?

The police, Schreffler, recommended charges. Schreffler testified that he made that recommendation to RFG, both before Sandusky was interviewed and after. Sandusky said, in that interview, that he had showered with other children, and LE had one of them B. K.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think laying this at Mr. Gricar's feet is fair when he was NOT the investigating body.

The "investigating body," Schreffler, recommended charges.

It is possible that RFG did not realize that Sandusky could have been charged with (and, in fact, was convicted of) Unlawful Contact, the sole felony in this incident. The statute was new at that point. That would explain why he didn't consult with the person who was suppose to be up on that, JKA, or why he didn't check. That doesn't explain why he made his decision prior to Sandusky being interviewed. That doesn't explain why he didn't charge Sandusky on the two misdemeanor charges, Child Endangerment and Corruption of Minors.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay, I have a number of ways RFG could have walked away:

1. He could have purchased a car under a variation of his legal name, e.g. "R. Frank Gricar."

2. He could have gotten a false ID and purchased a car.

3. He could have had a "helper" buy or rent a car for him to use (RFG would reimburse the helper).

4. He could have had a "helper" drive him out.

I do not have any evidence that he did any of these things.

 

[shadow of my mind]

I remember when we discussed Vic. 6 initially. It was reported that Mr. Gricar instructed police to conduct a " sting" by hiding and listening in on a face to face conversation between Vic. 6's mother and Sandusky. It was then reported that Sandusky told the mother he was sorry, and that he wished he ( Sandusky) were dead.
It was my understanding at the time that Mr. Gricar knew what had been said by both parties as reported to him by the police inside the house.

I would expect a D.A. to speak with LE first. There's a complaint, there's a police report, there's an investigation by the police, and we were told that they thought they could get good info when the mother and Sandusky conversed in person.
Is it not possible that the result of this part was enough to convince him that the case was too weak to proceed? We do NOT know the impressions of the police present ( and I do not know if the convo was recorded)- whether they thought the mother was sincere or out for money, what the child said if present, but we do know that the person known to us as Victim 6 stayed in the company of Sandusky for years afterwards. How upset was his mother then? Why didn't she stop him as he was a minor?

This is just my opinion, but I don't think laying this at Mr. Gricar's feet is fair when he was NOT the investigating body.
People call the police when they suspect or believe a crime has been committed, not the local DA's office. We have knowledge that the police did investigate the charges, hence the conversation being covertly witnessed.
It's too easy to blame a missing man who cannot defend himself.

I bolded part of what SeekingJana said that goes along with my thoughts.

The news article of Rendell speaking to reporter about Sandusky and the 1998 incident –
“It never got to anyone on the state police level,” Rendell said, “because the Penn State police did what they should. They saw a case. They turned it over to the local prosecutor. He didn’t make it public, and later it was reported he decided not to prosecute because there wasn’t any corroborating evidence…. That was the only time there was any information taken to the outside. The rest of the time it was held within the Penn State family, or the Penn State administration.
Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...sks_Ed_Rendell_about_Jerry_Sandusky_case.html

The part I bolded in the Rendell quote is what I find very interesting. Where did that information come from?

There has been almost a 3 year long ongoing discussion about Sandusky; since information has become available, as to what the reason could have been for RFG to not prosecute in 1998. Apparently ???? the answer is “ wasn’t any corroborating evidence”. Is anyone else aware that this is the reason behind the RFG's decision.

There is something, if memory serves, about Victim #3 (B.K.) who was supposedly reported in 1998 by Victim #2 's (Z.K.)mother; he was not willing to speak up at the time or was serving in the military and out of the country so he was never interviewed.
Apparently #3 initially did not tell LE about any abuse when first contacted in 2011 so the chances are very high for him not to be willing to speak about anything 13 years earlier.

My son who was serving in the military overseas had to go through a unbelievable mountain of red tape to give witness testimony that he was subpoenaed for, and that was just for a simple traffic accident case that happen while he was home on leave. I could well understand that #3 would not want to speak up while being a member of the armed forces, and that is not even taking into account that chronicling his own personal abuse with Sandusky would have been extremely emotional, make him unbelievable vulnerable while doing a unbelievably difficult job; and may have put him a risk for being discharged.

#3 could very well be the reason for “ wasn’t any corroborating evidence”. I also think that Lauro from the Department of Welfare, and specifically Seasock's report had a huge role in the “ wasn’t any corroborating evidence” as part of in RFG's decision.

With that said, I also think there may have been some type of "off the books" warning the DA's that the Penn State officials get Sandusky under control or next time there may be "corroborating evidence".

Of course this is just my opinion, but logically it does make sense.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Victim 6 was Z. K., but B. K. was not one of the numbered victims. In 2011, B. K. was in the military, but he was 10-12 years old in 1998. RFG did have both B. K. and Victim 6 in May of 1998. B. K. was interviewed by the police and gave the same story as Victim 6. Neither one was rape.

There was another victim, Victim 4, in 1998, but no one has suggested that RFG knew about him.

Schreffler testified at trial that RFG said that there was not enough evidence. Keep in mind, however, that the AG's Office prosecuted on the May 1998 incident without B. K., and got a felony conviction.

Rendell, aka, "Fast Eddie," "Bugsy," and "Captain Cheesesteak," is the former Governor, Phila Mayor, and Phila DA.

 

[BigCat]

Victim 6 was Z. K., but B. K. was not one of the numbered victims. In 2011, B. K. was in the military, but he was 10-12 years old in 1998. RFG did have both B. K. and Victim 6 in May of 1998. B. K. was interviewed by the police and gave the same story as Victim 6. Neither one was rape.

There was another victim, Victim 4, in 1998, but no one has suggested that RFG knew about him.

Schreffler testified at trial that RFG said that there was not enough evidence. Keep in mind, however, that the AG's Office prosecuted on the May 1998 incident without B. K., and got a felony conviction.

Rendell, aka, "Fast Eddie," "Bugsy," and "Captain Cheesesteak," is the former Governor, Phila Mayor, and Phila DA.

BBM

So the only confirmation we have that RFG didn't prosecute due to lack of evidence is the testimony of Detective Schreffler?

Here's a newspaper interview in which Schreffler describes how the decision went down:

Instead, then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar told Mr. Schreffler he could not file charges. The detective said Mr. Gricar gave no explanation.

"You don't question Ray," Mr. Schreffler said, calling him the best prosecutor he'd ever worked with. "Ray was not a person to be intimidated. If he didn't feel the elements were there ..."

At the time, Mr. Gricar spoke to Mr. Schreffler's police chief, Tom Harmon, and that was it.

"'Gricar said there wasn't enough to charge, and he said to close the case,'" Mr. Schreffler recounted.

And that was it.

www.post-gazette.com/home/2011/12/18/Retired-detective-describes-1998-Sandusky-investigation/stories/201112180175

My impression from the interview is that Gricar informed Harmon who informed Schreffler. I'm not certain if Schreffler testified that Gricar told him directly or not. I'm pretty sure Harmon testified he never spoke to Gricar directly.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM

So the only confirmation we have that RFG didn't prosecute due to lack of evidence is the testimony of Detective Schreffler?

Here's a newspaper interview in which Schreffler describes how the decision went down:

Instead, then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar told Mr. Schreffler he could not file charges. The detective said Mr. Gricar gave no explanation.

"You don't question Ray," Mr. Schreffler said, calling him the best prosecutor he'd ever worked with. "Ray was not a person to be intimidated. If he didn't feel the elements were there ..."

At the time, Mr. Gricar spoke to Mr. Schreffler's police chief, Tom Harmon, and that was it.

"'Gricar said there wasn't enough to charge, and he said to close the case,'" Mr. Schreffler recounted.

And that was it.

www.post-gazette.com/home/2011/12/18/Retired-detective-describes-1998-Sandusky-investigation/stories/201112180175

My impression from the interview is that Gricar informed Harmon who informed Schreffler. I'm not certain if Schreffler testified that Gricar told him directly or not. I'm pretty sure Harmon testified he never spoke to Gricar directly.

Schreffler spoke to RFG directly, both from his testimony and the police report. The question is, was something else going on? I strongly suspect that there was additional contact between the DA's Office, and people at PSU.

 

[BigCat]

Schreffler spoke to RFG directly, both from his testimony and the police report. The question is, was something else going on? I strongly suspect that there was additional contact between the DA's Office, and people at PSU.

The more I think about the 98 investigation, the less it makes sense. According to the below story, Tom Harmon "closed" the investigation. Isn't the case closed when the DA says it is? Why was Schreffler still investigating over a week after RFG had decided not to press charges?

Sandusky, Penn State police chief who closed '98 sex abuse inquiry were once neighbors

"It reflects how incestuous the cast of characters are," said Michael Boni, who represents the person identified as Victim 1 in the Pennsylvania grand jury report released last month. "It's circular. The fact that they were neighbors ought to be investigated. Did Harmon think 'I shouldn't pursue this matter' because he's a friend or neighbor? These things have to be looked at."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/10/132730/sandusky-penn-state-police-chief.html#storylink=cpy

BTW, something I learned recently, which might be meaningless, but I found interesting nonetheless: Tom Harmon retired in August of 2005.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The more I think about the 98 investigation, the less it makes sense. According to the below story, Tom Harmon "closed" the investigation. Isn't the case closed when the DA says it is? Why was Schreffler still investigating over a week after RFG had decided not to press charges?



BTW, something I learned recently, which might be meaningless, but I found interesting nonetheless: Tom Harmon retired in August of 2005.

Schreffler accompanied Lauro and called RFG after interviewing Sandusky, but RFG still would not prosecute. Harmon could have easily thought that since RFG would not prosecute, Schreffler shouldn't do anything more. It wasn't as though RFG could get more information from Victim 6 (and presumably B. K.), and they didn't have any other complaints. The question is, why did RFG close the case before Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky?

There was a lot of strangeness in the 1998 investigation.

 

[BigCat]

Schreffler accompanied Lauro and called RFG after interviewing Sandusky, but RFG still would not prosecute. Harmon could have easily thought that since RFG would not prosecute, Schreffler shouldn't do anything more. It wasn't as though RFG could get more information from Victim 6 (and presumably B. K.), and they didn't have any other complaints. The question is, why did RFG close the case before Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky?

There was a lot of strangeness in the 1998 investigation.

I don't understand how we can pin down an exact date RFG closed the case, besides a brief mention in the Freeh Report, I believe, that he decided not to press charges a few days after receiving Seasock's report. But some of Schreffler's public comments don't appear to support that conclusion:

Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn't indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution's case even more difficult.

"It'd be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn't any abuse."

http://www.post-gazette.com/home/20...8-Sandusky-investigation/stories/201112180175

Lauro decided not to press charges on June 1st. If we are to believe the above statement by Schreffler, then RFG's mind was not made up until at least June 1st. :dunno:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't understand how we can pin down an exact date RFG closed the case, besides a brief mention in the Freeh Report, I believe, that he decided not to press charges a few days after receiving Seasock's report. But some of Schreffler's public comments don't appear to support that conclusion:

Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn't indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution's case even more difficult.

"It'd be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn't any abuse."

http://www.post-gazette.com/home/20...8-Sandusky-investigation/stories/201112180175

Lauro decided not to press charges on June 1st. If we are to believe the above statement by Schreffler, then RFG's mind was not made up until at least June 1st. :dunno:

According the Spanier grand jury presentment, RFG made up his mind prior to the interview of Sandusky. According to Lauro, Schreffler told him that they would not be prosecuting before Lauro made his decision. The police file backs that up.

I am, frankly, not sure if RFG ever saw the Seasock Report, but might be in the unreleased pages. The Chambers report was attached to the file. Either way, neither was admissible in court.

 

[BigCat]

According the Spanier grand jury presentment, RFG made up his mind prior to the interview of Sandusky. According to Lauro, Schreffler told him that they would be prosecuting before Lauro made his decision. The police file backs that up.

I am, frankly, not sure if RFG ever saw the Seasock Report, but might be in the unreleased pages. The Chambers report was attached to the file. Either way, neither was admissible in court.

Just for clarity: did you leave a "not" out of that sentence?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just for clarity: did you leave a "not" out of that sentence?

Yes, I corrected it. Thank you.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

trhere has been discussion of what the public reaction would have been to RFG being there after Sandusky was exposed. Here is what is happening in a similar case: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/10/02/4384564/harris-supervisor-and-boal-mansion.html