PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #7

[arielilane]

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, I don't doubt that what we surmise took place in the 1998 shower incident was child sexual abuse. The problem is that even the 1998 victim was not alleging rape or fondling or oral sex. It would, for example, be difficult to argue "open lewdness" in a shower. A half-awake attorney in the sticks could get that kicked.

Maybe not. He was ordered into the shower by Sandusky; Sandusky got in there with him. Sandusky admitted that he did; at this point, his lawyer, Mr. Amendola, said he admitted to that part. I really wouldn't want to go into court and claim this wasn't lewd.

I got a nasty (well not really nasty) from Mr. Buehner about my latest blog. He focused on the same point you did about the gratification aspect. That only applies to one charge, Ind Asslt Person Less 13 Yrs Age. That is a misdemeanor. The felony is Contact/Comm.W/Minor-Sexual Offenses, which include lewdness or gratification; one will probably fall, but there are two counts, F1 and F3.

Now, Mr. Amendola, I'd guess, didn't see that, and unless he's spinning, Mr. Buehner didn't see that either. Maybe RFG missed it as well.

Could they all be focused on that element, like you were, and just missed the rest.

I've always thought of RFG as being very bright, the kind of guy who doesn't make stupid mistakes. I would call him characteristically bright.

The decision was uncharacteristic of RFG, clearly. Maybe he was uncharacteristically stupid in this case. It doesn't sound like RFG did we're doing doing, talk it over. That is one possibility.

We know NOW that Sandusky raped another boy in the shower, and so many surmise, assume, etc., that the 1998 case was similar. But think in terms of 1998.

No, in the 1998 incidents, there was no allegations of rape with either victim.

The boy was not alleging rape. You want to take a swing at a fully defensive Sandusky, in a he said/he said situation, when all you can come up with is a misdemeanor? You want to open a grand jury probe with no witnesses?

That is basically what you do in a grand jury. You have at least 6 in this case.

JJ--you said a few pages back that Paterno did not know about the 1998 incident. That, of course, defies belief, since there was a 6-week investigation, and the incident took place in the football building.

I would expect that it went up through the police chain of command; Paterno wasn't part of that. They would keep that compartmentalized, or "departmentalized," in this case. There was no allegation that he was informed.

He was told about 2002, and reported it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I have a slightly different theory about why RG did not prosecute in 1998, and it also ties in to how his disappearance could be connected to the Sandusky investigation. My theory is that the high-ups at Penn State persuaded RG not to prosecute in exchange for Sandusky's retirement, which happened in 1999. Sandusky's retirement was q surprise to many when announced. To further explain my theory, perhaps RG was convinced, against his better judgment, that retirement of Sandusky, and reporting of his "activities" to The Second Mile would be enough to stop the abuse from happening again. So, reluctantly, RG agrees-after all, the higher-ups convince him it's best for the community, the school, etc to avoid such a scandal.

He didn't inform anyone at Second Mile, at least as far as we know, and it might violate confidentiality if he did.

None of the parents or victims have, so far, have indicated it.

But, it occurred to me that detectives investigating RG's disappearance would look at cases he prosecuted, but would most likely not be focused on cases he did NOT prosecute. Of course, the info that he was about to re-open an investigation against Sandusky may have been in the hard drive which was utterly destroyed. JMO

I'm not sure if they new about it. It didn't seem relevant until you got the details.

I'd heard about it and expected that Sandusky would have denied everything, and just said he wouldn't be alone with young boys anymore.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

JJ, you misread me. I was saying that there was NO rape in 1998.

RG did not have 6 cases in 1998. He had one misdemeanor case (I will not speculate on charges) no eyewitness, and a powerful potential defendent, plus his enablers at Penn State. If the case had been strong, there would have been no need to try a sting. I doubt that he would have missed a possible charge, but the boy's account seems thin. Again, the shower provides the plausible deniability of--showering. And for the first case (1998), I suppose a good lawyer would argue the "horseplay" defense. It would never pass the smell test of someone who could actually understand that "famous," "important" people who are well-thought of can be molesters, but how many Centre County people in 1998 would see Jerry Sandusky--coach, author, founder of an organization for disadvantaged kids--as a molester?

Without witnesses, how could a prosecutor argue the conduct in the shower was lewd? He said/he said. This guy was 55 and had a spotless record in 1998. Think of how many murder cases sit unresolved, although LE feels certain they know the perpetrator. Feeling sure a crime was committed or that someone is the perpetrator is a far cry from proving it in court. That is why so many cases plead out. I like Kateyes's explanation; PSU offered to fire him, he agreed to go, LE
and Gricar closed the case.

And of course, had Rg gone to trial and lost, Sandusky would never have been brought to account for that incident. Prosecutors do not like to swing and miss because they only get one swing, unless there is a mistrial, etc.

RG certainly could have brought some charge, but he would have needed more evidence and
there wasn't a felony with the possibility of serious jail time. And Sandusky would have fought it
like a--well, lion. In the Betsy Aardsma case, the man who is the current popular suspect was brought to trial for child molestation, in which two children were involved. He got off with a hung
jury. And there wasn't a giant revered institution, with its millions and it reputation to protect, covering up for him.

Oh, and JJ, I know this must be tough for you. Penn Staters have their alma mater up there on a pedestal. Here in the Burgh, we are well aware that our universities have flaws, as the media culture here, as well as the urban setting, makes it much tougher to stonewall "stuff." I am thinking of the giant fuss when I was in grad school over a new Pitt Chancellor's expensive sofa
for his redecorated office. Students and faculty pitched a fit and he was gone shortly thereafter.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, you misread me. I was saying that there was NO rape in 1998.

RG did not have 6 cases in 1998. He had one misdemeanor case (I will not speculate on charges) no eyewitness, and a powerful potential defendent, plus his enablers at Penn State. If the case had been strong, there would have been no need to try a sting.

You misread me; he had 6 witnesses, that we know about.

The case became strong when Sandusky admitted his conduct in from of 4 adult witnesses, two of them cops. If this was Victim 6 said/Sandusky said situation, I'd never be critical.

In that incident, Sandusky is charged 2 felonies and 9 misdemeanors. 6 of the misdemeanors deal solely with his actions, which he said he did. It is entirely possible RFG didn't realize that, though I'd be stunned if didn't.

If you want to claim that RFG, backed of prosecuting "a powerful potential defendent, plus his enablers at Penn State," it is entirely possible, though I would be stunned and disappointed if he did.

Further, if he felt that he didn't have the resources to prosecute, he could turn over to the AG.

Without witnesses, how could a prosecutor argue the conduct in the shower was lewd? He said/he said.

Here is the statute again:

§ 5901. Open lewdness.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he does
any lewd act which he knows is likely to be observed by others
who would be affronted or alarmed.

It comes down to if a 55 year old man would know that it was likely to cause Victim 6 or B. K. to be "affronted or alarmed," by instructing them to enter a shower, get in there with him, and give them a bear hug from behind.

Let me put it this way. I had PE in high school; public showers were required. If one of my classmates bear hugged me from behind, I'd feel "affronted and alarmed."

Again, even according to his attorney, he admitted it. And there are 9 other charges. And there was potentially another victim out there, B. K.

And of course, had Rg gone to trial and lost, Sandusky would never have been brought to account for that incident. Prosecutors do not like to swing and miss because they only get one swing, unless there is a mistrial, etc.

That sounds like a reason not to indict Sandusky now.

Again, any DA has the power to petition for a grand jury.

RG certainly could have brought some charge, but he would have needed more evidence and there wasn't a felony with the possibility of serious jail time.

Do you really think that if Sandusky was convicted on even one of the minor charges, he could be around children again. You don't want to ruin someone's life, but you don't the out there doing it either. Well, at least I don't.

I looked at the charges, and this incident is probably one of the stronger ones. Many of them are he said/he said. In two cases, the victim is unknown, including the 2002 incident that the GA witnessed.

Look, RFG had a very good record of prosecuting cases; he would prosecute for legitimate grounds, but he prosecuted cases that could be politically damaging to him. That is admirable. That is why I am shocked and confused here.

Maybe you are right and RFG was just a part of the good old boy network and didn't want to go up against "a powerful potential defendent, plus his enablers at Penn State." That was never the impression I had of the man, and if he was, my opinion of him has dropped considerably (along with my opinion of Paterno and Spanier).

 

[justathought]

I find it really hard to believe that Paterno didn't know about the 1998 incident....he was far more involved then...it was in the football locker room showers....He may not have acted on it. He may have subseqeuntly said, "I didn't hear that." He may bave been told "Coach, something happened that you don't want to know about so I'm not going to tell you." But he at least got that last one, for sure. Paterno then had the opportunity to demand the information or to accept the statement (information) at face value. But there is just no way someone that controlling didn't hear "something" from someone on staff.

I think the senario the poster gave aboe could be it and that it was suppose to include going to Second Mile as well. Since I had never heard of this organization until all of this, I'm curious as to whether the administration was the same in 1998 as it is today....and the board...and who knew what, when.

In my pexperience, the thing about non-profits and associations, board don't want there to be issues. The same holds true for universities.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

RG did not have 6 witnesses, as in eyewitnesses to corroborate a claim of child molestation. His "witnesses'" aside from the presenting victim and perhaps another child, were not eyewitnesses. A major difference in today's case is that McQueary didn't just see showering and bear-higging. He can testify to RAPE. There is also the 2000 case, in which an eyewitness told his supervisor he saw oral sex between Sandusky and a child. That elevates this case light years above what RG had in 1998. And even with the presenting victim whose mother triggered the current investigation, it has taken YEARS to get this far. And Sandusky is walking around on bond 1/5 of what the state wanted, with no monitoring, set by a self-described Second Mile volunteer. The rot goes deep.

Do I wish (using my splendid hindsight) that RG had made this case public? Absolutely. Do I know for sure why he didn't prosecute? No. But do I think that decision was a response to the Penn State cover up machine? Yes.

And do I have big questions as to why everyone up there in the bubble is so sure that RG's disappearance wasn't connected to this case (or any other, for that matter? Yes, yes, yes.

 

[minazoe]

I would like to know the whereabouts of all young men who ever attended his center. Also interested in boys who ran away from home and ended up on the streets after attending as well, especially those who may have started attending as pre-teens and were known to frequent Sandusky's house and the stadium.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Here is what the Child Welfare investigator on the 1998 said to the New York Times:

Lauro, the investigator for the state welfare department in 1998, said he was aware during the investigation that Sandusky was a prominent local figure, but that it did not affect his work.
“Was he a high-profile person?” Lauro asked. “I’d have to be stupid to tell you no. Everybody knew him.”
At the time of his investigation, Lauro said, all the child said was that Sandusky showered with him, and it made him uncomfortable. Lauro said he didn’t feel that was enough to substantiate a sexual-abuse complaint.
Lauro suggested that the child, now grown, had told the grand jury convened by the attorney general a much more explicit account.

Lauro goes on to say that the showering and hugging were, in his views at the time (given that he did not have a crystal ball into 2002 or 2011) "boundary issues" and did not rise to the level of requiring further action.

And here is what the Times says about the police investigation:

And, according to prosecutors, the commander of the university’s campus police force told his detective, Ronald Schreffler, to close the case.

Schreffler will not comment on the case. It was closed at the direction of the campus police commander. The other police officer was only present because the child lived in his jurisdiction. He is also quoted in the Times story.

What did RG have? A victim reported that he and Sandusky showered together and Sandusky "bear-hugged" him. An apology given to the mother that could just as easily mean that Sandusky was sorry to have upset the boy and he felt bad about that. No previous charges on Sandusky. We know that a potential second victim was identified but we have no idea whether that child or his parents were willing to be witnesses in a highly public prosecution. The Child Welfare officer did not think a crime had been committed. The best RG could do is charge Sandusky with a misdemeanor, once the sting failed to elicit a specific confession to child molestation. (And you know how well stings go over once a defense attorney gets hands on them.)

That pretty much sums things up for me as to why RG didn't go further. If the Child Welfare officer felt there was nothing there, and the police investigating the case wanted to close it, RG didn't have options. And is there anyone on this board that thinks Penn State's campus police wouldn't have wanted that story to just go away--when we see what happened with RAPE in 2002? Please. RG is not the guy who covered this mess up.

It's easy to hang the blame on RG. He isn't here to defend himself. And I have never suggested in any way that RG was part of a "good old boy network". Quite the contrary. I think he did not prosecute because he did not have a case solid enough to withstand the kind of defense a man like Sandusky could mount as well as the kind of stonewalling that goes on at Penn State. He lived, as we do, in a world in which people do lie, cover up and obstruct justice to protect themselves. And in a country that requires evidence for convictions and that assumes that even scum child molesters are accorded a chance to defend themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/aftermath-of-1998-sandusky-investigation-raises-additional-questions.html

 

[minazoe]

and has Sandusky been charged with traffiking and child *advertiser censored*?

why not?

Have his computers been seized?

was he warned?

I want to see more charges...I know they are out there.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What did RG have? A victim reported that he and Sandusky showered together and Sandusky "bear-hugged" him. An apology given to the mother that could just as easily mean that Sandusky was sorry to have upset the boy and he felt bad about that.

"I was wrong." "I wish I were dead." Those were his quotes.

No previous charges on Sandusky. We know that a potential second victim was identified but we have no idea whether that child or his parents were willing to be witnesses in a highly public prosecution. The Child Welfare officer did not think a crime had been committed. The best RG could do is charge Sandusky with a misdemeanor, once the sting failed to elicit a specific confession to child molestation. (And you know how well stings go over once a defense attorney gets hands on them.)

You forgot, again about the lewdness charge; that was on the one felony. There were 9 misdemeanors, even if you take that one that require gratification, there are 8 misdemeanors that don't.

Further, Sandusky requested meeting the mother; that is not exactly a "sting."

That pretty much sums things up for me as to why RG didn't go further. If the Child Welfare officer felt there was nothing there, and the police investigating the case wanted to close it, RG didn't have options. And is there anyone on this board that thinks Penn State's campus police wouldn't have wanted that story to just go away--when we see what happened with RAPE in 2002? Please. RG is not the guy who covered this mess up.

The State College police, one of them.

Or, RFG made a mistake. You can speculate all you want to about motive.

It's easy to hang the blame on RG. He isn't here to defend himself. And I have never suggested in any way that RG was part of a "good old boy network". Quite the contrary. I think he did not prosecute because he did not have a case solid enough to withstand the kind of defense a man like Sandusky could mount as well as the kind of stonewalling that goes on at Penn State.

Two police officers and the mother. He had that. Maybe he didn't think he "withstand the kind of defense." It is still a gigantic failure.

Please, do not claim his decision was a good one.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RG did not have 6 witnesses, as in eyewitnesses to corroborate a claim of child molestation.

Please, 4 witnesses to Sandusky's statement of his acts and the victims; really, it only becomes a question of if the acts rise to the level of any of the 11 charges. Endangering children, corruption of minors!

Please Pittsburghgirl!

We don't why RFG didn't prosecute. It could have been an honest lapse of judgment. It could been fear to go up against a high profile defendant with money. It could have been something else.

It was STILL a monumentally bad decision and may be related to his disappearance.

 

[Quiche]

I think the public is on the verge of knowing what Gricar came to know. moo

 

[Centerice]

"I was wrong." "I wish I were dead." Those were his quotes.

Everytime I read those quotes from Sandusky and then think about the 1998 investigation being dropped it makes me cringe.

The "wishing I were dead" part sure sounds like someone who knew what they were doing was SERIOUSLY wrong. Like a subconscious plea from someone who knows what they are doing is wrong but can't help/stop themselves.

Even if there was not enough to prosecute with the one known incident and Sanduskys statements at the time, I would have hoped that those admissions were enough to at least continue investigating.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Some information on the delays in the Sandusky investigation:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/special_report_why_the_jerry_s.html

Some of it were related to not having RFG's prosecutor's records.

 

[RubyRed]

RG did not have 6 witnesses, as in eyewitnesses to corroborate a claim of child molestation. His "witnesses'" aside from the presenting victim and perhaps another child, were not eyewitnesses. A major difference in today's case is that McQueary didn't just see showering and bear-higging. He can testify to RAPE. There is also the 2000 case, in which an eyewitness told his supervisor he saw oral sex between Sandusky and a child. That elevates this case light years above what RG had in 1998. And even with the presenting victim whose mother triggered the current investigation, it has taken YEARS to get this far. And Sandusky is walking around on bond 1/5 of what the state wanted, with no monitoring, set by a self-described Second Mile volunteer. The rot goes deep. Do I wish (using my splendid hindsight) that RG had made this case public? Absolutely. Do I know for sure why he didn't prosecute? No. But do I think that decision was a response to the Penn State cover up machine? Yes.

And do I have big questions as to why everyone up there in the bubble is so sure that RG's disappearance wasn't connected to this case (or any other, for that matter? Yes, yes, yes.

Excellent post. I agree with the bolded statement 100%.

 

[Maxim]

I had been reading and decided to sign up. When I first heard the Sandusky news, my reaction was "Gricar!"

You can't connect dots if you refuse to see dots. Whether or not the Grigar disappearance has anything to do with Sandusky, the matter needs to be thoroughly investigated until proven there is no connection.

 

[Maxim]

Of the three choices (suicide, homicide, walkaway) set aside suicide because there’s finality to suicide—end of mystery, nothing to see here. Although there was no body, if the truth is that Ray Gricar committed suicide there is nothing more to do.

Likewise, if Ray Gricar walked away, there’s nothing more to do. It’s legal, and eventually we might find out where, why, and how. Until the time he reappears, there is little to be done. However, question a sighting of a man, undisguised, talking about Cleveland Indians, smoking (clumsily) at a bar in Wilkes-Barre. It doesn’t fit the picture of someone who left a trail indicating suicide and then appears in a bar letting us all know he’s Ray because he likes the Cleveland Indians, and he really smokes. Why not just hang out a sign, or send up a flare? If he committed suicide, he wasn’t in the bar; if he were walking away, he wouldn’t light a signal fire.

Therefore, until such time as a body is found, or Gricar reappears, dealing with the mystery as a homicide might be a better approach. How do the puzzle pieces fit when considering only homicide?

 

[eriklatranyi]

Step back and take a breath. Sandusky is well-known in 1998. He admits to inappropriate contact.

Gricar knows Sandusky started a charity for troubled boys.
Gricar knows Sandusky lives across the street from a school with a window towards the playground.

Sandusky fits the profile of a pedophile perfectly.

But Gricar did not pursue the case.

 

[Maxim]

Okay. Sandusky was well-known in 1998. Agreed.

Agreed. Charity known
Agreed. Fits profile.

Unknown whether Gricar saw house, or window to playground.

Unknown whether or not Gricar was pursuing the case.