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

[J. J. in Phila]

Wow, 18 months...maybe that statute needs changing. These are the reports held by the DA, correct?
That seesm like an awfully short period of time.......

Thanks for the response.

They might be held by Children and Youth Services.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I guess we don't know, but I think they may have been. The mom wore a wire and so they have a recording of Sandusky admitting guilt. I don't think the mom would have worn a wire if she had not been willing to get involved in the prosecution of this case.

The problem is we don't know what we don't know. Yes, the mom appeared willing, but was the kid up for it? With only 2 identified victims at that point, if one dropped out, was the other willing to go forward? The DCF person quoted in the papers said there wasn't enough evidence to go forward at that point, and he was privy to what was said between the mom and Sandusky with the police listening. It would have been difficult to go ahead with a case of touching against a public person, much less a football hero. We know Ray was cautious, it's possible to be cautious without being corrupt in such a circumstance.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The problem is we don't know what we don't know. Yes, the mom appeared willing, but was the kid up for it? With only 2 identified victims at that point, if one dropped out, was the other willing to go forward? The DCF person quoted in the papers said there wasn't enough evidence to go forward at that point, and he was privy to what was said between the mom and Sandusky with the police listening. It would have been difficult to go ahead with a case of touching against a public person, much less a football hero. We know Ray was cautious, it's possible to be cautious without being corrupt in such a circumstance.

RFG had the ability to call a grand jury, where he could have investigated more victims. If he had an indictment, he could have asked for a change of venue.

I'm not even close to calling him corrupt. Obviously, it's possible, but this isn't evidence of anything other than a gigantically bad decision. Even a brilliant person can make mistakes.

Honestly, RFG had a record of taking on tough cases that he had very little chance of winning.

If RFG had made a string of bad decisions, I would not be shocked. He didn't. His judgment was usually good.

 

[Blackspeare]

My wife and I believe that the disappearance of Ray Gricar had nothing to do with Penn State, but rather with one of his last cases, namely the drug bust. Drug dealers have a wide reach and whether Gricar was eliminated because of his duties as a DA or because he was on the take is a matter for discussion. The circumstantial evidence points to Gricar leaving the Mini-Cooper and either voluntarily or involuntarily going into another vehicle. From there he was persuaded to disappear with help or more likely was killed and his body hidden a la James Hoffa.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

My wife and I believe that the disappearance of Ray Gricar had nothing to do with Penn State, but rather with one of his last cases, namely the drug bust. Drug dealers have a wide reach and whether Gricar was eliminated because of his duties as a DA or because he was on the take is a matter for discussion. The circumstantial evidence points to Gricar leaving the Mini-Cooper and either voluntarily or involuntarily going into another vehicle. From there he was persuaded to disappear with help or more likely was killed and his body hidden a la James Hoffa.

He wasn't the prosecutor for that case. It was being handled by the AG's Office.

(The AG's Office seems to be on a roll.)

 

[Quiche]

Doesn't it seem probable that Gricar's 1998 case wasn't prosecuted because there was likely much more to Sandusky's crimes? There's acknowledgement that he preyed on boys from The Second Mile charity. It seems to me a good DA might be patient and build a case that would stop larger, more far reaching crime. By 2005, we know if Gricar was building a case it would be flush with compounding evidence. :waitasec:

I read these threads about Gricar in the past, and was entirely stunned when I saw his name in the GJ report. I always felt it was a professional "hit", and now, I'm thinking there may have been a glaring reason for one. I hope I'm wrong, and these victims stop at what we've already been given details on, but it really doesn't fit, does it? The Second Mile was structured in 1977-- twenty years before we hear about the "first" victim. Twenty years before we hear about his gestures of grooming applied methodically to victim after victim. No, this is a predator who stalked his young prey for 30 years or better right under Gricar's office's nose. My instinct says Gricar was onto this thing and threats for him to leave it alone were deadly serious.

All MOO.

 

[minazoe]

a successful man who would start a charitable organization in order to molest and rape 8-10 year old boys is capable of anything.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Doesn't it seem probable that Gricar's 1998 case wasn't prosecuted because there was likely much more to Sandusky's crimes? There's acknowledgement that he preyed on boys from The Second Mile charity. It seems to me a good DA might be patient and build a case that would stop larger, more far reaching crime. By 2005, we know if Gricar was building a case it would be flush with compounding evidence. :waitasec:

I read these threads about Gricar in the past, and was entirely stunned when I saw his name in the GJ report. I always felt it was a professional "hit", and now, I'm thinking there may have been a glaring reason for one. I hope I'm wrong, and these victims stop at what we've already been given details on, but it really doesn't fit, does it? The Second Mile was structured in 1977-- twenty years before we hear about the "first" victim. Twenty years before we hear about his gestures of grooming applied methodically to victim after victim. No, this is a predator who stalked his young prey for 30 years or better right under Gricar's office's nose. My instinct says Gricar was onto this thing and threats for him to leave it alone were deadly serious.

All MOO.

Well, why didn't he pursue it?

First of all, a DA in Pennsylvania can petition a judge, secretly, to empanel a grand jury, which could investigate; it does not have to be the state AG's office. There were incidents prior to 1998 and there was another incident in 1998 as well, with the victim identified as B. K.

Second, RFG was retiring. He announced it in 2004 and said he'd been planning on it since his last reelection in 2001. April 15 to December 31 doesn't exactly give a him a lot of time to indict and he'd be guaranteed not to be trying the case.

 

[Quiche]

Well, why didn't he pursue it?

First of all, a DA in Pennsylvania can petition a judge, secretly, to empanel a grand jury, which could investigate; it does not have to be the state AG's office. There were incidents prior to 1998 and there was another incident in 1998 as well, with the victim identified as B. K.

Second, RFG was retiring. He announced it in 2004 and said he'd been planning on it since his last reelection in 2001. April 15 to December 31 doesn't exactly give a him a lot of time to indict and he'd be guaranteed not to be trying the case.

It makes sense to me that there was a lot of pressure to look the other way (Penn State football seems to be the elephant in the room), but eventually, I think he was threatened. His last few weeks seem indicative of someone in a state of panic: depression, sleep patterns interrupted, working odd hours, breaking routine, and I always felt that computer was scrubbed under duress.

jmo

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It makes sense to me that there was a lot of pressure to look the other way (Penn State football seems to be the elephant in the room), but eventually, I think he was threatened. His last few weeks seem indicative of someone in a state of panic: depression, sleep patterns interrupted, working odd hours, breaking routine, and I always felt that computer was scrubbed under duress.

jmo

He talked to folks about getting rid of the data about a year before he disappeared.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The District Judge who arraigned Sandusky is named Leslie A. Dutchcot. Interestingly, she:

1. Contributed to Second Mile.

2. Is currently "of counsel" in the firm of Goodall and Yurchak, whose senior partner is Amos Goodall, longtime friend of Ray Gricar and attorney representing Lara Gricar in the petition to declare Ray Gricar dead.


http://www.centreinjurylaw.com/Bio/LeslieDutchcot.asp

 

[pittsburghgirl]

There was no admission of sexual assault in the 1998 case; I've read that the showering/hugging would have been no more than a misdemeanor and that with no eyewitness. I would take it that the point of the sting attempt was to get a confession and hopefully set up a plea bargain. Since the investigators were from Penn State, we can speculate (if not assume) that entities there were interested in making the case go away. What RG essentially had was the testimony of a young boy against essentially the heir apparent to Paterno; he may also have encountered the sort of cover-up we KNOW about today. And of course, up to that point, there was no record of earlier incidents with Sandusky while, at the same time, he is a celebrated coach who (for all people knew at that time) had founded a wonderful charity to help kids (though I bet these activities go back at least to the founding of Second Mile).

Think of it this way: Paterno, et. al. covered up a child rape in which there was a credible adult
eyewitness in 2002. A janitor (another credible adult) saw an oral sex act in 2000; that was ignored by PSU at best, covered up at worst. They covered it up so well that Sandusky gave a commencement speech in 2007. The only reason the cat is out of the bag now is that one mother followed up on her concerns about her son with a local school district. You can bet that there was
a lot of pressure to make the 1998 case go away, and the easiest people to pressure would be the University police.

None of us know what RG knew, what went on in the investigation, or what obstructions people trying to investigate encountered. But the very fact that there was a sting operation is a reasonable indicator that RG and some investigators were trying to make a case; that there was no arrest did not mean that the case was over because the statute of limitations is so long in these cases.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

If RG learned something new about Sandusky post-2002, that could have accounted for some sleepless nights--most people in his position would have regretted not pushing the earlier (1998) case. He might also have become aware of the cover-up. And then there would have been the problem of how to proceed given political difficulties of taking on Penn State in Centre County with a story this explosive--because once Paterno and the others covered up the 2002 rape, the stakes became so much higher for them.

We already know of 6 adults who knew of the rape. It would not be unreasonable to assume that one or more of those people told a spouse, a friend, a priest, someone else on the football staff. For anyone with a conscience, this secret would have been a terrible burden. And, of course, there may be many, many more victims, any one of whom could have called RG and told him history. It is all "if," might have," "could have," "maybe": because RG disappeared.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There was no admission of sexual assault in the 1998 case; I've read that the showering/hugging would have been no more than a misdemeanor and that with no eyewitness.

Three of the charges, which account for 10 counts, I think, do not require sexual contact:

These are:

§ 4304. Endangering welfare of children.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the
welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that
employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he
knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a
duty of care, protection or support.
(2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an
official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of
a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63
(relating to child protective services).
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "person
supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than
a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training
or control of a child.
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.043.004.000.html
§ 6301. Corruption of minors.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) Whoever, being of the age of 18 years and upwards,
by any act corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any
minor less than 18 years of age, or who aids, abets, entices
or encourages any such minor in the commission of any crime,
or who knowingly assists or encourages such minor in
violating his or her parole or any order of court, commits a
misdemeanor of the first degree. http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.001.000.html § 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).
(3) Prostitution as defined in section 5902 (relating to
prostitution and related offenses).
(4) Obscene and other sexual materials and performances
as defined in section 5903 (relating to obscene and other
sexual materials and performances).
(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312
(relating to sexual abuse of children).
(6) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in
section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children). http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html [5901] § 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.
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.059.001.000.html

They are misdemeanor charges, but the are ten of them.

I would take it that the point of the sting attempt was to get a confession and hopefully set up a plea bargain. Since the investigators were from Penn State, we can speculate (if not assume) that entities there were interested in making the case go away.

One was from the University Police, but the other was from the State College Police. On those three, Sandusky admitted to them to the CYS investigator as well. Further, it wasn't PSU's decision it was RFG's.

What RG essentially had was the testimony of a young boy against essentially the heir apparent to Paterno; he may also have encountered the sort of cover-up we KNOW about today. And of course, up to that point, there was no record of earlier incidents with Sandusky while, at the same time, he is a celebrated coach who (for all people knew at that time) had founded a wonderful charity to help kids (though I bet these activities go back at least to the founding of Second Mile).

RFG could have looked, using a grand jury. If you wish to make the argument that RFG didn't prosecute Sandusky, because he was legendary Jerry Sandusky, go ahead.

According to the presentment the police, they forwarded it to RFG.

I think there was a lot of that going around in Happy Valley.

None of us know what RG knew, what went on in the investigation, or what obstructions people trying to investigate encountered. But the very fact that there was a sting operation is a reasonable indicator that RG and some investigators were trying to make a case; that there was no arrest did not mean that the case was over because the statute of limitations is so long in these cases.

It does mean that we don't know why RFG did what he did after he got the information.

 

[shefner]

If you read the recent grand jury report, its quite the eye-opener. The people who worked with Sandusky had to have known something was wrong. Many of these victims were friends or acquaintances of each other. They slept in Sandusky's home and went with him to public events...even family events. Even back in the early to mid 90's, there were times when adults saw Sandusky doing some questionable things with these kids.

 

[Kateyes]

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.

Fast forward to 2002and 2005. RG is once again informed of additional incidents, though exactly how I am not sure. Maybe a parent, or even someone connected with The Second Mile who knew what the university reported to them about Sandusky in 1998. Upon learning of additional abuse cases, RG is deeply disturbed. He decides to reopen an investigation on Sandusky, and notifies those high-ups of his intentions. He tells them he cannot stick to his agreement now that continuing abuses have come to light. And, that was the beginning of his end. Of course, all of this is pure speculation, and MOO. 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

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If RG learned something new about Sandusky post-2002, that could have accounted for some sleepless nights--most people in his position would have regretted not pushing the earlier (1998) case. He might also have become aware of the cover-up. And then there would have been the problem of how to proceed given political difficulties of taking on Penn State in Centre County with a story this explosive--because once Paterno and the others covered up the 2002 rape, the stakes became so much higher for them.

The change in demeanor was in the month prior to his disappearance. If it was something, it was then.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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. And we can't just think about 1998 in hindsight. 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.
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? What would anyone have probed? By 2009, the AG has 1998, Sandusky's retirement, a cooperative victim and his mother, and someone, somewhere, who spilled the beans about 2002. We still don't know how investigators learned about the 2002 rape, unless in investigating Sandusky, they put the football staff under oath and McQueary talked.

and 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. You can be sure that ANY head coach would know if a subordinate was in trouble with the law; you can be doubly sure that Paterno would be told of any investigation by University police; and there really is no other explanation for Sandusky giving up the coordinator position without getting a head coach job elsewhere. So JoePa knew, just as I am sure he knew about the 2002 case .

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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.

Fast forward to 2002and 2005. RG is once again informed of additional incidents, though exactly how I am not sure. Maybe a parent, or even someone connected with The Second Mile who knew what the university reported to them about Sandusky in 1998. Upon learning of additional abuse cases, RG is deeply
disturbed. He decides to reopen an investigation on Sandusky, and notifies those high-ups of his intentions. He tells them he cannot stick to his agreement now that continuing abuses have come to light. And, that was the beginning of
his end. Of course, all of this is pure speculation, and MOO. 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

This makes sense to me.

 

[arielilane]

a successful man who would start a charitable organization in order to molest and rape 8-10 year old boys is capable of anything.

Yes, a pedophile's goal is to place themselves in a situation that will allow easy access to children.