PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8

[J. J. in Phila]

Check that--I just found a Boston Globe piece that indicates Sandusky was an assistant professor, no tenure. Thus, he could have been fired in 1998 has PSU chosen to do so. Even tenured faculty can be fired, for cause, and improprieties with minors would indeed be cause for termination. Instead he was allowed to "retire," was given the courtesy title of "professor emeritus," as well as keys, etc.

Read the article further. He had the office as part of his retirement. He wasn't higher ranking professor, but he was entitled to the office.

He could have been fired, but there were no criminal charges in 1998, remember? Guess who's decision that was.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J., chances are, none of us will solve this missing person case.. but for me, at least, Ray Gricar is important. All the missing are, but he wasn't a drunk teen at a rock concert, or a runaway.. didn't engage in high- risk activities that we know of, IOW. ( One Cleveland trip and some possible speeding in a car meant for the wind in your hair kind of driving). Not high risk at all.
Some of the Missing cases, I read ths circumstances and just shake my head because it's so obvious that the person lacked the personal or mental resources to survive a high- risk lifestyle.
Like a few of the pretty young girls who hung around with 10 different guys now listed as possible POIs. Their cases are here on WS, but it really doesn't take a genius to realize that they were someone's victim a long time ago.

Ray Gricar is a man worth caring about, praying for, and trying to find answers for his disappearance. His demographics are not in a high risk category unless the Sandusky proximity got him killed almost 7 years ago now.
I am also continually intrigued by how little is known about Ray Gricar personally--- or how limited his personal interactions were, one or the other.
In any case, unless I find out that he was a Pedophile like Sandusky ( which is too far off the radar to even chart), I will care.
And I know you and Lord C. will care!

The reason I still do this is because of the very real possibility RFG was a crime victim. Even if there was something criminal on his part, he didn't deserve to be murdered.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

JJ, you know that I, at least, don't buy LG as "benefitting" from a walkaway disappearance in a way that in any way makes sense from an emotional point of view. If I could have my father (deceased) back for one day vs. a million dollars--I'm taking Dad. No question. So to my mind, the history of RG and LG, as well as typical or normal behavior between parents and adult children, does not support walkaway. I would need to see evidence that RG was "distant" emotionally, not geographically.

The dog scent stops very near the car. That could mean, and probably does, that RG never walked around Lewisburg; that RG got immediately into another vehicle; or that RG's scent was detectable just beyond the car even though he never got out.

Eyewitnesses saying they saw a white guy in casual clothes that might be RG? Eh. Not convincing.

You don't know that RG wasn't spending his money. You just don't have access to or know how he spent it. We make over $100k a year and let me tell you we don't have lots of extra cash. We help the next generation (with school loans, car repairs, tuition for grad school, extra cash). We give to charity. We make anonymous donations to people in need. We spend cash in restaurants and book stores. My husband buys gadgets on the internet. RG may well have been making a lot of charity donations, sending money to LG and other relatives, loaning to friends, etc. None of that would show up in your calculations. Mainstream media sources have indicated nothing anomalous in his financial dealings. So I don't see this speculation as "evidence" that points to walkaway. On the other side, we have pension, Social Security, Medicare, retirement health benefits from the government, and access to his identity, law school and professional credentials and social security number in case he ever wanted to work in Home Depot or practice law after retirement. That's overwhelming weight against "walkaway." Overwhelming.

Ties to family and friends. Professional history and credentials. Literal identity, meaning the ability to work and live in society under his own name, with all the benefits (passports, driver's license, etc.) The ability to live without breaking the law (because he would have to have fake ID in order to drive or cash a check). Professional and ethical obligation to citizens and co-workers, because he had not resigned or retired. All of the money he had saved; all of his personal possessions, including clothes, photographs, records, furniture, automobiles, etc.; his pension; his retirement health insurance; his access to a fairly high Social Security payout for life; Medicare; his health records and history; opportunities to meet his daughter's future spouse, grandchildren, etc.; his capacity to earn income if that became desirable or necessary (e.g., a resume? recommendations?). All of that on one side, as arguments against anyone "walking away," versus--WHAT? What does RG (or anyone else in that scenario) gain? Not a thing that I can see. If he wanted "out" of his life, all he had to do is retire and move to Belize or Aruba or Mexico or Alaska or hop on a cruise ship and go from cruise to cruise.

Finally, show me one shred of evidence that RG was ever involved in anything criminal. One shred. Show me one witness, one document, one photo. If, when you say, "if there was something criminal on his part," what are you imagining? Because it can't be the decision not to prosecute Sandusky--because you've got the whole PSU hierarchy failing to report RAPE, child RAPE, and so far no one has indicted anyone beside Sandusky for anything other than perjury. Show me one person in PA law enforcement who thinks RG was engaged in criminal conduct. One. The fact is (and I know you know this) that several of his fellow DAs have said, publicly, that they think he was murdered, and murdered because of his job.

It is very convenient that RG is not here to defend himself, is it not?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Read the article further. He had the office as part of his retirement. He wasn't higher ranking professor, but he was entitled to the office.

He could have been fired, but there were no criminal charges in 1998, remember? Guess who's decision that was.

I did read the article. Sandusky didn't have tenure, so he was an at-will employee. It doesn't take criminal charges to fire an employee (professor or staff) who was misusing university facilities , was investigated by campus police and told by campus police to stop showering with minor children. But instead of being fired, he "retired" and was given a title and perks (Professor emeritus, office and keys). He should have been fired, then, regardless of whether Ray Gricar had enough EVIDENCE to PROSECUTE. Penn State University is a major educational institution, and one that trains undergraduates and graduates in education, psychology, sociology and law. I'm thinking that the people running that place should know that a grown man showering with little boys is wrong. High schools, colleges and universities don't need criminal charges; they need to be able to defend a firing for cause. Then, had anyone ventured to hire him, all his former supervisors would need to say was that he was fired for cause.

I don't know any high school or college coaches who shower with their players. Back in the day, before Title IX, I had a medical prescription that required me to use college whirlpool facilities and the head football coach told me to ALWAYS bring another female with me (to protect me and the trainers in those all-male facilities). That was well before 1998 at a small college, not vaunted Penn State. So all of this hoo-hah about "we didn't know" rings absolutely hollow to me.

Look to the 2002 case, which did not, so far as we knew, come to RG's attention. Certainly Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier (and likely others) knew about it. McQueary talked to Paterno and the other underlings; nobody thought to ask him to describe what he saw? My first question would be--did he rape this kid? Instead, Sandusky retained the emeritus title, gave a commencement address (2007, if I recall correctly), and was in the president's box at a football game a week before he was indicted in 2011. RG was almost certainly dead 6 years before that.

On the other hand, it was an open secret nationally that Sandusky had a problem, or he would have had multiple offers for head coaching positions at Division I schools. No one would have been talking about warehousing him at a Division III PSU branch campus. See the citations below; I didn't want an over-long post.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

OK--here are just two articles that address the issue of a cover-up of Sandusky's crimes, and put RG's actions in perspective, from Atlantic and The New York Times. There are similar points made in Sports Illustrated and other national mainstream publications.

A post on a Penn State fan forum was the key break in the Jerry Sandusky case, because it led investigators to Mike McQueary, who finally "unburdened himself" about what he knew about the ex-coach's sexual abuse of children.

According to an in-depth look at the legal side of the Sandsuky case, pulled together by The New York Times, the Pennsylvania attorney general's office had long suspected Sandusky of being a serial molester, but had been unable to find anyone close to the coach who could speak to the allegations — other than the victims who were mostly unwilling to talk. [Emphasis added]

Then they stumbled upon a random post on a PSU football message board that suggested there might be a Nittany Lion coach who saw something and wasn't talking. Investigators narrowed the options down to McQueary, then set up a secret meeting away from the prying eyes of Penn State fans. Once he was approached, they say, McQueary needed little prompting to tell them what he knew.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/11/how-random-message-board-post-blew-penn-state-investigation/45099/

Here is the NY Times piece mentioned above. It is indeed long (11 printed pages on my printer; these clips are within fair use guidelines.

And in 2002, after McQueary had reported what he had seen to the university’s senior officials, those officials not only never told the police, but they also never even informed the university’s top lawyer....

Most disturbingly, investigators continued to identify possible victims — young men who had been boys when Sandusky befriended them through his foundation for troubled youngsters.

Those young men were not eager to tell their stories, the two people with knowledge of the case said. The young men were not convinced that the attorney general’s office had the will to go after a case that could rewrite the storied history of the university’s football program. And they asked: If the case went forward, who would believe them over a revered figure like Jerry Sandusky? [Emphasis added].

Now, there's a statement that helps explain why RG, in 1998, with no eyewitness to actual molestation or rape, might have had trouble with a prosecution against "a revered figure like...Sandusky."

As investigators leafed through the old report — it ran close to 100 pages — they came to believe that the campus police officers had truly wanted to make a case against Sandusky, according to people with knowledge of the current investigation. The officers had gone so far as to set up a sting operation in which the boy’s mother called the coach, and, with the police listening in, confronted Sandusky.

According to the grand jury report, he admitted to showering with her son and another boy, said he did not think that his private parts had touched her son, but acknowledged that what he did was wrong. “I wish I were dead,” he said, according to the grand jury’s findings.

Ultimately, the district attorney decided against taking the case to trial, a decision that, years later, the attorney general’s investigators could well understand. According to people with knowledge of the current Sandusky case, the district attorney’s decision in 1998 was a close call, even with the evidence the campus police had. [Emphasis added].
But what most struck the investigators, according to people with knowledge of the current case, was that the university itself seemed to have done nothing in the wake of the police investigation. Whether that was because other senior officials at Penn State did not know of the investigation or because they knew of it, but chose to do nothing, is a central question for investigators today. [Emphasis added.]

That is, even current investigators think it was a "close call" as to whether the 1998 case should have or could have gone forward; however, there is no disputing that to this moment, we have no knowledge of an administrative investigation in either 1998 or 2002 that could have culminated in a firing for cause.

Finally:

Investigators over the last week have made clear that they have serious doubts about whether so few people in senior positions of responsibility came to know of the 1998 investigation.
“You have to understand those statements in context — there is nothing that happens at State College that Joe Paterno doesn’t know, or that Graham Spanier doesn’t know,” one person involved in the investigation said. “Whether or not a criminal case went forward, there were ample grounds for an administrative inquiry into this matter. I have no evidence that was ever done. And if indeed that report was never passed up, it makes you wonder why not.”

I certainly wonder why there was no "administrative inquiry" in 1998 or 2002--or into what janitors and maintenance staff witnessed in between.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=all

 

[BigCat]

Men are not tied to hearth and home like women. I could easily imagine RG walking away and reinventing himself. What could be more American?

“But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before.” ― Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

 

[pittsburghgirl]

But even Huck told his readers he was leaving "ahead of the rest." There was and is no reason for RG to tie himself to home or hearth or even his family, but one need not "disappear" to light out for the territory and reinvent oneself. The question I was pondering is whether there is evidence that RG (based on what we know of his character and history and based on the realities of late 20th and 21st century life) would, at age 60, simply walk away without explanation.

Thanks, BigCat, for treating us to one of the great lines in American literature.

 

[BigCat]

But even Huck told his readers he was leaving "ahead of the rest." There was and is no reason for RG to tie himself to home or hearth or even his family, but one need not "disappear" to light out for the territory and reinvent oneself. The question I was pondering is whether there is evidence that RG (based on what we know of his character and history and based on the realities of late 20th and 21st century life) would, at age 60, simply walk away without explanation.

Thanks, BigCat, for treating us to one of the great lines in American literature.

He's a smart guy, everyone agrees. He could have had the foresight to see the Sandusky scandal erupting. If RG were known to be living as a bearded recluse in the Himalayas, Sara Ginam would track him down and ask him why he didn't prosecute Sandusky back in 98. So the only way he could to truly reinvent himself in the 21st century would be to "disappear." I'm not assuming he had a reason to be ashamed of his decision not to prosecute in 98. I'm only suggesting he didn't want to spend his retirement dogged by the question. I believe JJ has made that last point previously. It sounds reasonable to me.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, you know that I, at least, don't buy LG as "benefitting" from a walkaway disappearance in a way that in any way makes sense from an emotional point of view. If I could have my father (deceased) back for one day vs. a million dollars--I'm taking Dad. No question. So to my mind, the history of RG and LG, as well as typical or normal behavior between parents and adult children, does not support walkaway. I would need to see evidence that RG was "distant" emotionally, not geographically.

Whether you buy it or not, she has, from a financial standpoint.

The dog scent stops very near the car. That could mean, and probably does, that RG never walked around Lewisburg; that RG got immediately into another vehicle; or that RG's scent was detectable just beyond the car even though he never got out.

It was about 20 yards and it could have been the fresher scent.

Eyewitnesses saying they saw a white guy in casual clothes that might be RG? Eh. Not convincing.

Eyewitnesses say RFG, driving the Mini, and several put him either in the parking lot, where his scent was detected, or on his way there.

You don't know that RG wasn't spending his money.

What did he spend it on? It is very hard, short of gambling, to spend money and not get something for it.

Ties to family and friends.

No family in the county. Only two friends and a girlfriend.

Professional history and credentials.

As he had no plans to practice, neither is relevant.

Literal identity, meaning the ability to work and live in society under his own name, with all the benefits (passports, driver's license, etc.) The ability to live without breaking the law (because he would have to have fake ID in order to drive or cash a check).

It is not illegal to use an a.k.a.

Professional and ethical obligation to citizens and co-workers, because he had not resigned or retired.

Minimal, as the code book noted.

All of the money he had saved; all of his personal possessions, including clothes, photographs, records, furniture, automobiles, etc.; his pension; his retirement health insurance; his access to a fairly high Social Security payout for life; Medicare; his health records and history; opportunities to meet his daughter's future spouse, grandchildren, etc.; his capacity to earn income if that became desirable or necessary (e.g., a resume? recommendations?).

Well, there you go again. The car was not in his name. No known furniture. He had met LG's girlfriend. The question is if all the money he saved is there.

Finally, show me one shred of evidence that RG was ever involved in anything criminal. One shred.

First, walking away is not criminal. Second, I've never suggested did anything criminal in it, just the opposite.

There is evidence that he was sanction for unethical behavior by a judge.

If, when you say, "if there was something criminal on his part," what are you imagining?

I've never been able to rule out anything criminal. I have pointed out that someone that is a DA is in a position to blackmail people, and noted that both MTM and SPM were in the same position. That is fairly straightforward logic. The argument against it, in RFG's case, is that he doesn't have a lot of money nor seemed to live above his means.

Because it can't be the decision not to prosecute Sandusky--because you've got the whole PSU hierarchy failing to report RAPE, child RAPE, and so far no one has indicted anyone beside Sandusky for anything other than perjury. Show me one person in PA law enforcement who thinks RG was engaged in criminal conduct. One. The fact is (and I know you know this) that several of his fellow DAs have said, publicly, that they think he was murdered, and murdered because of his job.

First, RFG was never informed of the rape case, the 2002 incident. In the 1998 case, everyone at Penn State did what they were suppose to do. They investigate, and took it to by CYS and the DA.

It is very convenient that RG is not here to defend himself, is it not?

Yes, it is, but that very well might have been his choice.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He's a smart guy, everyone agrees. He could have had the foresight to see the Sandusky scandal erupting. If RG were known to be living as a bearded recluse in the Himalayas, Sara Ginam would track him down and ask him why he didn't prosecute Sandusky back in 98. So the only way he could to truly reinvent himself in the 21st century would be to "disappear." I'm not assuming he had a reason to be ashamed of his decision not to prosecute in 98. I'm only suggesting he didn't want to spend his retirement dogged by the question. I believe JJ has made that last point previously. It sounds reasonable to me.

There is yet another possibility. He thought that maybe someone he prosecuted would eventually track him down, so he decided to vanish.

I have absolutely no doubt that had RFG retired to Bellefonte, in November of 2011, a camera crew would have been pounding on this front door.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I did read the article. Sandusky didn't have tenure, so he was an at-will employee. It doesn't take criminal charges to fire an employee (professor or staff) who was misusing university facilities , was investigated by campus police and told by campus police to stop showering with minor children. But instead of being fired, he "retired" and was given a title and perks (Professor emeritus, office and keys). He should have been fired, then, regardless of whether Ray Gricar had enough EVIDENCE to PROSECUTE.

On what grounds? There was no rape in 1998 and no one would pursue charges. There was evidence to prosecute, according to the investigator (and the AG, who is prosecuting without one victim), Schreffler, but there was no criminal act, according to RFG. And, according to, well everyone, nobody told anyone associated with the athletic department (which would be understandable).

Nothing in the Globe article indicates that Sandusky was an "at will" employee.

I'm thinking that the people running that place should know that a grown man showering with little boys is wrong.

And yet, RFG, when given a 95 page report of the investigation, wouldn't prosecute. Lauro closed his investigation too. Neither one is associated with PSU.

Look to the 2002 case, which did not, so far as we knew, come to RG's attention. Certainly Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier (and likely others) knew about it. McQueary talked to Paterno and the other underlings; nobody thought to ask him to describe what he saw?

2002 is different. McQueary says that he did Curley and Schultz; that is the basis of the perjury charge.

On the other hand, it was an open secret nationally that Sandusky had a problem, or he would have had multiple offers for head coaching positions at Division I schools.

I doubt if it was an open secret; could you provide evidence of that and not an opinion?

As far as I know, with one exception, Sandusky never looked at another position.

No one would have been talking about warehousing him at a Division III PSU branch campus. See the citations below; I didn't want an over-long post.

That was at the end of a 10 year expansion at the branch campus, Altoona, which was not a great distance from University Park.

BTW: What does the 2002 incident, which no one has claimed RFG knew about, have to do with RFG?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Men are not tied to hearth and home like women. I could easily imagine RG walking away and reinventing himself. What could be more American?

And quite legal.

 

[SeekingJana]

Well, there you go again. The car was not in his name. No known furniture. He had met LG's girlfriend. The question is if all the money he saved is there.

Is this a typo?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Is this a typo?

Yes. He had met LG's boyfriend, according to LG.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just for the record, since it was asked, James Calhoun, the janitor, never reported the 2000 incident.

The investigating officer, Ronald Schreffler said:

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors."

Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1l6h7x7CF

There are ten of those types of charges, each bringing a sentence of up to two years.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I referenced the 2002 rape at PSU because officials there had reason to know of a much more serious case than the 1998 one and we have no record that anyone called the county DA to report another problem with the guy that, evidently PSU cops tried to build a case against in 1998. RG would have had not only the boys from 1998 at that point, but a new victim of a clear major felony (child rape), an adult witness. Any decent investigation in 2002 would have also turned up the janitor who observed the oral sex activity in the football building, which would have provided four victims total, over a period of 4 years, two adult witnesses, against at that point someone who was no longer a PSU employee. But RG was not given a chance to prosecute with this greatly more powerful case. My pointwas that PSU could have done, in2002, an internal investigation that would have made it clear that the state police or DA should have been called. In 2002, Sandusky could have had his privileges and the emeritus title revoked. At this point in the case, with an allegation of rape (and if the administration hadn't gotten that information out of their assistant coach, they shouldn't have been running a world-class university), RG is not the guy supposedly "refusing" to prosecute; he was he guy that no one who had information about Sandusky was talking to. He was the guy that didn't have a chance to investigate or prosecute a child rape case that involved perpetrator that had been investigated in 1998. As the NY Times story indicates, the 1998 case was a close call in 1998, for someone not endowed with 2012 20-20 hindsight. If anyone person or group should be castigated for failure to act here, it should be every PSU administrator from the 2000 incident witnesses by the janitor to the 2002 rape who didn't call local police, state police, the DAs office or child welfare.

As to where people spend can their money without a lot to show for it, I provided a pretty good list. Charity in cash to those who need it; help to children or family members; eating out; buying items with cash; eating out in nice restaurants, etc. Someone who works five days a week and doesn't cook at home can spend $50 a day easily for lunch, dinner and a glass of wine or a beer. Most people have no idea where their money goes And you would no doubt make the same argument about my household income as you make about RG's. Other than shelter, we have no laege bills, nocar payments, no fancy vacations, etc. Yet our bank is not stuffed with cash. If authorities had looked at RG's finances and found issues, then why have they said they are no irregularities?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I referenced the 2002 rape at PSU because officials there had reason to know of a much more serious case than the 1998 one and we have no record that anyone called the county DA to report another problem with the guy that, evidently PSU cops tried to build a case against in 1998. RG would have had not only the boys from 1998 at that point, but a new victim of a clear major felony (child rape), an adult witness.

The 2002 incident has nothing to do with the Gricar case, unless someone told RFG.

One of the incidents dates from 1996, including three felonies, it is entirely possible that had RFG pursued the 1998 case, that would have come to light in 1998. It was a rape. That really isn't relevant to RFG or his 1998 decision. I am certainly not going to criticize RFG for not acting on something he didn't know about. Certainly a "decent investigation," your words, might have revealed that.

Any decent investigation in 2002 would have also turned up the janitor who observed the oral sex activity in the football building, which would have provided four victims total, over a period of 4 years, two adult witnesses, against at that point someone who was no longer a PSU employee. But RG was not given a chance to prosecute with this greatly more powerful case.

Had he prosecuted in 1998, there may have not been a 2000 or 2002 incident.

As to where people spend can their money without a lot to show for it, I provided a pretty good list.

RFG didn't, from what I've been told, which adds to the mystery.

Charity in cash to those who need it; help to children or family members; eating out; buying items with cash; eating out in nice restaurants, etc. Someone who works five days a week and doesn't cook at home can spend $50 a day easily for lunch, dinner and a glass of wine or a beer.

Yes, in New York, but RFG lived in Bellefonte. There was no suggestion of RFG donating to charity (or to political causes) after 1997-98.

Most people have no idea where their money goes And you would no doubt make the same argument about my household income as you make about RG's. Other than shelter, we have no laege bills, nocar payments, no fancy vacations, etc. Yet our bank is not stuffed with cash. If authorities had looked at RG's finances and found issues, then why have they said they are no irregularities?

Maybe you don't, but I do. Yes, if I'm making $100 k+ per year, for 7 years, and don't have major expenses, don't buy anything with it, I think my heirs might ask where the money is.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Well, I am glad my heirs are minding their own business and letting me waste my money on shoes and hot stone massages. And how would anyone know if RG wrote a check to Salvation Army or to a church or a homeless shelter? You don't even have to itemize those contributions for taxes. No one can buy a steak in Bellefonte for $15 bucks? Or a $5 appetizer? Or a $3 glass of wine? Times two, if a couple goes out for dinner. You can do that in Bradford, PA and Clarion and Erie and Franklin and Butler and Greensburg...Heck fire, evena Big Mac meal runs to $5 or $6 bucks. And let's not talk about Starbucks coffee.

The current investigators say that the 1998 case was "a close call" and the NY Times reporter who wrote the article I quote in the post above states even many of the current victims did not want to go on the record now against Sandusky. Thus the 2002 case is relevant to the discussion of RG's involvement, since by 2002 nearly a dozen people at PSU knew about either the 1998 case, the 2000 oral sex incident, or the 2002 rape in the showers--or all of the above. RG should have known about the 2002 case, and had he passed on prosecuting then, I would be as critical of him as I am of the PSU adminstrators and coaches. I would be as critical of him as I am of our pedophile-enabling governor, who, in whose term as AG, was content to let Sandusky run loose. So anytime anyone wants to argue that RG "made a mistake" (hello, hindsight!) or should have proceeded on a complaint without provable sexual contact in 1998 (no eyewitnesses, no DNA, and a kid whose story was of "hugging") then I expect a full-throated condemnation of those who knew about RAPE in 2002 and oral sex in 2000 and Sandusky's continued contact with Second Mile kids and his work with camps (at Penn State branch campuses) and high schools. Who had the BEST chance of stopping Sandusky? And why didn't anyone at PSU pick up the phone in 2000 or 2002 and call RG? As we can clearly see NOW (no hindsight required), because RG didn't prosecute, the current case can include the 1998 events. That would have been true in 2002, had anyone called state police or the DAs office or child welfare, or even shown minimal curiosity as to the identity of the child rape victim.

As to Sandusky's wider reputation, for starters see the AP story from 12/11/2011 about how Sandusky failed a background check in 2010 done by Juniata College. I can't link tonight; I am on the iPad, but I will post the link tomorrow.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

As promised, here are the links regarding who knew about Sandusky outside of Centre County:

Here is the NY Times article I linked to above, quoting someone from the current investigation. It's a long article, but well worth it for detailed insight into the thinking of current investigators:

Some investigators said they were convinced that the idea that Sandusky had an inappropriate interest in, and relationships with, young boys was a fairly widely held suspicion around and even outside Penn State’s football program over the years.

“This was not the secret that they are trying to make out now,” one person involved in the inquiry said. “I know there were a number of college coaches that had heard the rumors. If all these people knew about it, how could Sandusky’s superiors not know?” [My emphasis].
In fact, according to McQueary, at least a few did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=all

Here is a specific, more recent example, of Juniata College, who did a background check on Sandusky when he volunteered to work with their football program. I quoted the ESPN story but provided the link to the AP story that appearing in The Huffington Post.

Officials at Juniata College said Wednesday that Sandusky applied for the volunteer football coaching job in May 2010 and was rejected the following month after a background check showed a high school where Sandusky previously volunteered was investigating him.
Juniata spokesman John Wall said the college was not informed of the details of the investigation or the existence of a grand jury, but based on the report informed its coaches Sandusky was not to have contact with the program.
"We basically did our due diligence," Wall said.
According to Wall, Sandusky continued to attend games after he we rejected for the job and at one point sat in the press box for an away game.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7326214/jerry-sandusky-denied-job-juniata-college-failing-background-check-school-says

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/jerry-sandusky-juniata-college-denied-job_n_1145952.html

In addition, there are dozens of mainstream articles that have raised questions about why, when Sandusky retired in 1999 as an assistant coach of the year, fresh from a National Championship with the "Linebacker U" reputation, there was no speculation about his taking a full-time position or later, coming back from retirement (as many speculated about Urban Meyer and continue to speculate about Bill Cowher, Tony Dungy and others at the top of the profession.) Of course, no one will admit to hearing rumors about Sandusky, because they won't risk being categorized along with the PSU coaches who "knew" and did nothing. But college football is a small, small world, one in which most people are at best 1 or 2 degrees of separation from each other.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

The NY Times story also has more detailed discussion about the concerns prosecutors have, even today, about getting a conviction in the Sandusky case:

The Clinton County teenager — Victim 1, as he would become known in the grand jury report made public this month — alleged that he first met Sandusky through the Second Mile when he was 11 or 12. Sandusky had indecently fondled him and performed oral sex on him, the boy said.
But prosecutors, lacking physical evidence of an assault, worried about the fortunes of a case that might end up with little more than competing claims — by the boy and by Sandusky.
“You can charge it, but getting a conviction is going to be difficult,” said one person with direct knowledge of the deliberations among prosecutors. “And getting a conviction in State College against someone of Jerry Sandusky’s stature is going to be 10 times more difficult.”

Here, from the mouth of someone involved in the deliberations among current prosecutors, is a likely window into what Ray Gricar was thinking when he did not bring charges in 1998. Victim 1 was not alleging "hugging" and showering; he said there "indecent fondling" and "oral sex." And still prosecutors worried about bringing the case, in State College, against a much diminished Jerry Sandusky, over 10 years after he left PSU's coaching staff.