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

[Waupalani St.]

Subsequent accounts detail R. Haefner as the probable

You'll have to ask Littlehorn for the details on the Aardsma murder. It was in 11/1969. Yes, RFG mentioned it, along with borrowing the book, to a now retired PSP Trooper.
.

So there is documentation that Ms. West consulted Ray? I'm only seeking verificatrion of ...so when you say 'RFG mentioned it', Ms. West did infact consult him in the late 80's?

 

[Waupalani St.]

Well, that was an interesting read and idt it has been mentioned on here before; not that I've seen anyway.

However, the fact that the alleged murderer died in 2002 and Ray didn't disappear until 2005 leaves me to think there is no real "connection." That is, unless you are insinuating that Ray made a "habit" of NOT prosecuting cases of men involved with high profile pedophelia....

Which would, of course, lead one to suspect somehow Ray was involved in the cover up of these men which would lead to speculation about his possible involvement in other things as well. Not that no one has thought about that angle, but there isn't any evidence to support this.


The article also mentions that Rick died from a heart hemorrhage brought on by "natural" causes where his heart ruptured and bled out. Minus the stabbing factor, the Cause of Death was identical to the CoD of his (alleged?) victim, Betsy. Again, "coincidence?" This is the "universal force" I refer to; clues from the universe or from God.

I'm not insuinating that Ray made a habit of NOT prosecuting...I mentioned that I'd like to see documentation of Ms. West consulting w RFG.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So, Ms.West was supposedly advised by RFG that there wasn't enough evidence on this since cleared Prof. seems reasonable.

I don't know it Ms. West advised anyone. A retired PSP trooper did indicate that RFG was familiar with the book and had borrowed the Trooper's copy in about 1990. Ms. West knew when the book was available.

The "suspect" who's name was bandied about in the press (and mentioned in the book Who Killed Betsy), was an English professor named Robert Durgy. He had taught, coincidentally, at UM Ann Harbor and came to PSU at the same time as Aardsma. He had stress problems, resigned, and moved his family back to MI. He hit a bridge abutment in late 1969 or early 1970 and was killed; it may or may not have been suicide.

LE never found a connection between the two; he was never mentioned in Aardsma's diaries or letters. She wasn't in the English program at Ann Arbor. They found that he was with his family on the day Aardsma was killed, so he was ruled out.

For years, however, there was this rumor about an "unbalanced" English Professor who possibly killed Ms. Aardsma. In the fictional book, 20/20 Vision, the victim is killed by an unbalanced professor who fakes his own death.

I'm fairly sure that Ms. West never heard of Dr. Haefner prior to the recent work done on the case done by Littlehorn and certainly didn't know about him when 20/20 Vision was written. The murderer in the book bears virtually no similarity to Dr. Haefner.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So there is documentation that Ms. West consulted Ray? I'm only seeking verificatrion of ...so when you say 'RFG mentioned it', Ms. West did infact consult him in the late 80's?

She probably does. As indicated, RFG did discuss this with a now retired PSP Trooper.

 

[Waupalani St.]

I don't know it Ms. West advised anyone. A retired PSP trooper did indicate that RFG was familiar with the book and had borrowed the Trooper's copy in about 1990. Ms. West knew when the book was available.

The "suspect" who's name was bandied about in the press (and mentioned in the book Who Killed Betsy), was an English professor named Robert Durgy. He had taught, coincidentally, at UM Ann Harbor and came to PSU at the same time as Aardsma. He had stress problems, resigned, and moved his family back to MI. He hit a bridge abutment in late 1969 or early 1970 and was killed; it may or may not have been suicide.

LE never found a connection between the two; he was never mentioned in Aardsma's diaries or letters. She wasn't in the English program at Ann Arbor. They found that he was with his family on the day Aardsma was killed, so he was ruled out.

For years, however, there was this rumor about an "unbalanced" English Professor who possibly killed Ms. Aardsma. In the fictional book, 20/20 Vision, the victim is killed by an unbalanced professor who fakes his own death.

I'm fairly sure that Ms. West never heard of Dr. Haefner prior to the recent work done on the case done by Littlehorn and certainly didn't know about him when 20/20 Vision was written. The murderer in the book bears virtually no similarity to Dr. Haefner.

Wow...thanks, JJ..I've been lookng for about two days since the "RFG Consult' link, and have not seen that info. I've only found an interview w Derek Sherwood, where he mentions Bill Spencer and an 'Ex-wife Nancy" who had a double life....not for this board, tho..this is going on way too many tangents, lol
http://www.yinzrreadin.com/2011/12/11/writer-qa-derek-sherwood-part-1/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wow...thanks, JJ..I've been lookng for about two days since the "RFG Consult' link, and have not seen that info. I've only found an interview w Derek Sherwood, where he mentions Bill Spencer and an 'Ex-wife Nancy" who had a double life....not for this board, tho..this is going on way too many tangents, lol
http://www.yinzrreadin.com/2011/12/11/writer-qa-derek-sherwood-part-1/

As far as I know, she had not heard the name "Haefner" and certainly didn't know his major. I was a geography for a while (if you have not guessed), and the department, even though in the top 5 in the US (at the time) it was quite small.

The killer character in 20/20 Vision, Relham, is a married university professor in the victim's, Amanda Zephyr, major, music. Durgy was a professor in Aardsma's department, English. Haefner was not in Aardsma's major, was not a professor, and was not married. The Relham character was violent, obviously, but was not a pedophile, either straight or gay.

Ms. West is quite good with wordplay.

There are some similarities between the book and some of the events around RFG's disappearance. http://www.centredaily.com/2009/04/03/2396735/2020-hindsight.html

It could be a coincidence.

 

[Bellaneph]

JJ how do you know all this stuff and where do you store it all?!!! LOL

 

[Bellaneph]

There are no such things as "coincidences." As a stated before a couple of posts ago, there are always signs if you know what they are saying.

It's funny because after I posted about the "same day" thing, I was out driving running errands and was thinking about what that same day thing could mean and I was actually for the first time considering that maybe Ray was murdered because the girl in the library was murdered - same day thing. And I was thinking how if it's a "universe" sign it would have pointed to something more about someone who left voluntarily. When I got home, I saw JJ's reply about how it was the Protagonist in the book who faked his own death on that day. And I just had to laugh because that was even better and even more "proof" for me Ray walked. (and honestly, idt it was Ray sending the message in the bottle, but the "universe," but either way, the message is the same).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ how do you know all this stuff and where do you store it all?!!! LOL

Research, and in this case, by talking to people. I happen to have a copy of 20/20 Vision, which is quite good, in front of me.

On top of that, I have written about 250 blogs on this case. Most are footnoted. I'm to the point where, with some of these questions, I'm going back to the blogs and checking the footnotes. Like I said, I've been known to footnote love notes (which might be why I'm still single).

Some of it is because I'm familiar with the area and some of it is because of experience in local government and in working in an office as a minor bureaucrat.

Mr. Sherwood has done the same thing with the Aardsma case, and more, with less.

I store just about everything hard drive, with some backups.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There are no such things as "coincidences." As a stated before a couple of posts ago, there are always signs if you know what they are saying.

It's funny because after I posted about the "same day" thing, I was out driving running errands and was thinking about what that same day thing could mean and I was actually for the first time considering that maybe Ray was murdered because the girl in the library was murdered - same day thing. And I was thinking how if it's a "universe" sign it would have pointed to something more about someone who left voluntarily. When I got home, I saw JJ's reply about how it was the Protagonist in the book who faked his own death on that day. And I just had to laugh because that was even better and even more "proof" for me Ray walked. (and honestly, idt it was Ray sending the message in the bottle, but the "universe," but either way, the message is the same).

It is possible, but so in a coincidence. The book, The Wreck of the Titan was written in 1898. It was about the largest luxury liner in the world the "Titan," that was suppose to be unsinkable. In the book, one April night, it hit an iceberg in the North Atlantic. Sound familiar?

Maybe the writer should have sued the iceberg that the "Titanic" hit for plagiarism. The copyright hadn't expired 16 years later.

BTW, the "Titanic" sunk on 4/15 as well, and that is mentioned in 20/20 Vision.

I'll grant you that it is a minor point in favor of walkaway, but only a minor point.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I agree that "in the United States" the people have the right to question and criticize the performance of public officials.

My point--not the abstract discussion of our rights as citizens--my point was the RG is, conveniently, not here to tell us what he did or why. For all we know, he discussed this case with the Attorney General at the time. For all we know, he left records, either on a computer or on paper. For all we know, he told someone in his office or elsewhere about his reasons for not bringing a case in 1998. (I might point out that many suspected murderers are walking around because prosecutors don't have enough evidence to make a case.) For all we know, someone whom RG talked to has either lied publicly or withheld information about RG's actions in this case--or for that matter about things he said or did regarding the disappearance, his plans, etc. It's not like there was a vigorous investigation by a LE entity that is not knee-deep in Happy Valley politics.

It's easy to criticize a man when he is, conveniently for some people, not here to defend himself or explain his actions. It's easy to use 20/20 hindsight, applying how we see things in the 24-hour news cycle in 2011 and 2012 rather than thinking about the world as it was in 1998. Have I missed something and all the pedophile priests in this country were tried and put in prison? All the men who have abused their own kids have been tried and put in prison? What do we gain for castigating RG for making a big mistake for not prosecuting Sandusky when people with far more power who absolutely knew Sandusky was a child rapist and had the witnesses to prove it in court let Sandusky have the run of the Penn State campus for 14 more years, including watching Paterno set the NCAA win record from the president's box at Beaver Stadium 10 years after he raped a boy in the football locker room.

Please. We have no idea why RG did not prosecute. Maybe like everyone else in Happy Valley who knew about Sandusky (and my sources tell me that his little secret was not much of a secret in college football) he put something else ahead of the safety of children. I just can't think what that benefit would be. Penn State--$50 million a year profit from for football, alumni contributions, Paterno's reputation and ego, the careers of the assistants, the whole "We are Penn State" thing, Tom Corbett's pursuit of the governorship, the reputations of the PS administration, trustees, and boosters--we can sure think what they all had at stake. For RG the opposite was true. His reputation, career, sense of self should have been tied to doing the right thing, not the wrong thing. But we can't know exactly he did or why. And so he makes a good whipping boy--blame RG for the fact that Sandusky dragged PS into the worst scandal in college sports history.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I agree that "in the United States" the people have the right to question and criticize the performance of public officials.

My point--not the abstract discussion of our rights as citizens--my point was the RG is, conveniently, not here to tell us what he did or why. For all we know, he discussed this case with the Attorney General at the time. For all we know, he left records, either on a computer or on paper. For all we know, he told someone in his office or elsewhere about his reasons for not bringing a case in 1998. (I might point out that many suspected murderers are walking around because prosecutors don't have enough evidence to make a case.)

The convenience might very well be of RFG's own making. It is further complicated because he kept no notes on the decision and staff have only said that it was his decision. There are no records. Further, that another prosecutor has filed on the same incident, with fewer witnesses, after a substantial passage of time, speaks volumes. So does the statement from the investigator.

We do not know the motivation of the decision, but we can still say that no matter what motivation, it was a colossally bad decision.

The motivation might end up being important, because the decision is very anomalous. It is not characteristic of his practices.

It's easy to criticize a man when he is, conveniently for some people, not here to defend himself or explain his actions. It's easy to use 20/20 hindsight, applying how we see things in the 24-hour news cycle in 2011 and 2012 rather than thinking about the world as it was in 1998.

This is not hindsight; it was opinion of the investigator at the time. Further, the handling of the cases is quite odd, at the time. These things were handled, as a rule, by a specific person in the office, one even referred to in the perjury hearing testimony. Why was this handled differently?

What do we gain for castigating RG for making a big mistake for not prosecuting Sandusky when people with far more power let Sandusky have the run of the Penn State campus for 14 more years, including watching Paterno set the NCAA win record from the president's box at Beaver Stadium 10 years after he raped a boy in the football locker room.

You might want to look up the word "anomalous." There is an uncharacteristic decision made by RFG that does not match his other decisions.

Please. We have no idea why RG did not prosecute. Maybe like everyone else in Happy Valley who knew about Sandusky (and my sources tell me that his little secret was not much of a secret in college football) he put something else ahead of the safety of children.

Maybe, but remember, you are the one who said it. Maybe RFG was part of a culture of coverup, but, if so, it might be related to his disappearance.

I just can't think what that benefit would be. Penn State--$50 million a year profit from for football, alumni contributions,

You might have answered your own question.

Tom Corbett's pursuit of the governorship,

Corbett was neither the AG nor the Governor, nor a candidate for either post at the time. He certainly was not a cinch for nomination or election to either post in 1998.

For RG the opposite was true. His reputation, career, sense of self should have been tied tomdoing the right thing, not the wrong thing. But we can't know exactly he did or why.

And yet, he made the wrong decision, and he continued it, after 2001, beyond a point where he would not be worried about running for office. Depending on what he did, there may be evidence.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

You know, JJ, when you chop posts up to refute sentences, you miss the point of what posters are saying and in this case, you twist the argument I am making. Usually I don't protest when you do that, but in this case, I will.

Obviously I know (and know that others on WS are smart enough to know) that football is big money and programs and universities have massive incentives to keep a pedophile's crimes quiet. Penn State didn't need evidence to get rid of Sandusky. He was an at-will employee and simply bringing a child onto campus and into the shower would get most college faculty or coaches fired. However, a prosecutor has to have evidence: witnesses to wrong-doing, DNA, photos and the like. There is no indication in the GJ report or the media that RG had that stuff on Sandusky; the Child Welfare officer has said, publicly, that he (Child Welfare) didn't have enough to make an abuse case. So how would a case have held up in course against Sandusky? Right now, the PSU alumni are cranking up the "poor Joe Paterno" media machine in defense of a guy who had to have known what Sandusky was up to. If Paterno didn't know in 1998 that his defensive coordinator was a child molester, he should have; Sandusky was a coach in college, would have access to younger kids at for-profit football camps, etc. And there was the documented attempt to dump him on the D-III branch campus at Altoona. Head coaches are PAID to know about the character of the people they hire. And I speak as someone who FIRED an individual who was over the boundaries with a "kid" who was NOT underage. Head Coaches, department head, deans are supposed to know.

It is of course possible that RG was like Paterno and the others. If our real concern is how and why he was murdered (as you know, I think walkaway is ridiculous and suicide is highly unlikely), then the question about the PSU scandal is whether this is the case that got him killed, and if so, by whom and why? Because either RG was killed by someone in his personal life, by someone linked to his professional life, or in a random crime. I might not be so suspicious about this particular case if someone in an official position hadn't come out and said it couldn't be linked to RG's disappearance about 73 seconds after the story broke and with apparently no evidence.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

TAnd yet, he made the wrong decision, and he continued it, after 2001, beyond a point where he would not be worried about running for office. Depending on what he did, there may be evidence.

I could not disagree more. There is no evidence that we are aware ofthat he made the "wrong" decision in 1998, based on what he knew at the time. There is only hindsight fueled by what we learned in 2011. Once PSU releases the 1998 file (don't hold your breath) or the perjury trials and other public legal proceedings begin, then we may learn some interesting things about who knew what when (assuming that people don't continue to commit perjury). We can see 1998 as a missed opportunity to stop a pedophile, but the very fact that a sting was attempted indicates to me that those involved in 1998 didn't have enough to go on as the case was and they wanted more. See Amendola's comments regarding what was said in the sting for some idea of what an attorney would have done had the case gone to trial in 1998. More likely, had RG brought charges, Sandusky would have pled to some garbage misdemeanor and that would have been that. Then the 1998 victim and evidence would be useless today. When talking heads on TV and elsewhere talk about what RG would have done, they are either blowing smoke to make themselves look good or never prosecuted a case.

 

[txsvicki]

From years of watching crime shows and reading at the forum it seems like prosecutors all over the country decided not to charge people with crimes, and many in the public disagree. IMO, Ray did not leave enough money. He must have either lost money or had enough squirreled away to live on. If he had money saved he could be planning to not surface until age 65-70 (maximum social security age) and then get on Medicare and a check.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You know, JJ, when you chop posts up to refute sentences, you miss the point of what posters are saying and in this case, you twist the argument I am making. Usually I don't protest when you do that, but in this case, I will.

Obviously I know (and know that others on WS are smart enough to know) that football is big money and programs and universities have massive incentives to keep a pedophile's crimes quiet. Penn State didn't need evidence to get rid of Sandusky. He was an at-will employee and simply bringing a child onto campus and into the shower would get most college faculty or coaches fired. However, a prosecutor has to have evidence: witnesses to wrong-doing, DNA, photos and the like.

There is no indication in the GJ report or the media that RG had that stuff on Sandusky; the Child Welfare officer has said, publicly, that he (Child Welfare) didn't have enough to make an abuse case.

That statement is inaccurate. In the 1998 incident, there were two victims, that are also witnesses. There are also three witness to Sandusky admitting to the conduct. I don't know anyone else on this board who would even claim that there were no witnesses in this incident.

Sandusky was not an "at will" employee, at least from what was stated. He was a tenured professor and may have been under contract.

According to what Lauro said, he didn't have the information. According to the investigator from the University Police, Schreffler, there was enough evidence to charge on some grounds in 1998. The AG has charged Sandusky on that incident, with less evidence.

So how would a case have held up in course against Sandusky? Right now, the PSU alumni are cranking up the "poor Joe Paterno" media machine in defense of a guy who had to have known what Sandusky was up to.

As an alumni, I will agree that some have, regarding the 2002 incident. There is no evidence Paterno knew about the 1998 incident, or that RFG knew about the 2002 incident.

If Paterno didn't know in 1998 that his defensive coordinator was a child molester, he should have; Sandusky was a coach in college, would have access to younger kids at for-profit football camps, etc. And there was the documented attempt to dump him on the D-III branch campus at Altoona. Head coaches are PAID to know about the character of the people they hire. And I speak as someone who FIRED an individual who was over the boundaries with a "kid" who was NOT underage. Head Coaches, department head, deans are supposed to know.

Why should he have known. He can only know if he sees it or if someone tells him. What are they suppose to tell him, in 1998. The DA and child services don't think there is any wrongdoing?

It is of course possible that RG was like Paterno and the others.

That would be a bit different because Paterno was not the chief law enforcement officer of Centre County. RFG was, in 1998.

If our real concern is how and why he was murdered (as you know, I think walkaway is ridiculous and suicide is highly unlikely), then the question about the PSU scandal is whether this is the case that got him killed, and if so, by whom and why?

I, and I hope everyone else here, are not interested in proving a theory. I am interested in answering the question, "What happened to Ray Gricar?" That answer might be murder, but I'll be unwilling to only focus on murder.

Was RFG someone who'd cave before the semi-legendary Sandusky in 1998 and turn a blind eye to his activities, as you've indicated is possible. Was he part of the culture of cover-up? I will agree that it is possible.

Could he have made an honest mistake? Right now, I think that is possible as well.

We've had question put by other posters, "Was Gricar an honest man?" If the answer is no, that answer could lead to murder or to walkaway.

I already had someone, very familiar with the case, asking me if I thought Sandusky paid for RFG's walkaway to Slovenia. There is no evidence. I have people, in some cases who knew RFG, asking me similar questions.

Because either RG was killed by someone in his personal life, by someone linked to his professional life, or in a random crime. I might not be so suspicious about this particular case if someone in an official position hadn't come out and said it couldn't be linked to RG's disappearance about 73 seconds after the story broke and with apparently no evidence.

There is no direct evidence, but no one was looking, at least in the BPD (nor was I).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Maybe RFG did do more: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/19/3058390/psu-trustees-sandusky-investigated.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From years of watching crime shows and reading at the forum it seems like prosecutors all over the country decided not to charge people with crimes, and many in the public disagree.

Where there is not evidence. There was a child molestation case in Union County, where the DA only had the victim's (now a convicted murder) word. This one is different. You have two victims in 1998, and Sandusky admitting in front of three witnesses that he engaged in the act (two of the witnesses are police officers).

You also have a situation where another prosecutor, the state Attorney General, is prosecuting the case, even though one of the victims could not testify.

These types of things are almost always prosecuted.

One thing that really impressed me about RFG was that he would try to prosecute cases, even when they were not sure things. He'd often do it personally, and not assign it to an ADA. He would lose cases, but only after aggressively prosecuting them. To aggressively at some points; he was sanctioned by a judge about 2-3 years prior to disappearing for improperly pressuring a defense expert witness.

RFG's action not to prosecute Sandusky were not standard procedure for him.

I'm now wondering if he launched a grand jury investigation into Sandusky.

IMO, Ray did not leave enough money. He must have either lost money or had enough squirreled away to live on. If he had money saved he could be planning to not surface until age 65-70 (maximum social security age) and then get on Medicare and a check.

I would agree that there is not enough assets. That, and a lifestyle where spent little money, do not point to bribery.

 

[SeekingJana]

Since archived news articles are not retrievable many times, this is what the news article linked above says:
"Penn State trustees said there were three grand jury investigations into Jerry Sandusky prior to the one that led to the charges being filed.
"We were told in May of 2011, by Cynthia Baldwin, this was the fourth grand jury that was convened. The prior three led to no charges,” trustee Mark Dambly said during a 20-minute interview with the Centre Daily Times at the Nittany Lion Inn. "

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Since archived news articles are not retrievable many times, this is what the news article linked above says:
"Penn State trustees said there were three grand jury investigations into Jerry Sandusky prior to the one that led to the charges being filed.
"We were told in May of 2011, by Cynthia Baldwin, this was the fourth grand jury that was convened. The prior three led to no charges,” trustee Mark Dambly said during a 20-minute interview with the Centre Daily Times at the Nittany Lion Inn. "

Good to see you back, Jana.

The question is when any of those other three grand juries were investigating and what were the other three looking at?