Ok. Agreed. However, a guy that decides to be a DA and does so for as many years as Gricar did - knows and understands these risks. (There were many DA's before and after him who did not disappear). So, either there was a direct and immediately obvious threat to himself or immediate family network or...well or...a walk-away would be quite strange under the circumstances (near retirement).
None in Centre County, at least in recent history. Grine ran for one term, and then ran for judge. Mix, his immediate predecessor, stayed in for one term. We're now back to 1977. You can add on to that he was a prosecutor in Cleveland for 12 years.
The monetary advantage to LG? To many a few 100 grand might seem like a winfall but at the expense of his disappearance? Nope, not convinced that that could be a motive.
It might to RFG. He advocated more than doubling his salary in his first
month in office, in 1986. He could have looked at it as having earned his pension. Money seems to have been an issue in his second divorce, and my source was
not Sloane.
In 1986, he was married to Barbara, who was a professor, so they'd probably had a gross income of over $100 K.
Sandusky "aftermath"? I've seen nothing to indicate that Ray had any part in the "ring". That he chose not to prosecute based on potentially dubious evidence (which seems most likely) is not an indication that he would be part of any aftermath at all.
JMO
JJ - I know that you have spent a great deal more time on this than I possibly could - I am simply trying to offer an "outsider" perspective for you (and others) to consider.
RFG gave the reason that he put the Mini in PEF name was because he was worried about being sued. It would be difficult to sue a sitting DA for official action, but that is what he gave as the reason. The fear might have been unfounded, but he seemed to have had it. Now, was that tied to Sandusky? We obviously don't know.
We've seen even the scrutiny that Lauro, JKA (who probably acted properly, handled it briefly, and wasn't calling the shots), Corbett and Madeira (who I think acted properly), have come under this. Even if there was absolutely nothing improper in RFG's actions in 1998, it would have been a PR nightmare.
The evidence RFG had in 1998 was more than the AG had. There was a second victim, B. K. Also the time between the case being reported, and the closing of it, 4 weeks, no interview of Sandusky before making the decision is a bit odd. That is very short. The previously cited Phillips case was five months to charges; there was one where the gap was at least twice that.
Also, what is very troubling is that the case was not handled as abuse cases normally were handled. It's one thing to try the case personally; it is another to exclude the person that normally tries them. There are questions about what happened with the Chambers' report and even the Seasock report and why Lauro never saw at least the former until 2012.
That certainly doesn't indicate that he did anything improper, but eyebrows are raised.
