PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9

[Rlaub44]

The Harclerode case was interesting. He was first accused in 1995 by a man named Gundrum. That was seven years after the assault and two after Gundrum was convicted of murder. The DA in Union County, D. Peter Johnson, and the PSP still spent 20 months looking for a corroborating witness and found none. Harclerode denied it.

Johnson, who is still the DA, has said that he didn't (and presumably still doesn't) think that Harclerode could have been convicted for that incident, so that is why Johnson didn't press charges. There was no corroboration and Gundrum is a convicted murderer.

http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x691267398/Ex-professor-paid-25-000-to-convict-to-settle-lawsuit

First, I would contrast that with the situation in 1998.

Second, and returning to your original question, let's assume that RFG discovered a Sandusky/Harclerode connection, a *advertiser censored* or pedophile ring. If that is the case:

A. Why doesn't RFG start by calling Johnson, who was the DA in 2005 (and still is)? Johnson obviously knows more about what is happening in Union County than RFG does. RFG wouldn't need to meet anyone from LE in a parking lot (Johnson is a paraplegic, so he could have difficulty getting there). I think they knew each other professionally.

B. Why doesn't RFG tell his girlfriend or some member of his staff that there might be a connection between Harclerode and someone in Centre County and he will be going over to Lewisburg to check in out? He wouldn't have to mention it was Sandusky. RFG doesn't have to keep this a secret, concoct the "play hooky" story, because it would be a job related trip.

In short, it is unlikely that the Harclerode case was related to RFG's disappearance. However, the detail that I've given should indicate that I did check it out.

Thanks for your thorough reply! FWIW, I actually am leaning away from believing that RFG's disappearance is related to Sandusky - as we mentioned, Lewisburg doesn't seem to have any connection to the case, the timing seems off (too long after 2001, too far before AF reported him at Central Mountain), and there are many more easily accessible clandestine meeting spots closer to Bellefonte.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks for your thorough reply! FWIW, I actually am leaning away from believing that RFG's disappearance is related to Sandusky - as we mentioned, Lewisburg doesn't seem to have any connection to the case, the timing seems off (too long after 2001, too far before AF reported him at Central Mountain), and there are many more easily accessible clandestine meeting spots closer to Bellefonte.

Gricar would have been recognized in the Central PA Media Market. Lewisburg is not in that media market. The local stations don't cover State College as a rule.

AF?

 

[Rlaub44]

Gricar would have been recognized in the Central PA Media Market. Lewisburg is not in that media market. The local stations don't cover State College as a rule.

AF?

Victim 1's initials.

While Gricar would have been recognized at Bonfattos, or Talleyrand Park, there are certainly places where a person is not as easily noticed. The meeting could have been in the parking lot at the KOA campground, or one of the truckstops at the Lamar exit. Unless the other party was closer to Lewisburg, or he did want to check out the shops and was killing two birds as it were.

I just don't get the sense that his disappearance is related to Sandusky, mostly because of the timing, as I mentioned, and the fact that none of the players in the case are the "hard-core criminal element" that you'd expect to get rid of a district attorney and leave no trace of him for almost a decade.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Victim 1's initials.

While Gricar would have been recognized at Bonfattos, or Talleyrand Park, there are certainly places where a person is not as easily noticed. The meeting could have been in the parking lot at the KOA campground, or one of the truckstops at the Lamar exit. Unless the other party was closer to Lewisburg, or he did want to check out the shops and was killing two birds as it were.

RFG was a media figure for more than 20 years. He didn't seek the headlines, but he was easily recognizable, because of news coverage. McKnight's witness, who was Clinton County, actually recognized him on 4/15/05, because he read the CDT. All the local TV stations cover State College.

If he, or someone he was meeting, did not want to seen in public with him, the likelihood would be not to meet in in a media market where there would be limited coverage of Centre County. That basically means someplace east, like Lewisburg.

I just don't get the sense that his disappearance is related to Sandusky, mostly because of the timing, as I mentioned, and the fact that none of the players in the case are the "hard-core criminal element" that you'd expect to get rid of a district attorney and leave no trace of him for almost a decade.

Well, that might not be needed and they would be desperate to cover up Sandusky's perversions. We also don't know the motivation behind RFG's 1998 decision. If it was **We won't prosecute if Jerry gets help,** finding out that Sandusky was still at it might have necessitated a meeting, He could very easily have said, **Sandusky was suppose to get help, but mow I have to prosecute.** A killer might said, **Oh, no you don't.**

We also don't know, if RFG was worried about civil or, yes, criminal liability from his actions in 1998. He told PEF that he was putting in her name, in case he was sued. That would provide a motive for walk away. Since we don't know what he did in 1998, we can't make a judgment.

 

[Rlaub44]

Well, that might not be needed and they would be desperate to cover up Sandusky's perversions. We also don't know the motivation behind RFG's 1998 decision. If it was **We won't prosecute if Jerry gets help,** finding out that Sandusky was still at it might have necessitated a meeting, He could very easily have said, **Sandusky was suppose to get help, but mow I have to prosecute.** A killer might said, **Oh, no you don't.**

While it may have been bad for the University's reputation if Sandusky continued to offend, he was no longer an employee, and nobody there had any control of whether or not he followed through on getting treatment. It would have probably reflected worse on Gricar than on any of the PSU administrators. And of all the dangerous criminals he went after, these were not the likeliest to harm someone.

We also don't know, if RFG was worried about civil or, yes, criminal liability from his actions in 1998. He told PEF that he was putting in her name, in case he was sued. That would provide a motive for walk away. Since we don't know what he did in 1998, we can't make a judgment.

You made the point in another thread how much immunity DA's tend to have. While walkaway might be a possibility, you are suggesting that Gricar learned that Sandusky was assaulting kids, and he ignored it to protect his own butt. Does that seem in character for the Ray Gricar you have researched?

I think your last line is the truest - we don't know what Gricar did, but we can consider the probabilities. Nobody involved in the Sandusky coverup had enough to lose, or has shown the violent proclivity, to be considered a likely suspect in getting rid of RG. IMO, it's a stretch.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

You made the point in another thread how much immunity DA's tend to have. While walkaway might be a possibility, you are suggesting that Gricar learned that Sandusky was assaulting kids, and he ignored it to protect his own butt. Does that seem in character for the Ray Gricar you have researched?

No, I'm sort of suggesting the opposite. RFG might have thought that after 1998, the situation was under control. He realized that sometime later it wasn't under control. He could have been worried about the 1998 decision would create a problem for him. He did indicate he was worried about being sued, according to PEF.

If RFG would have been worried about blow back from the 1998, one that could create civil or criminal liability; that could provide a motivation for leaving.

The Ray Gricar that I have researched would not have done most of the things he did regarding Sandusky in 1998. This was totally out of character.

I think your last line is the truest - we don't know what Gricar did, but we can consider the probabilities. Nobody involved in the Sandusky coverup had enough to lose, or has shown the violent proclivity, to be considered a likely suspect in getting rid of RG. IMO, it's a stretch.

As for the violence, there was a lot of money, reputations, and status at stake. If he was going to prosecute, especially with his knowledge of 1998, that would be a motive to stop him. Of course, no one would know if he had substantial notes on it.

 

[quixote]

The Ray Gricar that I have researched would not have done most of the things he did regarding Sandusky in 1998. This was totally out of character.

As I've mentioned before, there was someone on one of the PSU football boards that claimed to "know" that PSU put a lot of pressure on Mr. Gricar not to do anything to Sandusky. As I've also mentioned before, the same poster has never done anything to back up the claim, playing the old internet game of "I know, but I'm not going to tell you how, and I don't have to prove anything to you." That game gets us absolutely nowhere, but if one were to consider it to be even a remote possibility, it would explain Mr. Gricar acting "out of character."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

As I've mentioned before, there was someone on one of the PSU football boards that claimed to "know" that PSU put a lot of pressure on Mr. Gricar not to do anything to Sandusky. As I've also mentioned before, the same poster has never done anything to back up the claim, playing the old internet game of "I know, but I'm not going to tell you how, and I don't have to prove anything to you." That game gets us absolutely nowhere, but if one were to consider it to be even a remote possibility, it would explain Mr. Gricar acting "out of character."

Yes, that would explain it. I might find myself playing the same Internet game on the same subject.

I am looking at contact between the DA's Office (Gricar in particular) and people at Penn State.

Even "Penn State pressure" would not explain why Gricar didn't prosecute after his 2001 reelection. He was not planning to run again, so there would be very little political pressure that Penn State, or senior folks there, could apply.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

[/QUOTE]


I am posting this primarily to show just how much the public perception of RFG has collapsed in the last 18 months.

From my standpoint, prior to Sandusky, when I told people that I wrote a blog, and they would ask me what it was about, I'd say, "Do you remember the DA from State College that disappeared? Him."

Today, I say, "Do you remember the DA from State College that didn't prosecute Jerry Sandusky, and then disappeared? Him."[/QUOTE]

Now is this change in sentiment a change in public perception, or perhaps your viewpoint has changed in some degree ? From what I have read it seems you have put more odds toward Walkaway than ever before...just saying.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Now is this change in sentiment a change in public perception, or perhaps your viewpoint has changed in some degree ? From what I have read it seems you have put more odds toward Walkaway than ever before...just saying.

Actually, on 11/4/11, I had the odds at 52% walkaway, 43% foul play. In my 1/12 update, they were 51% walkaway, 44% foul play.

Because of some of the information that has come out walkaway might go up, but foul play will not drop based on the Sandusky Scandal.

Yes, there is a scandal that could provide a motive for walkaway, but as RFG once said to a judge, "Motive, your Honor, is something we never have to prove." It is not a major element in determining what happened. RFG could have had all the motive in the world to walk away, but that would not prove that he did walk away.

Good to see you post, your lordship.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

New blog up: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/27/3518879/ruling-things-in.html

 

[BigCat]

Thanks for your thorough reply! FWIW, I actually am leaning away from believing that RFG's disappearance is related to Sandusky - as we mentioned, Lewisburg doesn't seem to have any connection to the case, the timing seems off (too long after 2001, too far before AF reported him at Central Mountain), and there are many more easily accessible clandestine meeting spots closer to Bellefonte.

Actually, RFG's disappearance is not too far from the time someone on a Penn State football message board began discussing rumors about Mike McQueary and what he witnessed in the showers. I'm not sure of the exact timeline. Perhaps he visited the message board on his laptop.

Personally, I would be stunned if his disappearance is not related to the Sandusky case in some way. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, RFG's disappearance is not too far from the time someone on a Penn State football message board began discussing rumors about Mike McQueary and what he witnessed in the showers. I'm not sure of the exact timeline. Perhaps he visited the message board on his laptop.

Personally, I would be stunned if his disappearance is not related to the Sandusky case in some way. Of course, I could be wrong.

Well, he talked to people about destroying the data about a year prior to disappearing.

It depends if his disappearance was voluntary or foul play, and what exactly he did in 1998.

If it was foul play, and the 4/16/05 witnesses are correct, I'd say it wasn't related to Sandusky.

While not wanting to deal with aftermath of the 1998 incident could be a motive for voluntary departure, prosecutors do have discretion in what they prosecute, and there is no evidence that RFG did anything illegal.

 

[BigCat]

Well, he talked to people about destroying the data about a year prior to disappearing.

It depends if his disappearance was voluntary or foul play, and what exactly he did in 1998.

If it was foul play, and the 4/16/05 witnesses are correct, I'd say it wasn't related to Sandusky.

While not wanting to deal with aftermath of the 1998 incident could be a motive for voluntary departure, prosecutors do have discretion in what they prosecute, and there is no evidence that RFG did anything illegal.

Assuming he learned about the 2001 incident, RFG was not necessarily worried about criminal or civil liability, in my opinion. I think he was smart enough to understand that he would forever be known as "the man who didn't prosecute Sandusky in 98". That's unfair, but it's the reality.

You have to admit that it's rather convenient that RFG is not around to "face the music." I can't blame him, and I can think of at least three other people involved in this scandal who probably wished they had vanished.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Assuming he learned about the 2001 incident, RFG was not necessarily worried about criminal or civil liability, in my opinion. I think he was smart enough to understand that he would forever be known as "the man who didn't prosecute Sandusky in 98". That's unfair, but it's the reality.

You have to admit that it's rather convenient that RFG is not around to "face the music." I can't blame him, and I can think of at least three other people involved in this scandal who probably wished they had vanished.

I will admit that it could be a reason.

The problem is, those three people are facing criminal charges. If there was something criminal in RFG actions, that would be different, the motive, to see that his pension remains intact, or to prevent a law suit, would be a very strong reason. Neither a colossal lapse of judgment, stupidity, nor cowardice are criminal, even in combination.

Now, I am worried about the titling of the Mini. It was in PEF's name and the reason was given was in case RFG would be sued. It is possible certainly that he thought the decision was so poor, that it would open him to civil liability, especially if he found out that Sandusky was worse than reported and still was at it. It just seems, from the outside, that while the decision not to prosecute Sandusky was hideously stupid, it doesn't reach that level.

 

[JaimeSommers]

RSBM ...

The problem is, those three people are facing criminal charges. If there was something criminal in RFG actions, that would be different, the motive, to see that his pension remains intact, or to prevent a law suit, would be a very strong reason.

In the last year-and-a-half I've become convinced Gricar walked away because of Sandusky.

-- IMO, it has nothing to do with fearing criminal charges. I don't believe a man of RFG's temperament and ego -- so close to retirement -- would want to face what was coming. He hadn't been afraid to stand up to Penn State football in the past, but this was a whole different animal -- more like an octopus, actually, given the tentacles it has. I will never believe the abuse of these children started and ended with Sandusky. IMO, RFG knew it was coming and perhaps thought it was coming sooner than it actually did.

-- Brother's suicide: RFG was smart enough to know that if he staged things just right it could serve as a cover and create reasonable doubt re: walking away.

-- Title of the Mini: Part of the staging preparation. It would make sense to PF (and everyone else) if RFG said it was for protection from being sued.

-- Murder: If he was lured to Lewisburg and murdered, IMO the person/people would have taken the computer to see what was on it. They wouldn't have destroyed it in Lewisburg. RFG had the motive to destroy it in Lewisburg -- he had to as part of the story.

-- Daughter: IMO, she knows where he is and protects the secret. I would have done it for my father.

-- PF: She was disposable to him, IMO. There's nothing about their story that has ever said "soul mates" to me. RFG has always struck me as cunning and shrewd. He left her, pure and simple -- maybe to spare her the embarrassment of being his girlfriend when the ***** hit the fan (understandable here in Peyton Place) or maybe because, to him, the relationship had run its course. He couldn't walk away with her because they couldn't both disappear -- it wouldn't fit the story of his brother's suicide.

All IMO. Apologies for any typos; am using my phone.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RSBM ...



In the last year-and-a-half I've become convinced Gricar walked away because of Sandusky.

-- IMO, it has nothing to do with fearing criminal charges. I don't believe a man of RFG's temperament and ego -- so close to retirement -- would want to face what was coming. He hadn't been afraid to stand up to Penn State football in the past, but this was a whole different animal -- more like an octopus, actually, given the tentacles it has. I will never believe the abuse of these children started and ended with Sandusky. IMO, RFG knew it was coming and perhaps thought it was coming sooner than it actually did.

-- Brother's suicide: RFG was smart enough to know that if he staged things just right it could serve as a cover and create reasonable doubt re: walking away.

-- Title of the Mini: Part of the staging preparation. It would make sense to PF (and everyone else) if RFG said it was for protection from being sued.

-- Murder: If he was lured to Lewisburg and murdered, IMO the person/people would have taken the computer to see what was on it. They wouldn't have destroyed it in Lewisburg. RFG had the motive to destroy it in Lewisburg -- he had to as part of the story.

-- Daughter: IMO, she knows where he is and protects the secret. I would have done it for my father.

-- PF: She was disposable to him, IMO. There's nothing about their story that has ever said "soul mates" to me. RFG has always struck me as cunning and shrewd. He left her, pure and simple -- maybe to spare her the embarrassment of being his girlfriend when the ***** hit the fan (understandable here in Peyton Place) or maybe because, to him, the relationship had run its course. He couldn't walk away with her because they couldn't both disappear -- it wouldn't fit the story of his brother's suicide.

All IMO. Apologies for any typos; am using my phone.

Good points. The being sued aspect, however, creates a problem. The county carries liability insurance. Parting gift?

I don't believe his daughter knows; she passed a polygraph. She, however, may suspect it.

Okay, and this is my original question:

How did RFG get out of Lewisburg?

I can come up with theories, but where is the evidence to support those theories? I don't have it.

 

[JaimeSommers]

RSBM ...

Good points. The being sued aspect, however, creates a problem. The county carries liability insurance. Parting gift?

I may have misunderstood the facts on this part. Is it a documented fact that RFG told PF he was putting the car in her name in case he was sued? Or is that just a hypothesis for why he might have done it?

I included this part in my rationale thinking it was a fact. If it isn't, I'll think through that part some more. Doesn't change my mind about anything, though.

I don't believe his daughter knows; she passed a polygraph.

But what if she didn't know right away? What if RFG counted on the potential for polys and monitored the story from a distance until he knew it was safe? Meaning, he bided his time ... waited to see if there would be polys ... then waited to see that his daughter passed ... and then reached out to tell her he was alive and why he left?

I may be looking at it through my own lens too much -- my dad was my hero. We were close. Do we know what kind of relationship RFG and his daughter had? If they were estranged, or not very close, then I could see her not knowing and him not reaching out.

IOkay, and this is my original question:

How did RFG get out of Lewisburg?

I can come up with theories, but where is the evidence to support those theories? I don't have it.

That's just it. There's no evidence one way or the other -- no evidence that he took his life there in the river; no evidence that he was murdered there; no evidence that he got out of there in someone else's car.

Until there's evidence in a specific direction -- after considering what we do have after all these years -- I'm on the side of walkaway due to Sandusky for the reasons in my previous post.

If they couldn't find him and couldn't find his computer (with hard drive intact), I'd be more willing to consider murder.

FWIW, when he first disappeared I was 100% in the suicide camp. Not anymore.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RSBM ...

I may have misunderstood the facts on this part. Is it a documented fact that RFG told PF he was putting the car in her name in case he was sued? Or is that just a hypothesis for why he might have done it?

I included this part in my rationale thinking it was a fact. If it isn't, I'll think through that part some more. Doesn't change my mind about anything, though.

That was the reason stated by Zaccagni when asked. RFG drove the Mini almost exclusively, even according to his nephew. PEF had her own car.

But what if she didn't know right away? What if RFG counted on the potential for polys and monitored the story from a distance until he knew it was safe? Meaning, he bided his time ... waited to see if there would be polys ... then waited to see that his daughter passed ... and then reached out to tell her he was alive and why he left?

There would be nothing to prevent LE from asking her to take another one.

Then LG would be committing perjury, conspiracy, fraud, and in this environment, would probably do some serious time. I'm betting that RFG would be a good enough lawyer not to put his daughter in that position.

I may be looking at it through my own lens too much -- my dad was my hero. We were close. Do we know what kind of relationship RFG and his daughter had? If they were estranged, or not very close, then I could see her not knowing and him not reaching out.

They called each other several times a week, but not long or detailed calls. The one on 4/14/05, which LG said was standard, was just to tell him she loved him. RFG was not the custodial parent after the divorce and LG went to school in Washington state. They obviously did not have daily involvement in each others lives.

I'm sure they loved each other. I would point out that, had RFG retired, and then disappeared or died, LG would inherit less.

That's just it. There's no evidence one way or the other -- no evidence that he took his life there in the river; no evidence that he was murdered there; no evidence that he got out of there in someone else's car.

I think that there would relatively few people that:

1. RFG would get into a car with.

2. Wouldn't claim a five digit reward, that is what was offered. You give me, for example, $5,000 to drive RFG away and keep quiet about, I might; that wouldn't be illegal. You give me $10,000 to talk, I'm singing like a canary!

Until there's evidence in a specific direction -- after considering what we do have after all these years -- I'm on the side of walkaway due to Sandusky for the reasons in my previous post.

If they couldn't find him and couldn't find his computer (with hard drive intact), I'd be more willing to consider murder.

That obviously add some weight to walkaway. Sandusky will as well. I'm looking for something more solid. I gave walkaway a 51% chance last year, and that is just not enough. It will probably go up a bit in the aftermath of the Sandusky case, but if some of the post 4/15 witnesses were ruled out, it could drop below 50%.

FWIW, when he first disappeared I was 100% in the suicide camp. Not anymore.

Until about 6 months into it, I was fully expecting RFG's body to be fished out of the Susquehanna.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

New blog up, but it is basically a retrospective: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/03/03/3524059/torchlight.html