PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, former district attorney, Bellefonte, 15 Apr 2005 - #17

[J. J. in Phila]

New article in PennLive on RFG. It is part of their "True Crime" series and is behind a paywall: Ray Gricar, a Pa. district attorney, went for a drive 17 years ago. He hasn’t been seen since

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I subscribed and there was something of interest. BPD Chief Weaver said that he thought it was suicide.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is a quote from Chief Shawn Weaver:

"“I believe that his chances — or anyone’s chances — of becoming a homicide victim in that particular area and time of day on a weekend in a rather populated area were very minimal. That leaves two possibilities — walk away or suicide. The chances of making yourself vanish into thin air, leaving no trace ... not many people have the resources or willpower to do this. And without having any contact with loved ones, even years later, makes it more unlikely.”

I disagree with him. First, I think that RFG had the "willpower" and the resources to walk away. Easily with both.

Second, I agree that a crime committed in Lewisburg would be difficult. If RFG where to leave, voluntarily, with someone, who may not even planned to kill him at that point, it would be quite possible. That is the crime of passion scenario. That is also the Nelson Rockefeller scenario.

 

[Betty P]

Here is a quote from Chief Shawn Weaver:

"“I believe that his chances — or anyone’s chances — of becoming a homicide victim in that particular area and time of day on a weekend in a rather populated area were very minimal. That leaves two possibilities — walk away or suicide. The chances of making yourself vanish into thin air, leaving no trace ... not many people have the resources or willpower to do this. And without having any contact with loved ones, even years later, makes it more unlikely.”

I disagree with him. First, I think that RFG had the "willpower" and the resources to walk away. Easily with both.

Second, I agree that a crime committed in Lewisburg would be difficult. If RFG where to leave, voluntarily, with someone, who may not even planned to kill him at that point, it would be quite possible. That is the crime of passion scenario. That is also the Nelson Rockefeller scenario.

What's the Nelson Rockefeller scenario? Pardon my asking, but I missed that one. TIA

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What's the Nelson Rockefeller scenario? Pardon my asking, but I missed that one. TIA

Nelson Rockefeller died in the presence of a woman who was not his wife. It was a heart attack, not murder, and I believe she called an aid.

I have suggested a scenario where RFG have met a woman, one that was married, had an SO, or form some reason did not wish to be seen publicly with him. RFG would then have either some medical problem, e.g. a heart attack, or an accident, like slipping in the shower or falling down some steps. Whatever the cause, he died, and the woman he was with covered up the death, so that no one would know that they were involved. It is not murder, but it would be foul play, abuse of corpse.

 

[Black Diamond]

Why, oh, why did Ray Gricar choose not to pursue charges or do more? The social worker was a local guy. He knew the stakes involved, he knew how tough a fight it would be, that it could ruin his career, or cost him his job, but he did it anyway. Why couldn't Ray? I'm sorry, but this bothers me. What the heck, Ray? Did someone lean on him?

If you listen to Knight’s entire podcast series you’ll hear her postulate that Ray chose not to bring charges on Sandusky because he didn’t feel he had sufficient evidence, and was slowly “building a case.” If you read back through these posts, you’ll see JJ in Phila opine that Ray had enough evidence to bring charges in ‘98. I don’t really have a strong opinion either way about sufficient evidence. BUT, I can buy into even the least politically influenced DA not wanting to bring sex crime charges against a pillar of the community without a rock solid case. The biggest hole in that part of Knight’s idea is the fact that 1998 to 2005 is 7 years. If Ray was so serious about nailing Sandusky he sure didn’t hurry to get it done, nor did he do anything (that we know of) to save any more victims from abuse.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If you listen to Knight’s entire podcast series you’ll hear her postulate that Ray chose not to bring charges on Sandusky because he didn’t feel he had sufficient evidence, and was slowly “building a case.” If you read back through these posts, you’ll see JJ in Phila opine that Ray had enough evidence to bring charges in ‘98. I don’t really have a strong opinion either way about sufficient evidence. BUT, I can buy into even the least politically influenced DA not wanting to bring sex crime charges against a pillar of the community without a rock solid case. The biggest hole in that part of Knight’s idea is the fact that 1998 to 2005 is 7 years. If Ray was so serious about nailing Sandusky he sure didn’t hurry to get it done, nor did he do anything (that we know of) to save any more victims from abuse.

Let me put it this way. In 1998, RFG had two victims to testify. He also had Sandusky admitting to contact with the child.

In 2011, the AG's Office had one witness, and convicted Sandusky of one felony and two misdemeanor charges.

 

[Betty P]

If Ray was so serious about nailing Sandusky he sure didn’t hurry to get it done, nor did he do anything (that we know of) to save any more victims from abuse.

Yeah, this is the discouraging part. I could understand him delaying a little while to investigate further, but he should have been able to get more kids coming forward, witness statements, etc. within a year. The whole thing did take too long, mostly due to local politics. Even after he disappeared, it took a couple more years

Nelson Rockefeller died in the presence of a woman who was not his wife. It was a heart attack, not murder, and I believe she called an aid.

I have suggested a scenario where RFG have met a woman, one that was married, had an SO, or form some reason did not wish to be seen publicly with him. RFG would then have either some medical problem, e.g. a heart attack, or an accident, like slipping in the shower or falling down some steps. Whatever the cause, he died, and the woman he was with covered up the death, so that no one would know that they were involved. It is not murder, but it would be foul play, abuse of corpse.

Got it. I remember that now. RFG didn't seem like the kind of guy to do that.

Foul play still seems a possibility with the Sandusky sex scandal percolating. Ray had to have been hearing about some of the other reports about Sandusky's activities. The athletic dept. was consulting with their own attorneys. In 2001, DPW and the campus police dept. were investigating again. DPW must have contacted RFG about the newer allegations from McQuery.

Timeline: The child sex abuse case of Jerry Sandusky

Ten years ago, former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was charged with 10 felony counts in connection with his child sex abuse that spanned decades.The Collegian looks back

www.collegian.psu.edu

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Foul play still seems a possibility with the Sandusky sex scandal percolating. Ray had to have been hearing about some of the other reports about Sandusky's activities. The athletic dept. was consulting with their own attorneys. In 2001, DPW and the campus police dept. were investigating again. DPW must have contacted RFG about the newer allegations from McQuery.

Timeline: The child sex abuse case of Jerry Sandusky

Ten years ago, former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was charged with 10 felony counts in connection with his child sex abuse that spanned decades.The Collegian looks back

www.collegian.psu.edu

Respectfully snipped.

No, in 2001, neither the University Police, nor DPW, County C&YS, nor anyone in LE was investigating Sandusky. It was never reported, and that failure to report resulted in the convictions of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. I have no problem saying that RFG made a bad decision about 1998, but I cannot see anyone laying 2001 at his feet; as far as I can tell, RFG did not know about the 2001 incident (unless he read about it after it was published).

 

[Betty P]

Respectfully snipped.

No, in 2001, neither the University Police, nor DPW, County C&YS, nor anyone in LE was investigating Sandusky. It was never reported, and that failure to report resulted in the convictions of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. I have no problem saying that RFG made a bad decision about 1998, but I cannot see anyone laying 2001 at his feet; as far as I can tell, RFG did not know about the 2001 incident (unless he read about it after it was published).

Ok, I'll accept that. You're probably right.
The timelines I read on the internet weren't consistent in the reporting of that incident. Some mention contacting DPW, others didn't. Looking back, it's odd how there are still a lot of blank places in that timeline. Large gaps in time where Sandusky's activities aren't known.

I'm listening to the podcast now, which is helping put some things in perspective WRT other people's comments about RFG being compelled to continue looking at Sandusky even after 1998.

It was also a surprise to learn that the interior of RFG's car was wiped clean. Only a fingerprint on the label of a water bottle. That's really unusual. If Ray had disappeared or committed suicide, he wouldn't have taken the time to wipe down the car's interior to remove fingerprints before he left. Who did that?

 

[DeeperSecrets]

If you listen to Knight’s entire podcast series you’ll hear her postulate that Ray chose not to bring charges on Sandusky because he didn’t feel he had sufficient evidence, and was slowly “building a case.” If you read back through these posts, you’ll see JJ in Phila opine that Ray had enough evidence to bring charges in ‘98. I don’t really have a strong opinion either way about sufficient evidence. BUT, I can buy into even the least politically influenced DA not wanting to bring sex crime charges against a pillar of the community without a rock solid case. The biggest hole in that part of Knight’s idea is the fact that 1998 to 2005 is 7 years. If Ray was so serious about nailing Sandusky he sure didn’t hurry to get it done, nor did he do anything (that we know of) to save any more victims from abuse.

Perhaps Ray came to realize he was up against a bigger problem than just Sandusky. Too big to take on himself.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In fairness, the people that claimed that 2001 was reported were Paterno apologist, who saw exonerating the PSU 3 as means to that end. Curley and Schultz plead guilty, and indicated that neither DPW nor the police were contacted in 2001.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Perhaps Ray came to realize he was up against a bigger problem than just Sandusky. Too big to take on himself.

In that circumstance, he could have legitimately turned the case over to the PA Attorney General's Office.

Statute permits two situations where a DA can turn a case over to the PA OAG. 1. Conflict of interest. 2. Lack of resources to prosecute. In 2005, there were 7 prosecutors , I think, including RFG. There were no investigators; they relied on police forces.

 

[DeeperSecrets]

In that circumstance, he could have legitimately turned the case over to the PA Attorney General's Office.

Statute permits two situations where a DA can turn a case over to the PA OAG. 1. Conflict of interest. 2. Lack of resources to prosecute. In 2005, there were 7 prosecutors , I think, including RFG. There were no investigators; they relied on police forces.

Perhaps. But they would likely have declined it as well.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Perhaps. But they would likely have declined it as well.

First, there would have been a record.

Second, the PA OAG would have to conclude that there was no case, after there was an investigation. OAG has investigators.

 

[Betty P]

First, there would have been a record.

Second, the PA OAG would have to conclude that there was no case, after there was an investigation. OAG has investigators.

If Gricar knew or suspected the PA OAG didn't want to investigate, if his initial investigation was meeting that much resistance, it could explain why he was searching online for ways to erase files. Is it possible he was threatened and told to erase.

If RFG did contact Louis Freeh, it could indicate he met resistance at the PA OAG level. As postulated in the podcast, he might have been doing his own independent investigation, outside the county.

I've always thought there was something unusual about this, too. Not saying its connected to this and not being CT. JMO speculation only.

Officials: Ex-FBI chief Freeh nearly died in Vt. crash

Louis Freeh sustained a severed artery in a car crash eight months ago in Vermont.

www.usatoday.com

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If Gricar knew or suspected the PA OAG didn't want to investigate, if his initial investigation was meeting that much resistance, it could explain why he was searching online for ways to erase files. Is it possible he was threatened and told to erase.

If RFG did contact Louis Freeh, it could indicate he met resistance at the PA OAG level. As postulated in the podcast, he might have been doing his own independent investigation, outside the county.

I've always thought there was something unusual about this, too. Not saying its connected to this and not being CT. JMO speculation only.

Officials: Ex-FBI chief Freeh nearly died in Vt. crash

Louis Freeh sustained a severed artery in a car crash eight months ago in Vermont.

www.usatoday.com

Freeh was not in LE after 2001. He was not hired by PSU until 2011, and he was not the only candidate for the investigative counsel.

The incident that was initially reported to LE and DPW (DHS), was not reported until 2009. They did not discover a PSU connection until late 2010

RFG would have had to have known that the scandal would have come out, and that Freeh would have been hired by PSU, at least 5 years before those things happened. That is not credible.

We have seen, in PA, numerous prosecutors that, into the late 80's and early 90's, turn a blind eye CSA cases, when they involve a large politically powerful institution, usually the Catholic Church. This occurred across PA. I am not seeing a difference.

While I don't agree with what these prosecutors did, it was standard practice.

 

[DeeperSecrets]

First, there would have been a record.

Second, the PA OAG would have to conclude that there was no case, after there was an investigation. OAG has investigators.

But what if no one wanted to investigate. What if the suspicion pointed to something with ramifications too large for anyone to want to deal with? Perhaps the easier path would be to disappear.

 

[DeeperSecrets]

First, there would have been a record.

Second, the PA OAG would have to conclude that there was no case, after there was an investigation. OAG has investigators.

But what if no one wanted to investigate. What if the suspicion pointed to something with ramifications too large for anyone to want to deal with? Perhaps the easier path would be to disappear.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just to be clear, district attorneys have a great deal of discretion in prosecuting. They can decline to prosecute a solid case for just about any reason. There is no evidence that RFG or these prosecutors in other counties (and I have met several) did anything illegal or unethical (in terms of the legal canon) in not prosecuting these cases.

Even if RFG had been around in 2011 and was practicing law, he would have not faced any legal or ethical problems for not prosecuting Sandusky in 1998. I have no doubt that he would have been called before the grand jury, that Sara Ganim would have been knocking at his front door, and that a CNN news crew would be on his front porch.