PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #11

[J. J. in Phila]

Those facts might become clearer. Obviously, there was enough evidence to charge JS in 1998, because he was charged in 2011 with less evidence. There was another victim, B. K., in 1998. I believe that the mother of Victim 6 would have pursued the case, since she reported to the police promptly, within 24 hours, possibly 12 hours.

While there was no rape, there was sufficient contact to constitute violations of the law, since Sandusky was convicted in this regard. Further, DPW closed the case after RFG's decision not to prosecute, so their (actually Lauro's) decision could not be a factor.

There are also some unusual aspects of how handled the case. He removed the lead child abuse person from the case, which could have an reasonable explanation. RFG never personally interviewed Victim 6, so he could not determine Victim 6's credibility. He made his decision prior to LE/DPW interviewing Sandusky.

Now, there are problems with saying that RFG backed off because he was worried about his political future. He could have filed charges in 2001 or later, after he was not planning to run for reelection. That is part of the timing factor that was discussed. There has been no evidence that RFG was planning to prosecute JS prior to his disappearance.

 

[SuperSmith]

Those facts might become clearer. Obviously, there was enough evidence to charge JS in 1998, because he was charged in 2011 with less evidence. There was another victim, B. K., in 1998. I believe that the mother of Victim 6 would have pursued the case, since she reported to the police promptly, within 24 hours, possibly 12 hours.

While there was no rape, there was sufficient contact to constitute violations of the law, since Sandusky was convicted in this regard. Further, DPW closed the case after RFG's decision not to prosecute, so their (actually Lauro's) decision could not be a factor.

There are also some unusual aspects of how handled the case. He removed the lead child abuse person from the case, which could have an reasonable explanation. RFG never personally interviewed Victim 6, so he could not determine Victim 6's credibility. He made his decision prior to LE/DPW interviewing Sandusky.

Now, there are problems with saying that RFG backed off because he was worried about his political future. He could have filed charges in 2001 or later, after he was not planning to run for reelection. That is part of the timing factor that was discussed. There has been no evidence that RFG was planning to prosecute JS prior to his disappearance.

Without the full 100pg police report it is next to impossible to ascertain any of this.

I do appreciate your opinion though.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Without the full 100pg police report it is next to impossible to ascertain any of this.

I do appreciate your opinion though.

The information that RFG did not interview Victim 6 was in Schreffler's sworn testimony during the Sandusky Trial.

The information that RFG made his decision prior to the interview of Sandusky is from the Spanier Grand Jury Presentment.

The statement that JKA was removed from the case after several days is her own statement, supported by court filings, and the police report. I absolutely believe JKA on this point.

 

[Trackergd]

That amount is exceptionally low, but it might might not count several things that were paid: The initial trusteeship for the estate and setting up the reward. Both involved using an attorney. LG's travel to file those could also be included, legitimately.

There was, according to DZ, around $100 K in 2005. It was was held jointly with LG, so half of it would have been her's, for estate purposes.

Good job though, Trackergd.

With regard to the reward fund: Ray Gricar Reward Fund / Centre County Womens Resource Center

It appears to have been a $10,000.00 reward, however the documents show only $3,628.40 in pledges deposited in Nittany Bank. None of the money appears to have come from LG. Still digging to see how the funds were disbursed when the reward was officially closed with legal documentation.

So in short, the numbers do not appear to jive.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

With regard to the reward fund: Ray Gricar Reward Fund / Centre County Womens Resource Center

It appears to have been a $10,000.00 reward, however the documents show only $3,628.40 in pledges deposited in Nittany Bank. None of the money appears to have come from LG. Still digging to see how the funds were disbursed when the reward was officially closed with legal documentation.

So in short, the numbers do not appear to jive.

That is interesting, but there was probably a cost in setting up the reward instrumentality.

Even if you figure that this was only one half of the money, they do not jibe. I am wondering about estate planning, however.

Is there anything that shows a yearly accounting?

 

[SuperSmith]

The information that RFG did not interview Victim 6 was in Schreffler's sworn testimony during the Sandusky Trial.

The information that RFG made his decision prior to the interview of Sandusky is from the Spanier Grand Jury Presentment.

The statement that JKA was removed from the case after several days is her own statement, supported by court filings, and the police report. I absolutely believe JKA on this point.

All of which is moot if the youth was unwilling to testify against JS.

I too believe JKA and I also believe that RG took ALL the high profile cases. I think JS qualifies for that.

 

[SuperSmith]

With regard to the reward fund: Ray Gricar Reward Fund / Centre County Womens Resource Center

It appears to have been a $10,000.00 reward, however the documents show only $3,628.40 in pledges deposited in Nittany Bank. None of the money appears to have come from LG. Still digging to see how the funds were disbursed when the reward was officially closed with legal documentation.

So in short, the numbers do not appear to jive.

Correct me if I am wrong Tracker but isn't a pledge just that..."a pledge". Would it be required to have the funds deposited "prior" to an actual resolution in the case?

 

[Trackergd]

Correct me if I am wrong Tracker but isn't a pledge just that..."a pledge". Would it be required to have the funds deposited "prior" to an actual resolution in the case?

It does say pledge and amount after each name, but it does show a balance in the bank account that matches the "pledges". There is also a document to rescind the reward and to disburse funds as indicated in the document creating the reward fund.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There has been no suggestion that either known victim in 1998 was not willing to testify; in the case of Victim 6, who was interviewed by LE, it is unlikely.

RFG did take high profile case, however, he brought someone with him as second chair. JKA was excluded from the case, according to her; according to press reports she was not involved after being removed. SPS was brought in, according to press reports.

I agree with the prosecutor who said, "If I thought the (assailant) was a threat to the community at large, I would try to persuade the victim to cooperate." That prosecutor was Ray Gricar, and he said it November of 1998, less than six months after the Sandusky investigation was closed.

He also noted prosecuted a rape case, where the victim recanted her testimony and testified as a defense witness. RFG got a conviction.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_edb63316-807d-562c-9b1a-b1b8cdffe1b7.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It does say pledge and amount after each name, but it does show a balance in the bank account that matches the "pledges". There is also a document to rescind the reward and to disburse funds as indicated in the document creating the reward fund.

Somebody might have pledged without making a donation, i.e., "If there is a payout, I'll contribute $5000 to it."

I would assume that there was a cost in setting up the reward fund?

 

[SuperSmith]

There has been no suggestion that either known victim in 1998 was not willing to testify; in the case of Victim 6, who was interviewed by LE, it is unlikely.

RFG did take high profile case, however, he brought someone with him as second chair. JKA was excluded from the case, according to her; according to press reports she was not involved after being removed.

I agree with the prosecutor who said, "If I thought the (assailant) was a threat to the community at large, I would try to persuade the victim to cooperate." That prosecutor was Ray Gricar, and he said it November of 1998, less than six months after the Sandusky investigation was closed.

He also noted prosecuted a rape case, where the victim recanted her testimony and testified as a defense witness. RFG got a conviction.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_edb63316-807d-562c-9b1a-b1b8cdffe1b7.html

Well that is your opinion for which you are entitled.

Actually there is plenty to suggest that Victim 6, back in 1998, was reluctant and would've made a poor witness.

"Joe Amendola started his cross-examination by having Victim 6 admit that he attended football games with Sandusky and his family for many years after the 1998 incident.

Amendola asked, “You didn’t think anything inappropriate happened at the time?”

Victim 6 said that he didn’t think anything inappropriate happened at the time. “I didn’t want to get him in trouble because I still wanted to hang out with him and go to the games. He told me that he had a computer, and that I could come over and we could sit in his lap and get on the computer together.”

Amendola continued by examining Victim 6′s relationship with Sandusky following the 1998 incident. Victim 6 testified that he asked Sandusky for money to go on a mission trip to Mexico in the early 2000s, to which Sandusky obliged. Victim 6 also borrowed Sandusky’s car on one occasion around the same time period.

The biggest hit to Victim 6′s testimony — however — came from two text messages he sent to Sandusky in 2009.

The first message, sent on Thanksgiving from Victim 6 to Sandusky, read: I’m glad God has placed you in my life. You are an awesome friend. Love you.

The second message, sent on Father’s Day, read: Hey Jerry, just wanted to wish you a happy Father’s Day. Great things are yet to come.

Amendola asked how he could have sent those text messages, 13 years after the alleged incident occurred, and still be sitting in court today in a criminal case against Sandusky.

“What happened was, when I was contacted in January of 2011, the state police officer says that I should cooperate with it. He said that he wanted me to think about what happened in 1998 again. As I started to think about it – as I started to go over it in my mind – I quickly realized that my perception changed when thinking about it as an adult than when I was an 11 year old,” Victim 6 said. “I feel violated. I’ve gone through a lot of emotional roller coasters since then.”

"A State College police detective who investigated the case in 1998 was the next to testify. He said that Victim 6 was “laid back” when they spoke in 1998. His testimony was consistent with Victim 6′s testimony."

The detective also read a transcript from a police interview with Victim 6, where the police asked, “Did Jerry ever touch you inappropriately?”

Victim 6 had said no.

“Do you think what Jerry did was inappropriate?” the police also asked, at the time.

Victim 6 had said no to that too."

This is his sworn testimony. I think it proves that he didn't want to go forward as a youth in a case against JS. He maintained contact through out the years.

It is also interesting that Victim 6 has filed a Federal lawsuit against PSU, The Second Mile, & Sandusky. No where has Victim 6 EVER blamed the District Attorneys office by way of lawsuit or testimony.

 

[SuperSmith]

Moving on. I want to give Tracker a personal thank you for the documents you asked for and received. Doesn't appear to show much but it was worth a shot.

 

[Trackergd]

Somebody might have pledged without making a donation, i.e., "If there is a payout, I'll contribute $5000 to it."

I would assume that there was a cost in setting up the reward fund?

I took a second look since the account was gaining interest.

They are "pledges received"

I am hesitant to post a PDF of the documents as the individuals who donated are listed.

Two $500.00 donations
One $1000.00 donation
The balance seems to run from $20.00 to $250.00.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That isn't an opinion; that is a quote. I agree with it, and it nice to note that, in another case, RFG actually did that.

RFG could not tell if Victim 6 was credible or not, if RFG didn't interview him. I have seen nothing that would indicate that Victim 6 would not testify in court, nor is there any indication that he would not.

Those other incidences cited had not occurred in 1998; Victim 6 was too young to borrow a car in 1998.

As has been noted, the DA's Office had discretion in not filing the charges, so a lawsuit is not applicable. I have suggested RFG made a horrifically bad decision, but not an illegal nor an unethical one.

In looking at the money, estate planning may explain what happened to all the money, but these amounts do seem unreasonably low. If, after making more than $85 K net for over four years, he had that little and there was no estate planning, there is money missing, a lot of money missing.

 

[Trackergd]

I am a little confused as there is no table or listing that shows how the funds were disbursed and to whom. The fund as advertised and noted with proof of publishing from two papers all listed it as $10,000.00, yet there was only a tad over $3,600.00 in the bank account. I wonder if that is why the reward fund was terminated on August 14th, 2006. Trustee's first receipt of funds was April 27, 2005.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I took a second look since the account was gaining interest.

They are "pledges received"

I am hesitant to post a PDF of the documents as the individuals who donated are listed.

Two $500.00 donations
One $1000.00 donation
The balance seems to run from $20.00 to $250.00.

I personally wouldn't post them either. I do wonder if there were other pledges, that were just that. I can understand that.

I would doubt if any actual money received came from the estate (as opposed from the family).

The rest of it is either estate planning (LG or RFG) or there is a substantial amount of money missing.

 

[SuperSmith]

Many here have dismissed the Hells Angel story given to Greg Bock even though it was later corroborated by Robert Buehner's radio interview.

Since it has largely been dismissed by everyone so quickly (mostly thanks to Chief Weaver) than perhaps you all can help me out with understanding the reason why it has been dismissed so quickly.

-Lead Detective Matt Rickard indicated that the investigation is ongoing and more interviews needed to be conducted. Why wouldn't MR indicate what Weaver said that it has ALREADY been thoroughly investigated?

-If the stories are so flawed, full of holes, then why would BB waste his time to do a radio interview? Answer: To further corroborate Bock's story and to share his about the pen pal

-Why would the FBI waste there time? If the story has no legs to it why waste FBI time and resources?? We are talking about the FBI and not a 6 man police department. The FBI is not going to investigate, interview, and take a convicted felon out of jail to go to a site in PA.

I hope you all can help me understand this and I am not being sarcastic or anything. Really want to know how all of you closed the book on this so quickly.

 

[Trackergd]

I personally wouldn't post them either. I do wonder if there were other pledges, that were just that. I can understand that.

I would doubt if any actual money received came from the estate (as opposed from the family).

The rest of it is either estate planning (LG or RFG) or there is a substantial amount of money missing.

A $200.00 pledge received was "Anonymous Gift". No Name listed.

None of the other names listed were Gricar.

I am going to arrange to send SS and JJ copies as soon as I can sneak them through the printer here and get snail mail addresses. The PDF would be too large to email I think.

 

[SuperSmith]

That isn't an opinion; that is a quote. I agree with it, and it nice to note that, in another case, RFG actually did that.

RFG could not tell if Victim 6 was credible or not, if RFG didn't interview him. I have seen nothing that would indicate that Victim 6 would not testify in court, nor is there any indication that he would not.

Those other incidences cited had not occurred in 1998; Victim 6 was too young to borrow a car in 1998.

As has been noted, the DA's Office had discretion in not filing the charges, so a lawsuit is not applicable. I have suggested RFG made a horrifically bad decision, but not an illegal nor an unethical one.

In looking at the money, estate planning may explain what happened to all the money, but these amounts do seem unreasonably low. If, after making more than $85 K net for over four years, he had that little and there was no estate planning, there is money missing, a lot of money missing.

Like I said you are entitled to your opinion but there isn't much to argue when I posted Victim 6's TESTIMONY.

Victim 6, even today, admits that back then JS didn't do anything wrong.

Yes, Victim 6 was too young to drive back then. He borrowed JS's car years later which further shows the continued relationship.

We are not privy to the phone calls between RG, LE, CYS, & DPW.

 

[Trackergd]

Many here have dismissed the Hells Angel story given to Greg Bock even though it was later corroborated by Robert Buehner's radio interview.

Since it has largely been dismissed by everyone so quickly (mostly thanks to Chief Weaver) than perhaps you all can help me out with understanding the reason why it has been dismissed so quickly.

-Lead Detective Matt Rickard indicated that the investigation is ongoing and more interviews needed to be conducted. Why wouldn't MR indicate what Weaver said that it has ALREADY been thoroughly investigated?

-If the stories are so flawed, full of holes, then why would BB waste his time to do a radio interview? Answer: To further corroborate Bock's story and to share his about the pen pal

-Why would the FBI waste there time? If the story has no legs to it why waste FBI time and resources?? We are talking about the FBI and not a 6 man police department. The FBI is not going to investigate, interview, and take a convicted felon out of jail to go to a site in PA.

I hope you all can help me understand this and I am not being sarcastic or anything. Really want to know how all of you closed the book on this so quickly.

I have not 100% dismissed it either. Right now it is an "outlier" until there is more substantial information one way or the other.

I have another outlier theory that his disappearance involved forces surrounding the JS case and involving a school with a lot of high power connections and extensive funds to protect itself and its leadership.