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

[SuperSmith]

I would also like someone else's opinion on the 1998 Victim 6 situation. I do not think RG made a bad decision back in 1998 at the time. With the benefit of hindsight and multiple other victims sure it can look that way.

"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.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

As you know, I am working on some other angles, I will welcome this, and share what I find, if anything. Thank you.

LG, representing the estate, or other family members, could have basically set aside $5000 to use to pay a reward, but not put it in the account. She would not get a tax deduction from it, but the estate would retain the assets. She frankly could have done the same with personal funds.

Anything on how much the estate was worth in 2005?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

Well, I think BB's comments on the radio were "full of holes," since the town that he identified is nonexistent. Now, did he make a mistake? Did his pen pal make a mistake? Is Bock's source lying to either BB's pen pal or Bock? How about lying to both?

I think it is both, largely because what Bock reported initially was not accurate in the details. The details undermine the possible motive, very strongly. There are also some problems with RFG being followed/lured by anyone associated with the A.K.

I don't find anything unusual with MR giving a general statement and letting the department head confirm or deny. Weaver was the one that stated that Wilkes Barre was ruled out.

 

[SuperSmith]

Well, I think BB's comments on the radio were "full of holes," since the town that he identified is nonexistent. Now, did he make a mistake?

Yes, I think we all caught that but you've expressed that several times and Tracker noted it in the beginning but what other holes have you found with the stories? You posted "full of holes", incorrect details by Bock. Can you elaborate specifically?

I'm not the sharpest tool and appreciate your help. :waiting:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, I think we all caught that but you've expressed that several times and Tracker noted it in the beginning but what other holes have you found with the stories? You posted "full of holes", incorrect details by Bock. Can you elaborate specifically?

I'm not the sharpest tool and appreciate your help. :waiting:

Sure:

First story:

RFG tried the case and A. K. got a "stiff" prison sentence.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/c...Police-probe-claim-Gricar-killed.html?nav=742

Second story:

Sloane tried the case and A. K. got a lower sentence than Sloane tried to get.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/575024.html

Now, I could understand a guy with a harsh sentence going after the person who prosecuted him, holding a grudge. It was a lower than sentence the prosecution was asking for and RFG wasn't the prosecutor. That changed in about 48 hours.

The potentially mitigating circumstance, A K was an FBI informer, was introduced at trial, according to both stories.

 

[Trackergd]

Sure:

First story:

RFG tried the case and A. K. got a "stiff" prison sentence.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/c...Police-probe-claim-Gricar-killed.html?nav=742

Second story:

Sloane tried the case and A. K. got a lower sentence than Sloane tried to get.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/575024.html

Now, I could understand a guy with a harsh sentence going after the person who prosecuted him, holding a grudge. It was a lower than sentence the prosecution was asking for and RFG wasn't the prosecutor. That changed in about 48 hours.

The potentially mitigating circumstance, A K was an FBI informer, was introduced at trial, according to both stories.

And Sloane was involved in the reward fund.....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And Sloane was involved in the reward fund.....

I figured that. I'd take it Buehner and/or McKnight were as well.

Sloane very deeply cared about RFG.

 

[SeekingJana]

SuperSmith, I believe exactly what you believe about Victim 6.
He showered with Sandusky once as a child, he told his mother, she freaked out and went to LE. They investigated and it was decided that there was not enough to charge Sandusky.

Later, Vic. 6 stopped being a victim and became one of Jerry's pals. His choice.

This is the gist of what I believe happened.

 

[Trackergd]

I figured that. I'd take it Buehner and/or McKnight were as well.

Sloane very deeply cared about RFG.

Buehner was.

 

[SeekingJana]

It is probably a personal failing of mine that I tend to be skeptical of sensationalized jail snitch stories of murder and mayhem. I totally support your right to subscribe to this theory though, and I respect that you care enough to HAVE a theory.

I remember being generally afraid of the Hell's Angels when I was a small child and I had never even SEEN a Hell's Angels motorcycle group!! It is kind of like " the boogy man" to me. Or the " mafia". I think much which is very bad has been done under the guise of the mafia or HA falsely.

I also think the story about the hit has changed several times, which adds to my skepticism. Last but not least, Mr. Gricar didn't even prosecute the HA, so why would they go after him years later?

I also have a problem with the convenient memory loss of the jailed witness who had himself a nice outing on taxpayer's money. I don't think hits are usually kept so secret, I think most are now displayed and serve as a warning for the rest of the target group ( Usually a rival gang).

However, I support your right to claim this theory as your truth, and to support it.
I hope you can respect my choice not to embrace it at this time. If things shake out a bit, and I see a pattern which makes sense without twisting and turning and layers of " mystery witnesses" then of course I want the truth to be known.
Our shared goal is for this case to be solved.

 

[SuperSmith]

Sure:

First story:

RFG tried the case and A. K. got a "stiff" prison sentence.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/c...Police-probe-claim-Gricar-killed.html?nav=742

Second story:

Sloane tried the case and A. K. got a lower sentence than Sloane tried to get.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/575024.html

Now, I could understand a guy with a harsh sentence going after the person who prosecuted him, holding a grudge. It was a lower than sentence the prosecution was asking for and RFG wasn't the prosecutor. That changed in about 48 hours.

The potentially mitigating circumstance, A K was an FBI informer, was introduced at trial, according to both stories.

I can understand you seeing it that way however unless I missed it the stories don't indicate who prosecuted the individual. Only that it was Gricar's office that did. It did indicate that Sloane handled the sentencing process and the order to seek a longer sentence, could have come directly from RG, despite the letter from the former FBI agent.

Isn't it possible that this individual, even likely, that this convict knew that most of what transpired to him was by the order of RG? I doubt Sloane would've taken it upon himself to ignore an FBI letter & seek a longer prison term without running it by RG.

"The latest claim centers around a man who was prosecuted by Gricar's office in 1999 in Centre County Court for aggravated assault. After a one-day trial, the man was convicted and given a four- to eight-year prison sentence.

A check of case documents show a former Hells Angel was convicted after a road rage incident in which he split a driver's head open with a baseball bat, an act described by witnesses as if he was chopping wood.

During a post-sentencing hearing in which then-Assistant District Attorney Steve Sloane sought a longer sentence, a letter from a former FBI agent that was read aloud to the court confirmed the Hells Angel member had worked as an informant for the FBI after he was released from federal prison in the early 1990s."

It was no secret to anyone who was in charge of the DA's office.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The first article doesn't say "Gricar's office," or the District Attorney's Office. The implication is that RFG had some involvement in the case, and there is no suggestion that he did.

The first article says:

The source has sat down for extensive interviews with the Mirror in which he contends the killing of Gricar, who vanished April 15, 2005, was at the behest of a former Hells-Angel-turned-informant and was retribution for a stiff state prison sentence stemming from an aggravated assault conviction.

This wasn't even close to the sentence Sloane was asking for.

 

[SuperSmith]

The first article doesn't say "Gricar's office," or the District Attorney's Office. The implication is that RFG had some involvement in the case, and there is no suggestion that he did.

The first article says:

The source has sat down for extensive interviews with the Mirror in which he contends the killing of Gricar, who vanished April 15, 2005, was at the behest of a former Hells-Angel-turned-informant and was retribution for a stiff state prison sentence stemming from an aggravated assault conviction.

This wasn't even close to the sentence Sloane was asking for.

Sloane would've conferred with RG about the case. Simple as that really in my opinion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sloane would've conferred with RG about the case. Simple as that really in my opinion.

How would A. K. know that?

There would have to be two assumptions, first that there some consultations and second that A. K. would know about that. It is hugely unlikely that A K would know decisions were made in the DA's Office.

 

[SuperSmith]

How would A. K. know that?

There would have to be two assumptions, first that there some consultations and second that A. K. would know about that. It is hugely unlikely that A K would know decisions were made in the DA's Office.

Lol, everything went through Ray he was the boss. He might have even prosecuted but I don't think Sloane would have made the decision to ignore the FBI letter and seek a longer sentence.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Lol, everything went through Ray he was the boss. He might have even prosecuted but I don't think Sloane would have made the decision to ignore the FBI letter and seek a longer sentence.

It wasn't ignoring the letter. That was entered into the record, according to the story. The letter might have helped get A. K. a shorter sentence.

Sloane was the person arguing for the longer sentence, the one A. K. saw in court. The story has too many holes in it.

Right now, I am more interested in the money aspect. If the estate was that low in 2005, there is a substantial amount of money not accounted for.

 

[SeekingJana]

It wasn't ignoring the letter. That was entered into the record, according to the story. The letter might have helped get A. K. a shorter sentence.

Sloane was the person arguing for the longer sentence, the one A. K. saw in court. The story has too many holes in it.

Right now, I am more interested in the money aspect. If the estate was that low in 2005, there is a substantial amount of money not accounted for.

BBM. This!!!

 

[SuperSmith]

It wasn't ignoring the letter. That was entered into the record, according to the story. The letter might have helped get A. K. a shorter sentence.

Sloane was the person arguing for the longer sentence, the one A. K. saw in court. The story has too many holes in it.

Right now, I am more interested in the money aspect. If the estate was that low in 2005, there is a substantial amount of money not accounted for.

That's a good thing to separately work different angles. I won't ask anymore about what you consider holes in the story. I got the town mistake by BB but has far as the convicts case I can confirm with 100% accuracy that RG was involved in the case. I have a copy of the 10 page docket.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That's a good thing to separately work different angles. I won't ask anymore about what you consider holes in the story. I got the town mistake by BB but has far as the convicts case I can confirm with 100% accuracy that RG was involved in the case. I have a copy of the 10 page docket.

There is a difference between being "involved," and being in the courtroom arguing the case. Obama is "involved" in every federal prosecution, because he ultimately appointed the US Attorney, who, in turn, employe the USDA normally arguing the case. He obviously doesn't deal with the details of most of those cases.

 

[SuperSmith]

There is a difference between being "involved," and being in the courtroom arguing the case. Obama is "involved" in every federal prosecution, because he ultimately appointed the US Attorney, who, in turn, employe the USDA normally arguing the case. He obviously doesn't deal with the details of most of those cases.

This is the last post about this aspect. We do not know who prosecuted the case only that RG was involved in the whole process and Sloane argued the sentencing. I highly doubt that Sloane made the decision to ask for the more severe sentence on his own. I will find out who actually prosecuted the case.