PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #13

[J. J. in Phila]

RBBM

To a Tracker, there are quite a few "indicators" we use when attempting to locate an individual that has a high potential for being deceased.

1. Bird activity - Flock of turkey buzzards or a murder of crows in an area.
2. Intense insect activity - hoards of flies in an area.
3. Scent - Sometimes you don't need a dog to know something is dead in an area.
4. Scavenger activity - signs of activity from known ground dwelling scavenger/carrion eaters. Pieces of bone, etc...

If someone with the skills to detect these signs was not in the area within 48 hours of RG going missing, the signs degrade over the next few days. Most LE have not been trained in these skills since the 1800's.

They did have a cadaver dog on the river in the first week, but I'm not sure about the area across the river. I have never heard of a formalized search of that area.

The area is fairly rural, however, and I would expect a few hunters.

The initial focus was on the river, at least publicly.

Today, LE would be looking at almost archeological remains.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A while back, Tracker asks me about the first report of RFG acting unusually. I had thought it was conference with Spotts and Brown and then the Interview with Joseph.

The interview with Joseph happened first. So, the first time that RFG was noted publicly to be asking unusually is when Joseph asked him about JKA running for DA.

I have heard some rumors of it beginning several weeks before, however, but I have no documentations.

 

[SeekingJana]

Karen Arnold comes up in this case in the MOST unusual ways... I wonder if we will know more about her one day? Karen, who posted her heart out, then disappeared from the pubic eye, much like Patty did after her news conference and presence on " Disappeared".
I'm no great Oracle, but going back to the principle of Occam's Razor, when I list everything out into " foul play" column and " walkaway" column, there's not one single thing I can put in the " foul play" column. Nothing. Occam's Razor would then tell us that walkaway is the solution to the disappearance. I've tried my best to argue for foul play, but there is no substance to the argument. There is nothing to support foul play.
We may think we understand how a stable person's mind works, but the truth is that many people have secrets.. good people, law- abiding people.. and maybe Ray left because of something or someone, or just wanted to get out of the country for good. Good people do become ex- pats. I wish I was one sometimes.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit:

Karen Arnold comes up in this case in the MOST unusual ways... I wonder if we will know more about her one day? Karen, who posted her heart out, then disappeared from the pubic eye, much like Patty did after her news conference and presence on " Disappeared".

I really cannot blame her for not wanting to be front and center now, due to the Sandusky case. You have half the Internet calling her "shady," and yes, I am an exception. Ultimately, she may have tried to do more in 1998.

I'm no great Oracle, but going back to the principle of Occam's Razor, when I list everything out into " foul play" column and " walkaway" column, there's not one single thing I can put in the " foul play" column. Nothing. Occam's Razor would then tell us that walkaway is the solution to the disappearance. I've tried my best to argue for foul play, but there is no substance to the argument. There is nothing to support foul play.

There is a lot that can go into both columns.

For example:

The dog detected RFG's scent in the parking lot across from the SoS.

Okay, that is consistent with RFG getting into another car and riding off into the sunset.

That is also consistent with RFG getting into another car with some who murdered him, or with someone who took him into the circumstances where he was murdered.

On the prior thread, I posted something like this:

All of the evidence is consistent with voluntary departure.

Most of the evidence with foul play.

Now, a lot of the evidence is not consistent with specific murder scenarios, but it is with others.

 

[BigCat]

A while back, Tracker asks me about the first report of RFG acting unusually. I had thought it was conference with Spotts and Brown and then the Interview with Joseph.

The interview with Joseph happened first. So, the first time that RFG was noted publicly to be asking unusually is when Joseph asked him about JKA running for DA.

I have heard some rumors of it beginning several weeks before, however, but I have no documentations.

Recently I was reading through an old post on the Charley Project. A commentator asked the following question:

"Has anyone ever thought that maybe he is running from something that was about to catch up with him from the past?

It’s been said that his daughter has not so long ago taken a lie detector test to prove that she has not been in contact with him, and she past. This would make me think that if he had done something terrible and it was about to catch up with him he would not want his daughter to be put in the spotlight and made to look bad."

http://charleyross.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/spotlight-case-ray-gricar/

That comment was posted in 2010, which was prior to Sandusky's arrest. Was her intuition correct? Did RFG become depressed because he feared JKA's possible election as DA?

If we replace the commentator's use of the word "terrible" with "regrettable," she still could be right. I think if RFG is alive today, he regrets not prosecuting Sandusky, even if he believes he made the right call, based on what he knew then, in 1998. The big question is did he regret that decision in 2005.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Recently I was reading through an old post on the Charley Project. A commentator asked the following question:

"Has anyone ever thought that maybe he is running from something that was about to catch up with him from the past?

It’s been said that his daughter has not so long ago taken a lie detector test to prove that she has not been in contact with him, and she past. This would make me think that if he had done something terrible and it was about to catch up with him he would not want his daughter to be put in the spotlight and made to look bad."

http://charleyross.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/spotlight-case-ray-gricar/

That comment was posted in 2010, which was prior to Sandusky's arrest. Was her intuition correct? Did RFG become depressed because he feared JKA's possible election as DA?

If we replace the commentator's use of the word "terrible" with "regrettable," she still could be right. I think if RFG is alive today, he regrets not prosecuting Sandusky, even if he believes he made the right call, based on what he knew then, in 1998. The big question is did he regret that decision in 2005.

First, LG took a polygraph in the late summer or early fall of 2005. She passed.

Second, on 4/15/05, RFG could have prosecuted Sandusky over the 1998 incident. If he regretted that decision, he could have started the process as late as 4/15/05.

I've postulated that since the felony Sandusky was convicted of regarding 1998 was a new statute, he might not have realized he could have charged. JKA should have been up on it, but she was removed.

Even if he realized he made a mistake, an honest one, in 1998, he could have corrected it at any point after that. He was not planning to run, according to him, since his 2001 reelection, and he had announced it in January 2004. RFG would not have to worry about reelection.

 

[BigCat]

First, LG took a polygraph in the late summer or early fall of 2005. She passed.

Second, on 4/15/05, RFG could have prosecuted Sandusky over the 1998 incident. If he regretted that decision, he could have started the process as late as 4/15/05.

I've postulated that since the felony Sandusky was convicted of regarding 1998 was a new statute, he might not have realized he could have charged. JKA should have been up on it, but she was removed.

BBM

My point is not a legal one. I'm speaking strictly in terms of human nature. He could not prosecute in 2005 without losing face.

Even if he realized he made a mistake, an honest one, in 1998, he could have corrected it at any point after that. He was not planning to run, according to him, since his 2001 reelection, and he had announced it in January 2004. RFG would not have to worry about reelection.

No doubt the world would be a better place if we could all admitted our past mistakes and make amends for them, but, unfortunately, that's not how the world works.

Besides, if he had prosecuted post-2001, and certainly post-2004, it would be rather transparent that the reason he failed to prosecute in 98 was strictly political. (Unless, there was new evidence. Perhaps that would explain a possible rogue investigation.)

JMO

 

[SeekingJana]

I see his generation as being raised to stand up and take what's coming to you- if you did something wrong, then you make reparations as best as possible. Americans do not live in a "lose face, live in disgrace" kind of culture. We've had regional, state and national embarrassing incidents involving politicians and their personal and professional gaffes for many years. A personal or professional "lapse of judgment"is nothing new or alarming. People make mistakes. I don't think he left because he did something wrong at all. And this includes possible omissions of duty. He had NO WAY to know the Sandusky scandal would be national news in 1998 OR in 2005.
People in PA care a lot more about PSU's problems than the rest of the country in general. Just like you care more about the PA elected officials. A person outside the state is able to look at the BIG picture easier, I think. But, we may not have all the info that the locals have,either.
There are two ways of looking at the case. One is with no assignation of blame or fault regardless of where he lived, the other is the tendency by some to try to make this about Corbett, or Sandusky. And I just don't think it is.
He left just a few months before retirement. There was no reason to think Sandusky was going to be prosecuted in those months.Which means, IMO, that he could have left in the same way after retiring. The difference is that most of us would never have known about his case, nor would some care as much as when a sitting DA disappeared.
I know that much has been made of his state pension. While I personally think this is a not- smart line of reasoning, because if he walked away, then he had made other provisions for himself, and Lara had her own income plus a mother with assets..
However, my father's state pension was set up with survivorship benefits for my mother, meaning that she receives the same pension after he died that he received for many years. Gricar's could have been set up the same way for Lara, I'd think. And as we know, he was declared legally dead. So, to some of us at least, the pension is not the main issue at all, regardless of whether Lara collected the benefits or it went unclaimed after his 7 years of being missing and legal declaration of death.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM

My point is not a legal one. I'm speaking strictly in terms of human nature. He could not prosecute in 2005 without losing face.



No doubt the world would be a better place if we could all admitted our past mistakes and make amends for them, but, unfortunately, that's not how the world works.

Besides, if he had prosecuted post-2001, and certainly post-2004, it would be rather transparent that the reason he failed to prosecute in 98 was strictly political. (Unless, there was new evidence. Perhaps that would explain a possible rogue investigation.)

JMO

Why would he lose face? It was a new law. Okay, he wasn't perfect.

In 2003, RFG was sanctioned by a judge (one brought in specifically for the case after Grine recursed himself). He had talked to a pathologist, and, according to the court, pressured him to withdraw as an expert witness for the defense.

He was found to have violated an ethical canon, the case was removed from the office, and the DA's office had to pay for a replacement expert witness. Now, had the defense attorney chosen to pursue it, RFG might have had his licenses suspended. There was some discussion in the press about that.

Not prosecuting Sandusky could have been seen as an honest mistake, or even fear of the next reelection. However, it was not nearly as bad, from a legal ethics standpoint, as 2003. As far as I can tell, it was neither illegal nor unethical not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998. There would need to be some other element that we don't know about.

 

[BigCat]

Why would he lose face? It was a new law. Okay, he wasn't perfect.

In 2003, RFG was sanctioned by a judge (one brought in specifically for the case after Grine recursed himself). He had talked to a pathologist, and, according to the court, pressured him to withdraw as an expert witness for the defense.

He was found to have violated an ethical canon, the case was removed from the office, and the DA's office had to pay for a replacement expert witness. Now, had the defense attorney chosen to pursue it, RFG might have had his licenses suspended. There was some discussion in the press about that.

Not prosecuting Sandusky could have been seen as an honest mistake, or even fear of the next reelection. However, it was not nearly as bad, from a legal ethics standpoint, as 2003. As far as I can tell, it was neither illegal nor unethical not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998.

Come on, J.J. That's mostly "inside baseball" talk. Being sanctioned might matter in legal circles, but not with the populace. Pressuring defense witnesses to withdraw sounds like a tough prosecutor. Maybe even a point in his favor during a Republican primary.

Being known as "The Prosecutor Who Failed to Prosecute Sandusky" (http://deadspin.com/5857966/the-mys...rosecute-jerry-sandusky-and-who-might-be-dead) is far worse. It's also unfair, which is beside the point. To be thought of as soft on a child predator would strike at the identity he worked his entire life to establish.

There would need to be some other element that we don't know about.

Probably, I agree. However, I don't think necessarily.

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Come on, J.J. That's mostly "inside baseball" talk. Being sanctioned might matter in legal circles, but not with the populace. Pressuring defense witnesses to withdraw sounds like a tough prosecutor. Maybe even a point in his favor during a Republican primary.

Being known as "The Prosecutor Who Failed to Prosecute Sandusky" (http://deadspin.com/5857966/the-mys...rosecute-jerry-sandusky-and-who-might-be-dead) is far worse. It's also unfair, which is beside the point. To be thought of as soft on a child predator would strike at the identity he worked his entire life to establish.



Probably, I agree. However, I don't think necessarily.

JMO

It made the paper all the way to Pittsburgh. http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...6okAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w3ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5535,5727222

It is also an elective position and people do look at that. It was his successor's, MTM's, conduct that probably cost him the 2009 election. MTM was never sanctioned, but came close in the Rogers' case, where he didn't turn over some evidence in a murder trial. It would have had an effect, especially with an opponent harping on it.

Granted, it never would have had as wide coverage, but in Centre County, it would have been devastating.

Had RFG made an honest mistake, and corrected it, it would have had much less of an impact that being sanctioned.

 

[MissJ]

I see his generation as being raised to stand up and take what's coming to you- if you did something wrong, then you make reparations as best as possible. Americans do not live in a "lose face, live in disgrace" kind of culture. We've had regional, state and national embarrassing incidents involving politicians and their personal and professional gaffes for many years. A personal or professional "lapse of judgment"is nothing new or alarming. People make mistakes. I don't think he left because he did something wrong at all. And this includes possible omissions of duty. He had NO WAY to know the Sandusky scandal would be national news in 1998 OR in 2005.
People in PA care a lot more about PSU's problems than the rest of the country in general. Just like you care more about the PA elected officials. A person outside the state is able to look at the BIG picture easier, I think. But, we may not have all the info that the locals have,either.
There are two ways of looking at the case. One is with no assignation of blame or fault regardless of where he lived, the other is the tendency by some to try to make this about Corbett, or Sandusky. And I just don't think it is.
He left just a few months before retirement. There was no reason to think Sandusky was going to be prosecuted in those months.Which means, IMO, that he could have left in the same way after retiring. The difference is that most of us would never have known about his case, nor would some care as much as when a sitting DA disappeared.
I know that much has been made of his state pension. While I personally think this is a not- smart line of reasoning, because if he walked away, then he had made other provisions for himself, and Lara had her own income plus a mother with assets..
However, my father's state pension was set up with survivorship benefits for my mother, meaning that she receives the same pension after he died that he received for many years. Gricar's could have been set up the same way for Lara, I'd think. And as we know, he was declared legally dead. So, to some of us at least, the pension is not the main issue at all, regardless of whether Lara collected the benefits or it went unclaimed after his 7 years of being missing and legal declaration of death.

My pension is set up so that my beneficiary gets the same amount whenever they get it. Now or 20 years from now. Do we know he had provided otherwise for himself? I could see RFG walking away to be with a true love. Maybe she had the money...maybe she was in charge of another bank account of his?

 

[BigCat]

My pension is set up so that my beneficiary gets the same amount whenever they get it. Now or 20 years from now. Do we know he had provided otherwise for himself? I could see RFG walking away to be with a true love. Maybe she had the money...maybe she was in charge of another bank account of his?

It seems like it would be easy enough to check if any females went missing around April 15th, 2005, and if so, to link her to RFG. I'm assuming that if had had an affair, it was with a woman in the vicinity of Central PA.

Then again... Mark Sanford somehow managed to have an affair with a woman in Argentina, so I guess any distance is possible.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It seems like it would be easy enough to check if any females went missing around April 15th, 2005, and if so, to link her to RFG. I'm assuming that if had had an affair, it was with a woman in the vicinity of Central PA.

Of course, Mark Sanford somehow managed to have an affair with a woman in Argentina, so I guess any distance is possible.

No woman either from the area or that RFG knew was missing. LE checked out a missing woman in the mid west and determined that there was no connection.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

My pension is set up so that my beneficiary gets the same amount whenever they get it. Now or 20 years from now. Do we know he had provided otherwise for himself? I could see RFG walking away to be with a true love. Maybe she had the money...maybe she was in charge of another bank account of his?

BBM

That is one of the questions in this.

We certainly cannot rule out that, at some point after 1997 (when RFG's salary nearly doubled) that RFG had moved money "off book." His estate and interest seems very low for someone making as much as he did.

As noted, there can be other reasons for that, so it is not conclusive. It is possible.

 

[MissJ]

It seems like it would be easy enough to check if any females went missing around April 15th, 2005, and if so, to link her to RFG. I'm assuming that if had had an affair, it was with a woman in the vicinity of Central PA.

Then again... Mark Sanford somehow managed to have an affair with a woman in Argentina, so I guess any distance is possible.

Mybe an old long lost love from High school/college?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Mybe an old long lost love from High school/college?

None that anyone knows of. Petito was from the mid-90's.

 

[Trackergd]

I guess hording cash is just as possible. Once withdrawn and not deposited into any account anywhere, it falls off the radar. US currency can be exchanged almost anywhere and (depending on the country) is worth more than the currency it is being exchanged for.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I guess hording cash is just as possible. Once withdrawn and not deposited into any account anywhere, it falls off the radar. US currency can be exchanged almost anywhere and (depending on the country) is worth more than the currency it is being exchanged for.

There are regulations about cash transactions.

With a few exceptions and deposit of more than $10 K in cash generates a report to the IRS and the Treasury. Even wire transfers created a problem, as in the case with Elliot Spitzer.

Also, RFG only had $16 K in cash withdrawals over a 2 1/2 year period.

 

[SeekingJana]

There are regulations about cash transactions.

With a few exceptions and deposit of more than $10 K in cash generates a report to the IRS and the Treasury. Even wire transfers created a problem, as in the case with Elliot Spitzer.

Also, RFG only had $16 K in cash withdrawals over a 2 1/2 year period.

I don't think we are talking about circumstances which would trigger the $10K rule of reporting if he left and his money left the USA also.
Let's say he moved money to foreign banks. One month at a time, making regular deposits. Then he left to go where the money was.
Wouldn't the $10K rule only kick in if he returned to the USA with a boatload of money and tried to deposit it all, OR lived in or returned to the USA and tried to make a gigantic deposit? ( Half a million dollars or more would be my definition of gigantic for his salary).

IOW, if he had made secret deposits in a non- USA bank where he planned to go to, or sent money to foreign relatives to deposit for him over a long period of time, then once he gets to his money, as long as it's not in the USA , no laws are broken because he is living where his assets are and they are all out of the USA. No one would be the wiser, right? He would be gone and his money would be waiting for him.
This is how I've always seen it in my mind, anyway. He sends money to a foreign bank, either through hard cash and an extremely trustworthy and reponsible receiving relative living in Eastern Europe deposits it for him- or he uses electronic transfer of small-ish ( less than $10K for sure, maybe $500 per paycheck for 10 years).. but, stops the foreign deposits a few years before he leaves/ disappears and saves THAT cash reserve for the trip expenses he will incur and for living expenses until the money can be withdrawn safely- again, maybe in an uncle's account name but really Ray's money he sent over..

As an aside,I remember when the reporting law went into effect and for a while, there were MANY ways around it. A person could make 2 deposits of $4900 each to two different banks, etc.. There were several ways to circumvent the reporting of large cash deposits for the first few years .. I'm sure even the small hometown banks have gotten strict about reporting now, but I know they weren't for a few years.. thank goodness.

There would only be 3 possible disadvantages as I see it:
1) The foreign bank could fail before he got his money out, depending upon where it was deposited for him. ( No FDIC in Slovenia, I'd say).
2) He could possibly/ potentially want to return to the USA at some point, but would have huge USA banking/IRS/ Treasury Dept. problems bringing money back, having been in one or several foreign accounts.
3) There could be some mail theft in a long consecutive period of sending cash overseas.. but probably only the loss of one or two packets- Say $500 to $1500 which would not be a significant loss overall.
The other thing is that he might not have had any interest- accruing measures in place in some foreign banking markets, IDK. In that case, he lost the potential interest earnings on his money. I'm sure he calculated these things in advance, or he wasn't interested in this aspect.

This is hypothetical, of course, but IMO, if he left, he got his money out of the country undetected through good old fashioned mail service, patience, impeccable planning and a solid family arrangement overseas.