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

[J. J. in Phila]

1998 raises a lot of questions. There have been three points that have come out.

1. JKA was removed early on. (JKA, police report)

2. RFG never interviewed Victim 6. At all, even before the sting. (Schreffler's testimony)

3. RFG made his decision prior to Schreffler and Lauro interviewing Sandusky. (Lauro, Spanier GJ presentment) Scheffler call him after that interview; RFG still will not prosecute.

Sloane was brought it.

Then we have with that 10/13/98 meeting.

On top of that, Sloane and Ganter are both in that meeting. Sloane is charge with drug charges that will net him 7 years; he suddenly pleads guilty, gets probation and a $100 fine. Ganter retires abruptly, after 40+ years, cancelling interviews.

That is what is out there publicly.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I should add that RFG's decision not to prosecute is neither criminal nor unethical. DA's have discretion in prosecuting.

It would not be unethical, or illegal, for him to bring charges even if he thought his odds of winning were low. A prosecutor must believe that there is is enough evidence to legitimately sustain the charge, but he does not have to believe that the judge or jury will find the defendant guilty.

Conversely, it would not be unethical, or illegal, for him to decide against filing charges because he thought that that the jury or judge would find him not guilty.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped:

Why didn't the PSU police department go to such lengths to bury the 98 police report? If RFG "blew it" in 98, then the police report would have provided the PSU police cover. They could say, "we did a thorough investigation, even recommended pressing charges, but the DA declined to prosecute." Doesn't make sense, IMO.

PSU thought it could be discovered by the public if it was properly filed. They were hiding it from the press.

 

[MissJ]

FWIW I never thought RFG did anything unethical or illegal regarding Sandusky. Just thought the investigation was handled oddly if that makes sense.

 

[BigCat]

1998 raises a lot of questions. There have been three points that have come out.

1. JKA was removed early on. (JKA, police report)

2. RFG never interviewed Victim 6. At all, even before the sting. (Schreffler's testimony)

3. RFG made his decision prior to Schreffler and Lauro interviewing Sandusky. (Lauro, Spanier GJ presentment) Scheffler call him after that interview; RFG still will not prosecute.

Sloane was brought it.

Then we have with that 10/13/98 meeting.

On top of that, Sloane and Ganter are both in that meeting. Sloane is charge with drug charges that will net him 7 years; he suddenly pleads guilty, gets probation and a $100 fine. Ganter retires abruptly, after 40+ years, cancelling interviews.

That is what is out there publicly.

My guess is that in the October 98 meeting, RFG warned Ganter, Paterno's emissary, that Sandusky was not to shower with boys again. That warning would have been consistent with Seasock's recommendation and the warning Schreffler had already issued to Sandusky.

Of course, Sandusky did continue to shower with boys in the Lasch building, which would have given Paterno an incentive in 2001 to discourage the PSU 3 from reporting the incident to an outside authority. Paterno wanted to keep the allegation from RFG. (It was Schultz's recommendation to notify child protection services, and that was the plan until Curley finished "talking it over with Joe.")

JMO

 

[BigCat]

PSU thought it could be discovered by the public if it was properly filed. They were hiding it from the press.

Oh, yes. They were definitely attempting to keep it from the press. I'm wondering if there was also an attempt to keep it from Lauro and Schultz. Not that Lauro and Schultz seemed particularly eager to investigate. I have to give credit to the investigators in the AG's Officer for their willingness to dig a little deeper.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

My guess is that in the October 98 meeting, RFG warned Ganter, Paterno's emissary, that Sandusky was not to shower with boys again. That warning would have been consistent with Seasock's recommendation and the warning Schreffler had already issued to Sandusky.

Of course, Sandusky did continue to shower with boys in the Lasch building, which would have given Paterno an incentive in 2001 to discourage the PSU 3 from reporting the incident to an outside authority. Paterno wanted to keep the allegation from RFG. (It was Schultz's recommendation to notify child protection services, and that was the plan until Curley finished "talking it over with Joe.")

JMO

Very possible. However, Ganter may have been a witness. RFG could have ultimately talked to Curley or Spanier. If Sloane or Ganter know, the PSU 3 trial takes a dramatic turn.

It may be a question, in the PSU 3 trial, of who said what to whom in 1998.

None of this, however would a reason for RFG to:

1. Walk away.

2. Commit suicide.

3. Be murdered.

At least that alone.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Oh, yes. They were definitely attempting to keep it from the press. I'm wondering if there was also an attempt to keep it from Lauro and Schultz. Not that Lauro and Schultz seemed particularly eager to investigate. I have to give credit to the investigators in the AG's Officer for their willingness to dig a little deeper.

Lauro had it, or could get it. It was not archived until the investigation was closed.

Schultz was telling Curley what was going on.

My only complain with the AG's Office investigation was that they should have tried to get a warrant for Sandusky's house earlier. It may not have been successful, but they could have attempted it.

 

[EdinburghLass]

Here is a link to most of the theories:

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/25/2544143/index-of-the-theories-february.html

Amazing info - thank you! Just FYI, some of the links within the above no longer work. So far I've come across broken links under 'what else is missing?' and 'the pension'.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Amazing info - thank you! Just FYI, some of the links within the above no longer work. So far I've come across broken links under 'what else is missing?' and 'the pension'.

"What Else is Missing" http://www.centredaily.com/2009/03/23/2397185/what-else-is-missing.html

"The Pension" http://www.centredaily.com/2009/04/07/2396747/the-pension.html

 

[shadow of my mind]

I feel like there is something -- a conversation, a memo or e-mail, a meeting -- that is missing.
Unfortunately I do not have the time, and won't anytime soon, to sit down and read through all of the reports and testimony that have come out so far about Sandusky with a focus on the flow of information. A time-line of what actually happened in 1998 and then start adding who knew what, who should have know based on their job, and the reason claimed that they didn't know all the way up through this last report.

There is a reason that the 1998 info about Sandusky took so long to be discovered. And that reason has a name or names attached to it. There were more than just a few people who knew about the 1998 incidents other than RFG. The question in my mind is there anyone (other than Sandusky himself for oblivious reasons) that would have benefitted by that information remaining "buried". Whether in the end, it would shed any light into RFG disappearance remains to be seen, but it would be helpful when, and if additional information comes to light in any up-coming trials to be able to have a clear view of what has happen in the past.

ETA: In this PSU-Sandusky who knew what and when stuff.

 

[MissJ]

I feel like there is something -- a conversation, a memo or e-mail, a meeting -- that is missing.
Unfortunately I do not have the time, and won't anytime soon, to sit down and read through all of the reports and testimony that have come out so far about Sandusky with a focus on the flow of information. A time-line of what actually happened in 1998 and then start adding who knew what, who should have know based on their job, and the reason claimed that they didn't know all the way up through this last report.

There is a reason that the 1998 info about Sandusky took so long to be discovered. And that reason has a name or names attached to it. There were more than just a few people who knew about the 1998 incidents other than RFG. The question in my mind is there anyone (other than Sandusky himself for oblivious reasons) that would have benefitted by that information remaining "buried". Whether in the end, it would shed any light into RFG disappearance remains to be seen, but it would be helpful when, and if additional information comes to light in any up-coming trials to be able to have a clear view of what has happen in the past.

ETA: In this PSU-Sandusky who knew what and when stuff.

YEP, that what I think too.:moo:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There was absolutely no file on Sandusky at the DA's Office.

RFG neither had the laptop nor was that model available in 1998, in case anyone was thinking about that.

 

[MissJ]

There was absolutely no file on Sandusky at the DA's Office.

RFG neither had the laptop nor was that model available in 1998, in case anyone was thinking about that.

I never said or believed there was. Not everything is written down and there is usually a reason for it. I do believe RFG was meeting someone that day.:moo:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I never said or believed there was. Not everything is written down and there is usually a reason for it. I do believe RFG was meeting someone that day.:moo:

I thought I'd mention it, because it is normally the next question.

I think RFG wanted to be there at a specific time, but not necessarily to meet someone. That would not excluding meeting someone at a specific time.

 

[BigCat]

I feel like there is something -- a conversation, a memo or e-mail, a meeting -- that is missing.
Unfortunately I do not have the time, and won't anytime soon, to sit down and read through all of the reports and testimony that have come out so far about Sandusky with a focus on the flow of information. A time-line of what actually happened in 1998 and then start adding who knew what, who should have know based on their job, and the reason claimed that they didn't know all the way up through this last report.

There is a reason that the 1998 info about Sandusky took so long to be discovered. And that reason has a name or names attached to it. There were more than just a few people who knew about the 1998 incidents other than RFG. The question in my mind is there anyone (other than Sandusky himself for oblivious reasons) that would have benefitted by that information remaining "buried". Whether in the end, it would shed any light into RFG disappearance remains to be seen, but it would be helpful when, and if additional information comes to light in any up-coming trials to be able to have a clear view of what has happen in the past.

ETA: In this PSU-Sandusky who knew what and when stuff.

I'm guessing that Tom Harmon, the PSU Chief of Police in 98, will testify in the Curley/Schultz/Spanier perjury trial(s). If he does, Schultz's attorney will surely question Harmon aggressively about the 98 investigation and how the records of that investigation were handled. Hopefully, we'll learn something new.

I'm uncertain how much mention of RFG we'll get in the upcoming PSU 3 trials. Probably not a lot is my guess. Harmon has already testified in a preliminary hearing he never spoke to RFG during the course of the investigation.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm guessing that Tom Harmon, the PSU Chief of Police in 98, will testify in the Curley/Schultz/Spanier perjury trial(s). If he does, Schultz's attorney will surely question Harmon aggressively about the 98 investigation and how the records of that investigation were handled. Hopefully, we'll learn something new.

I'm uncertain how much mention of RFG we'll get in the upcoming PSU 3 trials. Probably not a lot is my guess. Harmon has already testified in a preliminary hearing he never spoke to RFG during the course of the investigation.

Harmon testified at preliminary preliminary hearing.

There is the question of additional contact between the DA's Office and people at PSU in 1998. If RFG gave them a warning of a Sandusky "problem," that would make it impossible for them to argue that they didn't know that they should report it in 2001. That would damning for that trial, but unless it went further, it would not be criminal or unethical on RFG's part. It would not tie it to the disappearance.

When is a conspiracy not a conspiracy? When it's only a coverup.

It would destroy RFG's reputation as a hard hitting prosecutor, but the last time I heard, he wasn't running for anything.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a satirical blog entry up: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/06/30/4246405/a-modest-proposal.html?sp=/99/236/704/694/

 

[BigCat]

Harmon testified at preliminary preliminary hearing.

There is the question of additional contact between the DA's Office and people at PSU in 1998. If RFG gave them a warning of a Sandusky "problem," that would make it impossible for them to argue that they didn't know that they should report it in 2001. That would damning for that trial, but unless it went further, it would not be criminal or unethical on RFG's part. It would not tie it to the disappearance.

When is a conspiracy not a conspiracy? When it's only a coverup.

It would destroy RFG's reputation as a hard hitting prosecutor, but the last time I heard, he wasn't running for anything.

I think you're too dismissive of loss of reputation as a motativator for human action. Perhaps you're looking at it too reasonably (It's not the worse thing in the world to be accused of being too reasonable ) But men aren't always reasonable. Over the course of history, many men have commited irrational acts to protect their reputations. Shakespeare was particularly fascinated with men who are concerned with their honor/reputation above all else:

"Mine honor is my life; both grow in one; Take honor from me, and my life is done."

"Life every man holds dear; but the dear man holds honor far more precious dear than life."

So I have no problem seeing RFG committing suicide or disappearing over the possible loss of his reputation. I also could see people who want him dead if they thought his death was necessary to protect their reputations. Who would want to live with being known as a person who could have stopped a child predator but didn't?

All that being said, I agree there is not enough evidence to say that his disappearance is related to the Sandusky scandal. In fact, there is really no evidence to suggest any reason for his disappearance.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Gricar was sanctioned by a judge (interestingly, from another county) in 2003. It was fairly serious and something that could have, ultimately, led to his suspension from the Bar. It was public and widely reported. He didn't commit suicide then.

If it was something illegal or unethical, I could easily see walkaway or suicide, but, so far, it isn't. So, he decided not to prosecute an icon for something that wasn't rape. He looks weak, but how damaging would that be? Worth a 6 digit per year pension?

The only person that I can think of that did that Jeremy Brooda. He was very honor bound.