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

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm was not aware of Sloane ever saying anything at all about Sandusky. With regards to the DA's office, other than Arnold, it was like RFG was the only other one that knew anything about the information from 1998. That was why I was so surprised to read about Sloane and the Dictaphone recording.

Sloane has said a lot about RFG over the years. He never commented publicly on the 1998 investigation.

In the main article when the indictment was released Gamin noted, in regard to the 1998 investigation:

A member of law enforcement who was in the room with Gricar said the DA was told about the report, and had two police officers hide in the mother’s home while Sandusky came to her house to talk about what happened.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/jerry_sandusky_a_penn_state_un.html

At that point, JKA was off the case.

I strongly suspect that Sloane was Gamin's "in the room" source.

 

[shadow of my mind]

I knew Sloane made a big deal about keeping the Dictaphone and I had already decided that he either recorded something later or that he had something in Gricar's voice on tape.
I didn't know he had taped a message at some point related to Sandusky.

Am I wrong to want to keep the Sandusky crimes separate from the Gricar disappearance? I cannot assimilate them as being cojoined at any point in my mind.

No I don't think so, but I can understand your reluctance in looking at Sandusky and his sickness and the RFG disappearance through the same lens. I can't bring either into clear focus that way and it’s the lack of focus that makes it so you can't co-join them.

 

[shadow of my mind]

I've posted this before.

Assume that RFG did talk to someone at PSU (inclusive of Sandusky) in 1998. He tells whomever he talks to that he won't prosecute if Sandusky "receives help with the problem." He also says that he will prosecute unless Sandusky is controlled or there is another incident. None of that is criminal or unethical.

He finds out that there was another incident. Maybe he has the clandestine meeting in Lewisburg with whomever he talked to and something happened. RFG could still prosecute on 1998.

The problems are, no notes, and he doesn't tell anyone about the clandestine meeting.
Second possibility. He did something in 1998 that crossed the criminal/ethical line and was trying to correct it with the person(s) he talked to in 1998. They met in Lewisburg and something happened.

BBM

The no notes and not telling anyone about the meeting is not something in my opinion that I think is important in keeping this assumption off the table. It has already been discussed about the fact that RFG, at least by his actions, did not appear as if he was concerned with his safety, and other than the fact that going to Lewisburg to meet with someone "off the books" so to speak would not be his usual way of doing something, it has a lot of merit.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM

The no notes and not telling anyone about the meeting is not something in my opinion that I think is important in keeping this assumption off the table. It has already been discussed about the fact that RFG, at least by his actions, did not appear as if he was concerned with his safety, and other than the fact that going to Lewisburg to meet with someone "off the books" so to speak would not be his usual way of doing something, it has a lot of merit.

The only person he'd be hiding it from is himself. Nobody was going to be going through his desk, except with a subpoena.

 

[shadow of my mind]

I don't disagree with this assessment. I do have to wonder why he kept the laptop at home in a closet, more so when it went from the closet to the river.



So if child abuse is suggested, but no case is built from the information, the file is disposed of? Sound a bit odd with the emphasis on protecting children since the 80's. I would have held the information in case the "POI" re-offended.

I agree. I have always thought that was odd myself. And lets throw in the fact the RFG was at the court house Thursday evening. Nothing has ever really been stated about what work he was doing that night. He did not have the laptop with him and was not carrying anything when he left, but a thumb drive fits in the palm of your hand as well as your pocket. That could be one reason he had the laptop with him the next day. Not that anything was necessarily transferred directly to it, but as a way to read the information on the drive.

Of course the question then is.... if there was some type of file at the DA's office who actually removed it and when?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The question would not be if the file was removed, but why the Courthouse copy was destroyed?

And, there should be a record of what was accessed and when it was accessed.

 

[Trackergd]

I agree. I have always thought that was odd myself. And lets throw in the fact the RFG was at the court house Thursday evening. Nothing has ever really been stated about what work he was doing that night. He did not have the laptop with him and was not carrying anything when he left, but a thumb drive fits in the palm of your hand as well as your pocket. That could be one reason he had the laptop with him the next day. Not that anything was necessarily transferred directly to it, but as a way to read the information on the drive.

Of course the question then is.... if there was some type of file at the DA's office who actually removed it and when?

RBBM

Now that's an interesting concept. Of course if begs the question on why RFG was searching about methods to destroy data on a hard drive when the data may have been on a thumb drive. It would have been easier to hand off a thumb drive or disc to someone and tossing the computer and hard drive into the river would destroy evidence that an external drive had been accessed. It may have been that RFG decided the hard drive was too risky and resorted to a media that would be easily hidden in a pocket.

Wonder if the mystery woman may have been the mother of a victim and why no one recognized her.

Curious about the courthouse records (or lack of records).

 

[Trackergd]

Now here is an concept. What if RFG went to the courthouse to access computer background records etc on a particular individual(s), hence no files missing. What records would be in Lewisburg that would not be anywhere else?

RFG goes to the courthouse, accesses records, copies the data to a disc or thumb drive, meets the mystery woman, uses the laptop to share what was found, hands over the disc or thumb drive and tosses the laptop.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RBBM

Now that's an interesting concept. Of course if begs the question on why RFG was searching about methods to destroy data on a hard drive when the data may have been on a thumb drive. It would have been easier to hand off a thumb drive or disc to someone and tossing the computer and hard drive into the river would destroy evidence that an external drive had been accessed. It may have been that RFG decided the hard drive was too risky and resorted to a media that would be easily hidden in a pocket.

Wonder if the mystery woman may have been the mother of a victim and why no one recognized her.

Curious about the courthouse records (or lack of records).

Okay, why would RFG need to go 50 miles for that, and why would there be no referencing to it (notes, calendar, e-mail)?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Now here is an concept. What if RFG went to the courthouse to access computer background records etc on a particular individual(s), hence no files missing. What records would be in Lewisburg that would not be anywhere else?

BBM

None. He could ask for any records and he certainly wouldn't be finding any at the SoS.

RFG goes to the courthouse, accesses records, copies the data to a disc or thumb drive, meets the mystery woman, uses the laptop to share what was found, hands over the disc or thumb drive and tosses the laptop.

There would likely be a record of what he looked at via computer. We know they had his search records from the office computer. He could have looked at paper records, physical files. The problem is, if Sandusky related, the file vanished.

 

[SeekingJana]

Snipped a bit.



I have looked at this case and attacks on public officials.

In the last 100+ years, a prosecutor/former prosecutor has been murdered on 14 occasions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/14-prosecutors-have-been-killed_n_2995102.html I am aware of two or three not listed, that may be case related, so let's say 17 maximum.

Out of those, one was killed in a courthouse shooting (in 1912), three were killed in robberies where there were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I will not include those in the rest of the discussion.

One is unsolved. One is of a guy shot shot a long retired prosecutor in 1986 for a 1955 conviction; a second one was the wife of a man convicted the year before. All others involved active cases. Several were murder suicides.

Of the other two or three, one may or may not be murder (it happened in PA, but he was out of state); that was Luna, and he wasn't listed. One, Wales, was an antigun activist in his private life, as is thought to have been targeted because of that. One was a hit and run (also PA, and it might have been an accident).

There are approximately 6,000 federal prosecutors, and I would guess at least an equal, if not greater number, of state and county prosecutors. There are probably close to that number of former prosecutors. I would guess that the murder rate is less than 1 in 60,000. In 2005, the general homicide rate in the US was about 1 in 17,700.

Except for Luna, all were killed either at home, their office, or on the way to and from their office. None, including Luna, were cases where the body was hidden. Targeting a prosecutor is meant to send a message to other prosecutors or to prevent a prosecutor from prosecuting a current case.

If this was a murder, because of a prosecution, it was unique in the annals of modern American crime. It has never happened before, or since.

Playing Devil's Advocate-- you know me.

OK, what you are trying to prove is kind of a negative. IOW, if a person in LE disappeared without a trace and has NOT been found, then we can't say with any certainty whether the body was hidden or not, right?

What about two cases which have been discussed here where no body was found anywhere and no one knows what happened to the men? Mel Wiley and Judge Crater? Can't we put them in the " unsolved and may have been murdered and hidden" category? If Wiley's case has been solved, I'm not aware of it, or I have forgotten, which could be. And Judge Crater disappeared so long ago that it's not likely that anyone will ever know, but still, when you say it's never happened before, I'm saying-- Are you sure about that with these two missing men?

 

[SeekingJana]

The strange disappearance of Mel Wiley. Chicago Trib. article for those who may not know about him or may not remember. All I can see when I read this is the sighting of Ray Gricar at Raystown Lake on the 14th. IF he had something planned for the 14th and someone's ID of him ruined it, it seems on the surface at least, that he would have almost copied the Wiley case- except for the swimwear.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-09-19/news/8503030789_1_wiley-badge-car

Judge Crater per Wikipedia ( disappeared in the 30's) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Crater

I found the last paragraph about " the women in his life knowing what happened but entering into a conspiracy of silence" to be quite interesting.


A list of people who have mysteriously disappeared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_mysteriously_disappeared

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Playing Devil's Advocate-- you know me.

OK, what you are trying to prove is kind of a negative. IOW, if a person in LE disappeared without a trace and has NOT been found, then we can't say with any certainty whether the body was hidden or not, right?

What about two cases which have been discussed here where no body was found anywhere and no one knows what happened to the men? Mel Wiley and Judge Crater? Can't we put them in the " unsolved and may have been murdered and hidden" category? If Wiley's case has been solved, I'm not aware of it, or I have forgotten, which could be. And Judge Crater disappeared so long ago that it's not likely that anyone will ever know, but still, when you say it's never happened before, I'm saying-- Are you sure about that with these two missing men?

Wiley (which RFG had an interest in, at least passingly) was strongly thought to be a voluntary departure. Judge Crater's disappearance had some problems, including no one reporting him missing for several weeks. Neither Cater nor Wiley were prosecutors

I'm not trying to prove a negative, just noting the rarity of a prosecutor being murdered.

 

[Trackergd]

BBM

None. He could ask for any records and he certainly wouldn't be finding any at the SoS.



There would likely be a record of what he looked at via computer. We know they had his search records from the office computer. He could have looked at paper records, physical files. The problem is, if Sandusky related, the file vanished.

RBBM

Was there any record of RFG accessing files in the courthouse from somewhere around the 12th (allowing for the lake trip on the 14th)?

Was there any record of a Sandusky file in courthouse records prior to the Lewisburg trip?

I think the SoS was a meeting place as it was somewhere he enjoyed being to help pass the time while waiting for one or more individuals.

I like pulling on every string to see where it goes.

 

[MissJ]

Okay, why would RFG need to go 50 miles for that, and why would there be no referencing to it (notes, calendar, e-mail)?

He didn't want to be seen by anyone who might know him. Many times people have no need of notes and don't want to leave a trail. I had to do this with a case I was assisting the state bureau of investigation who didn't want the perps or anyone else to know they were being investigated.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RBBM

Was there any record of RFG accessing files in the courthouse from somewhere around the 12th (allowing for the lake trip on the 14th)?

Was there any record of a Sandusky file in courthouse records prior to the Lewisburg trip?

I think the SoS was a meeting place as it was somewhere he enjoyed being to help pass the time while waiting for one or more individuals.

I like pulling on every string to see where it goes.

There probably would not be a record of RFG accessing any paper files.

The second question is also unknown, except that MTM did not find the lack of a file odd.

If there is a scheduled clandestine meeting at the SoS, why does RFG have to wait? He got down there between noon and 1:00 PM. If he had an appointment at 5:00 PM, for example, why not get there later? If his meeting was for 2-3 PM, why doesn't he get there, have lunch meet and leave after the meeting. Witnesses put him in the SoS parking lot after 5:00 PM.

 

[Trackergd]

He didn't want to be seen by anyone who might know him. Many times people have no need of notes and don't want to leave a trail. I had to do this with a case I was assisting the state bureau of investigation who didn't want the perps or anyone else to know they were being investigated.

I like this. Is it possible there was an investigation into one or more departments within Centre County and the meeting was in Lewisburg so as to not tip off those being investigated? J.J. Anything in the papers or through unofficial channels about anything like this? Seems to happen in Philadelphia on a regular basis....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He didn't want to be seen by anyone who might know him. Many times people have no need of notes and don't want to leave a trail. I had to do this with a case I was assisting the state bureau of investigation who didn't want the perps or anyone else to know they were being investigated.

Not being seen is quite possible and even likely, however, the lack of notes/e-mail would be more than hiding it from people he knew.

RFG's things like private e-mail, or private appointment calendar, or his desk, are potentially accessible by two sources. 1. PEF, his girlfriend may be able to assess those things. 2. LE, with a warrant. You. me, even the rest of the staff, his daughter, and LE without a warrant, are not going be able to see his private stuff as a matter of course, if RFG shows up for work on Monday.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I like this. Is it possible there was an investigation into one or more departments within Centre County and the meeting was in Lewisburg so as to not tip off those being investigated? J.J. Anything in the papers or through unofficial channels about anything like this? Seems to happen in Philadelphia on a regular basis....

There would be better ways to hide this. In the case of the "sexting" ADA, Madeira (MTM) called the guy into his office and the ADA resigned.

There was a rumor of a grand jury, but nothing substantial; it was rumored in 2006-07, but it would have disbanded long ago, and there would have been a report. When RFG disappeared, they did an audit of the DA's Office; no funds were missing.

No scandals, and there were two DA's since then.

 

[SeekingJana]

Wiley (which RFG had an interest in, at least passingly) was strongly thought to be a voluntary departure. Judge Crater's disappearance had some problems, including no one reporting him missing for several weeks. Neither Cater nor Wiley were prosecutors

I'm not trying to prove a negative, just noting the rarity of a prosecutor being murdered.

They weren't prosecutors, but they were in LE. That's my point.

And the issue of " proving a negative" is a term used in the scientific method. It is almost impossible to prove a negative.. Because proving it means that it is a positive.. The ABSENCE of a body, whether hidden or whether having walked away, is a negative situation, not a positive situation. ( There is nothing there as far as mankind knows at this moment, thus an unknown, or negative situation, exists).
Unfortunately, also, according to the scientific method principles, the ID'ing of remains at some point as being Gricar's, while being a very sad ( thus possibly negatively positioned) finding, is a positive finding. There would be something present to test, instead of nothing.
Again, I don't know if he's dead or alive- I just know that he's missing, and it IS a negative position in the scientific method, which is why I have such difficulty with the case... I have nothing to base a scientific theory upon, and I definitely want him to be alive- which doesn't matter when using a proven methodology.

I THINK this is why I cannot connect him with Sandusky as far as any wrongdoing. ALL of Sandusky's criminal behavior was so blatant. People had to literally close their eyes and walk away not to know boys were being molested. It is an extreme example of a crime positively being proven.
This is diametrically opposed to what has been reported in Gricar's disappearance. USUALLY, crimes follow a pattern. If Sandusky was not afraid to rape little boys in athletic room showers, then I don't think he would have gone to any trouble whatsoever to hide a dead man's body, to dispose of weapons, to probably have a car moved, and possibly cleaned up.
It doesn't fit what I think Sandusky's personality is-- he didn't care about anyone or anything until he did get caught, and then denial was his best friend. And I do believe he committed his crimes alone except for the silent enabling. I do not think anyone procured boys for him. I do not think anyone else was involved in the pedophilia. Only Sandusky. Others favor conspiracies, but I look at what is known and how we came to know it. Sandusky said he did bad bad things as far back as 1998. He never hid his criminal behavior.