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

[Trackergd]

Just a note. It was to Lake Raystown on 4/14, near the boat landing.

It is possible it was something illegal or unethical, but I hope not. A woman would usually be neither.

I wonder if anyone checked the lake near the boat landing? He may not have been seen throwing anything into the lake, but that does not preclude something being disposed of.

 

[Trackergd]

Ray Gricar was a man of principle and the law. He had to decide whether or not to try case after case in Centre County, which meant he had danmed well better be a very good judge of character and the truth ( some cases are circumstantial whether we want to admit it or not- " He sad, she said" type of witnesses or perps to a crime.)

RBBM and snipped for space.

And how would it feel to know he gave a pass, on purpose or accident to a monster?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

With due respect to everyone, we do have consider some things.

I think a number of people have reached the conclusion that the 4/15/05 trip to Lewisburg was not a random trip. We do talk about the purpose of the the trip.

1. RFG went there to commit suicide.

2. RFG went there to acquire another vehicle, without the help of anyone else, and drove away.

3. RFG went to a "clandestine meeting" in Lewisburg. Under that heading, we have:

3A. RFG went to Lewisburg to meet someone to help him walk away, e.g. the Helper purchased or rented a car for RFG;

3B. RFG went to Lewisburg to meet a woman, with the intent of returning to Bellefonte at some point.

3C. RFG went to Lewisburg to meet someone for a case related purpose.

3D. RFG went to Lewisburg to meet someone for a some other purpose.

Now, option #1 might be technically illegal, but it is not usually prosecuted in PA. Options 2, 3A, 3B, are not illegal or unethical for a DA,

I cannot come up with a scenario, that is anything close to likely, where a DA would drive 50 miles, not tell anyone where was going, not leave an electronic trail, and leave no notes or references to why he was going on the trip for options 3C and 3D that would not involve something illegal or unethical. 3A could have been, in some circumstances.

Now, I do NOT know of any reason why RFG would be involved in 3C or 3D, but I obviously cannot say it was impossible.

Options 3B, 3C, or 3D would highly likely point to foul play. Option 3A could point to that, but to a much smaller extent, i.e. the Helper ended up killing him.

If we are looking at foul play, we will have to consider, primarily, that RFG could have been involved with 3B, 3C, or 3D. 3B could point to RFG doing something illegal or unethical, though not necessarily so. It would be highly probable that 3C and 3D would point to RFG doing something illegal or unethical.

In other words, if we consider the possibility that RFG was a foul play victim, we have to consider the possibility that RFG either going to Lewisburg for 3B, 3C, or 3D. I'm not overjoyed about that, but it cannot be ruled out.

Edited: From what I could find on-line, suicide is not illegal in PA. Option #1 is probably not illegal.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I wonder if anyone checked the lake near the boat landing? He may not have been seen throwing anything into the lake, but that does not preclude something being disposed of.

I don't think they did and it is a big lake.

 

[MissJ]

I don't think they did and it is a big lake.

Well that makes me go Hmmm.

 

[Trackergd]

Well that makes me go Hmmm.

Me too. I would be checking points of egress not using a boat. Boat ramps, docks and fishing points.

I really wish I could afford an ROV. Harbor Freight no longer sells their underwater camera and monitor, so there are few choices for an affordable system.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well that makes me go Hmmm.

The lake is about 18 miles from head water to dam in a straight line. It is effectively a flooded valley, so there are a lot of turns and inlets. The surface area is 8,300 acres and at its deepest, 200 feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raystown_Lake


It is not close to Lewisburg, however. It is about 98 miles from the parking lot in Lewisburg to the marina at Aitch (or where Aitch was).


I don't need any convincing that it is possible to hide a body in Central Pennsylvania.

 

[BigCat]

Hoffa was a himself. It would be expected that his " friends" would be mafia thugs as well.

Ray Gricar was a man of principle and the law. He had to decide whether or not to try case after case in Centre County, which meant he had danmed well better be a very good judge of character and the truth ( some cases are circumstantial whether we want to admit it or not- " He sad, she said" type of witnesses or perps to a crime.)

I see NO correlation between what Jimmy Hoffa would have done and his known associates and Ray Gricar's known behavior and who he was known to associate with outside the courtroom. He was, by all accounts, a very private and reticent man. I do not think he would strike up a friendship with a fly by night type of squirrel who would them kill him.

AND- going back to Occam's Razor- if the motive was murder, why would a " friend" as you describe have to lure him out of town? Just kill him in his home or in a dark parking lot while out socializing together somewhere. ( Patty might be collateral damage, but I don't think she was very important to most people).

One of his best friends, Steve Sloane, is a convicted felon.

Graham Spanier, who has a Ph D from Northwestern and is the former President of PSU, is facing felony charges.

I don't believe RFG was murdered, so I don't believe these men harmed him. My point is that we can't assume we know who is and isn't a criminal. I imagine RFG would never have suspected that Sloane and Spanier would engage in felonious behavior.

A possible murder scenario is one in which RFG agreed to meet someone whom he had no idea was involved in criminal behavior. For example, the Sandusky Scandal was just a gray area for RFG -- he did nothing illegal or unethical that we know of -- however that's not the case for everyone involved. RFG could have walked into such a meeting completely blind, or at least with imperfect vision. He didn't realize what was at stake for the person he was meeting.

Like any foul play scenario, it's unlikely. However, I can't rule it out.

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The cell phone still bothers me.

I could understand why RFG would turn it off on his day off. I can't understand why, when in Lewisburg, he would not check his voice mail, unless he didn't want the police to know that he was in Lewisburg.

 

[SeekingJana]

RBBM and snipped for space.

And how would it feel to know he gave a pass, on purpose or accident to a monster?

How would YOU feel, Tracker? Use common sense. Only a Gricar hater would be anything but extremely sad for this case to have the conclusion you postulate.
He would be dead, and the world will be worse off without him in it, IMO.

However, I give the man credit for having better judgment and also better knowledge of his surroundings than you are giving him in asking this question.
He was not a 20 year old college co-ed, and this is not a bad horror movie.
This talk of " Jimmy Hoffa" and then " monsters" is getting way out of hand.

There is NOTHING to suggest foul play. Not one single thing known to us is indicative of foul play.
I think this should be a factually- based discussion. Not one based on lurid speculations. JMO.

 

[SeekingJana]

One of his best friends, Steve Sloane, is a convicted felon.

Graham Spanier, who has a Ph D from Northwestern and is the former President of PSU, is facing felony charges.

I don't believe RFG was murdered, so I don't believe these men harmed him. My point is that we can't assume we know who is and isn't a criminal. I imagine RFG would never have suspected that Sloane and Spanier would engage in felonious behavior.

A possible murder scenario is one in which RFG agreed to meet someone whom he had no idea was involved in criminal behavior. For example, the Sandusky Scandal was just a gray area for RFG -- he did nothing illegal or unethical that we know of -- however that's not the case for everyone involved. RFG could have walked into such a meeting completely blind, or at least with imperfect vision. He didn't realize what was at stake for the person he was meeting.

Like any foul play scenario, it's unlikely. However, I can't rule it out.

JMO

BBM for emphasis.
We know what Sloane's conviction was for. There is no hint of violence.
Likewise, other people like Spanier are innocent until proven guilty. You have the horse before the cart. Should he be found guilty of a crime in the Sandusky cover- up, I have not read anything to suggest that his or any of the others would face charges related to violent crime.

Lastly, it seems that Sloane has made reparation to the court for his crime. He may still be on probation, but I would not call him a " criminal". YMMV.
Once he has fulfilled the sentence handed down, he is then no more a criminal than you, me or anyone else.
JMO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In all fairness, while the evidence does point to something voluntary, suicide or walkaway, with the latter being strongest, it is not conclusive.

A while back, I wrote a blog called called "Proving Walkaway." I said that there were basically three ways to prove it:

A. Prove how RFG got out of Lewisburg.

B. Prove that RFG was alive (and not kidnapped or anything) at least a week after 4/15/05.

C. Prove that RFG had hidden funds and accessed those funds on or after 4/18/05.

I do not have evidence of any of those things, except that there is a good chance he had hidden funds.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM for emphasis.
We know what Sloane's conviction was for. There is no hint of violence.
Likewise, other people like Spanier are innocent until proven guilty. You have the horse before the cart. Should he be found guilty of a crime in the Sandusky cover- up, I have not read anything to suggest that his or any of the others would face charges related to violent crime.

Lastly, it seems that Sloane has made reparation to the court for his crime. He may still be on probation, but I would not call him a " criminal". YMMV.
Once he has fulfilled the sentence handed down, he is then no more a criminal than you, me or anyone else.
JMO.

First, I like SS. He has a great sense of humor and, in all honesty, he has never lied to me. He did do something criminal, however. He also admitted to it and accepted his punishment (which I wish more people in Happy Valley would do). It was in the scheme of things, quite minor. It was not a violent crime nor did it involve a lot of money.

Second, Spanier, et al., have been formally accused of covering up. That can make someone desperate. While there is no suggestion of violence, at this point, that is at least an outside possibility.

 

[BigCat]

I see the Ray Rice Scandal is the lead story on CNN. It's everywhere. Football drives ratings.

From my understanding of the criminal case against Rice, a grand jury indicted him on aggravated assault. The prosecutor offered a plea deal that wouldn't require jail time. He applied for Pre-Trial Intervention and was accepted.

Prosecutor's office: Correct decision

"I was stunned," said Donna D'Andrea, a legal advocate for The Women's Center, a domestic violence and sexual abuse help center in Linwood, NJ. "I'm outraged."

D'Andrea said in her nearly 30 years of experience, she cannot recall a single other aggravated assault case being resolved by pre-trial intervention.

"None of it makes any sense on why this was allowed," she said. "Usually, there is a plea deal to a lesser charge so the person is put into the system and can be monitored. They didn't do that here. None of it makes any sense why this was allowed to happen this way."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11495795/prosecutor-office-defends-ray-rice-decision

I have to say that RFG's decision not to prosecute Sandusky is equally mystifying to me. As much as I want to give him every benefit of the doubt, it's difficult to get around the fact that he didn't even present the evidence to a grand jury.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit:

I have to say that RFG's decision not to prosecute Sandusky is equally mystifying to me. As much as I want to give him every benefit of the doubt, it's difficult to get around the fact that he didn't even present the evidence to a grand jury.

Without recounting the details, I found RFG's handling of the investigation, how he conducted it, mystifying. As for a grand jury, I don't recall him ever calling for anything (or either of his successors). I don't see anything unusual in him not calling a grand jury.

I do strongly suspect that there was some contact in 1998, possibly after his decision not to prosecute, between the DA's Office and PSU regarding Sandusky. I do think it will come out in the PSU 3 trial. I base that on these things:

A. In 2011, the P-N reported that SS had been involved in the 1998 investigation.

B. In a P-N article of 4/15/12, SS had a Dictaphone tape relating to an "investigation." It involved a meeting on 10/13/98 at the "football building" with Fran Ganter. Also there were Schreffler, Ralston and RFG.

C. In early 10/12, SS was charged with some serious drug charges. His bail was $100 K, and he could do 7 years. (He appeared to have been overcharged.)

D. On 11/1/12, Spanier was charged in the Sandusky coverup, along with refiling on Curley and Schultz. The first 6 pages of the presentment chronicle the events of 1998. None of the PSU 3 are charged with anything in 1998.

E. On 2/27/13, after 46 years of service, Ganter retired, with one day notice. He cancelled a previously scheduled interview.

F. On 6/24/13, SS changed his plea to guilty. He was sentenced in July, to probation and a $200 fine. (A plea deal)

G. In 11/13, the BPD transferred the case to the PSP. The announcement was delayed until February. This is in spite of the BPD refusing, for years, to turn the case over to any other agency. It was done with the blessing of the DA.

I have heard that the PA OAG got something in August of 2012, but I don't know if it is related. The timing would fit.

Such contact, or even an arrangement not to prosecute if Sandusky "received help with the problem," would not be illegal or unethical. RFG could do that and be okay from a professional standpoint.

 

[Trackergd]

How would YOU feel, Tracker? Use common sense. Only a Gricar hater would be anything but extremely sad for this case to have the conclusion you postulate.
He would be dead, and the world will be worse off without him in it, IMO.

However, I give the man credit for having better judgment and also better knowledge of his surroundings than you are giving him in asking this question.
He was not a 20 year old college co-ed, and this is not a bad horror movie.
This talk of " Jimmy Hoffa" and then " monsters" is getting way out of hand.

There is NOTHING to suggest foul play. Not one single thing known to us is indicative of foul play.
I think this should be a factually- based discussion. Not one based on lurid speculations. JMO.

So, I can only postulate or ask questions that you are comfortable with? I suspect he felt bad about the situation. I was attempting to take someone else's train of thought and run with it a bit. I pull on every thread, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

I don't come here to be taken to task for asking questions. If this is your personal investigation, I will go work on the six other cases I am involved with.

 

[MissJ]

20%. Maybe. As soon as I'm ready to say there is almost no chance of foul play, I learn the FBI is seeking information about the 98 investigation. That information raises the chances of foul play, in my mind.

Mine too.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So, I can only postulate or ask questions that you are comfortable with? I suspect he felt bad about the situation. I was attempting to take someone else's train of thought and run with it a bit. I pull on every thread, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

I don't come here to be taken to task for asking questions. If this is your personal investigation, I will go work on the six other cases I am involved with.

We do need to ask those questions. There are uncomfortable, but we need to ask them.

I few month ago, I posted something to the effect that I wasn't comfortable with scenarios involving RFG doing something criminal or unethical. In all honesty, I am not comfortable with that. That does NOT mean that we can rule it out.

We have to discuss things that might make us personally uncomfortable, unless we can rule it out.

On some other websites, that are not there anymore, who think it is terrible to suggest that RFG walked away and suggesting he did says that he is a terrible person. Some of the same people think it is terrible to suggest that RFG might have been at a clandestine meeting with a woman, who killed him, even though several saw him with a woman and the people that knew him well have raised the possibility. Both of those things are possible, and contradictory, but we need to discuss them, or figure out how to rule them out.

I hope that you stay, or return and play Devil's Advocate.

 

[BigCat]

Without recounting the details, I found RFG's handling of the investigation, how he conducted it, mystifying. As for a grand jury, I don't recall him ever calling for anything (or either of his successors). I don't see anything unusual in him not calling a grand jury.

I do strongly suspect that there was some contact in 1998, possibly after his decision not to prosecute, between the DA's Office and PSU regarding Sandusky. I do think it will come out in the PSU 3 trial. I base that on these things:

A. In 2011, the P-N reported that SS had been involved in the 1998 investigation.

B. In a P-N article of 4/15/12, SS had a Dictaphone tape relating to an "investigation." It involved a meeting on 10/13/98 at the "football building" with Fran Ganter. Also there were Schreffler, Ralston and RFG.

C. In early 10/12, SS was charged with some serious drug charges. His bail was $100 K, and he could do 7 years. (He appeared to have been overcharged.)

D. On 11/1/12, Spanier was charged in the Sandusky coverup, along with refiling on Curley and Schultz. The first 6 pages of the presentment chronicle the events of 1998. None of the PSU 3 are charged with anything in 1998.

E. On 2/27/13, after 46 years of service, Ganter retired, with one day notice. He cancelled a previously scheduled interview.

F. On 6/24/13, SS changed his plea to guilty. He was sentenced in July, to probation and a $200 fine. (A plea deal)

G. In 11/13, the BPD transferred the case to the PSP. The announcement was delayed until February. This is in spite of the BPD refusing, for years, to turn the case over to any other agency. It was done with the blessing of the DA.

I have heard that the PA OAG got something in August of 2012, but I don't know if it is related. The timing would fit.

Such contact, or even an arrangement not to prosecute if Sandusky "received help with the problem," would not be illegal or unethical. RFG could do that and be okay from a professional standpoint.

I hope you're right about the subject coming up at trial. How could it not? The PSU 3 are charged with perjury. Schultz testified he never knew that the PSU PD, which he was (theoretically) in charge of, investigated Sandusky in 98.

But we, the public, have no knowledge of contact between the DA's office and the PSU 3. We only know that members of the DA office met two PSU employees, Schreffler and Ganter, and possibly discussed Sandusky.

The mystery is whether the prosecution will connect the dots through Schreffler and Ganter to the PSU 3 or if there is some other evidence out there we don't know about that connects the DA's office directly the members of the PSU 3.

Based on Schultz's attorney's questions during the grand jury hearing (or preliminary hearing, can't remember which), I expect GS's attorney to aggressively go after Tom Harmon (former PSU Police Chief).

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped

But we, the public, have no knowledge of contact between the DA's office and the PSU 3. We only know that members of the DA office met two PSU employees, Schreffler and Ganter, and possibly discussed Sandusky.

The mystery is whether the prosecution will connect the dots through Schreffler and Ganter to the PSU 3 or if there is some other evidence out there we don't know about that connects the DA's office directly the members of the PSU 3.

SS, RFG's closest friend, both personally and at work. In the 10/13/98 meeting. The plea deal. The AG has him right where they want him.

Now, if there was additional contact in 1998, what effect would that be on the PSU 3 case, assuming that one, or more, of the PSU 3 knew?