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

[J. J. in Phila]

On another point, RG could have been the victim of foul play for a number of reasons: 1) some sort of private issue (friend, significant other, financial gain); 2) random act of violence on his day trip; 3) revenge, either political or personal; 4) political assassination to remove him from office in favor of someone else; 5) political assassination to silence him and/or cover up something illegal. Lots of possibilities there as opposed to walking away without a pension or Social Security (the act of a total fool) and thereby abandoning his only child or suicide in which no body turns up and for which there is no motive.

Thus I have no idea how 1998 may or may not be relevant, as there evidently been no investigation into that question.

These can be ruled out:

2) Never has someone hidden a body this well after a random act. It would be much more likely that the body would be found.
Also, Lewisburg is not known for its violence.

It would not explain such things as his change in demeanor.

3), 4) and 5) can also be ruled out as an assassin could not have known where RFG was or followed RFG; these possibilities have been discussed . The only exception is if RFG was lured to Lewisburg. There is no evidence of a luring.

If this was a luring, it would have to be for something where he would tell neither anyone on staff, or his girlfriend, nor that created an electronic trail.

 

[Kittybunny]

Respectfully snipped, to focus on point b).



Some of these are highly unlikely.

2) Another woman: No other woman from the area or that RFG knew has also disappeared, contemporaneously. He didn't drive off with another woman.

3) Concern his legacy was at risk due to the Sandusky scandal and did not want to face it. (may also include taking money to not prosecute after first witness): RFG was not planning to practice law or run for some office; it would not have affected him, if it came out. There were two other cases, in the news where, prosecutors did not prosecute. Bruce Castor is one example; he didn't prosecute Bill Cosby and worked out some arrangement with the plaintiff.

Another example is Patrick Kiniry, a current judge in Cambria County, but a former ADA. He worked out an arrangement with the bishop to have a priest, accused of molestation, transferred, presumably where he didn't have contact with children. There were calls for Kiniry to explain or resign as judge, but he done neither. Castor lost a bid to move back into the Montco DA's Office.

RFG would not have to worry about losing office, or face professional discipline. He wasn't planning to hold office or practice law.

I'll call this 3a).

So far, there is no evidence of bribery (and I've looked as best as I can). I'll call this 3b).

Also, I have heard that PEF and LAG were heirs, and RFG had paid off PEF's mortgage, and had titled the Mini in her name. It could be a justification (even if partial) for the way PEF was treated.

BBM. I respect a lot of your thoughts JJ but I believe you sometimes take far too clinical/professional a look at this issue. Yes, he was planning on retiring and it wouldn't affect his ability to hold a job, but in my opinion, you cannot discount the possibility that RFG valued his personal and past professional reputation far beyond just his ability to work in the future. There could be investigations, negative press, shame and guilt (justified or not) that he could have feared, having those that loved him view him differently, etc. IF he was depressed, or showing signs of worry and anxiety, there is a good chance he may not have been acting completely logically. From what we know of RFG, IF there was something going on in this regard, I cannot picture him just being like "Whatever, who cares what comes out, I'm retired so it won't affect me." I'm not buying that.

I change my mind frequently about what I believe really happened to Ray, but after reading all the timelines (thanks JJ) recently have been leaning towards voluntary walkaway, with foul play not out of the realm of possibility. It still kills me that no data was recoverable from the hard drive by the FBI - personally I believe that could've been the piece of the puzzle that cracked this case.

BTW, I have followed this case since the beginning. I can't believe it's been over 11 years!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped:

BBM. I respect a lot of your thoughts JJ but I believe you sometimes take far too clinical/professional a look at this issue. Yes, he was planning on retiring and it wouldn't affect his ability to hold a job, but in my opinion, you cannot discount the possibility that RFG valued his personal and past professional reputation far beyond just his ability to work in the future. There could be investigations, negative press, shame and guilt (justified or not) that he could have feared, having those that loved him view him differently, etc. IF he was depressed, or showing signs of worry and anxiety, there is a good chance he may not have been acting completely logically. From what we know of RFG, IF there was something going on in this regard, I cannot picture him just being like "Whatever, who cares what comes out, I'm retired so it won't affect me." I'm not buying that.

Well, we have two cases in the news where a prosecutor didn't prosecute

A. The Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. (Kiniry)

B. The Bill Cosby trial. (Castor)


What happened to Kiniry, now a judge? Well, he resigned from the board of the local Catholic high school. The local paper called on him to explain or resign. That is it. Some of the other former prosecutors are in private practice and seem completely unaffected.

Castor? Well, he lost his last election. Yes, and now he is the First Deputy of the OAG. He was not too damaged for that.

RFG, in 2005, could not have even known if the 1998 case would ever be discovered in his lifetime. He would also have to care about public opinion. He made decisions in the past that were against public opinion.

Sorry, but based on his record, I cannot see him being worried about public opinion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped:

I change my mind frequently about what I believe really happened to Ray, but after reading all the timelines (thanks JJ) recently have been leaning towards voluntary walkaway, with foul play not out of the realm of possibility. It still kills me that no data was recoverable from the hard drive by the FBI - personally I believe that could've been the piece of the puzzle that cracked this case.

BTW, I have followed this case since the beginning. I can't believe it's been over 11 years!

If I thought that foul play us out of the realm of possibility, I would not be posting.

 

[Trackergd]

Trackergd,

This is something for you to chew on. Listen to the whole thing and let me know what you think. I trust your objective opinion. Thanks

http://www.spreaker.com/user/oppermanreport/ray-blehar-second-mile-sandusky-scandal

I will! Been swamped at work.

 

[Trackergd]

According to Ray Blehar, and to the documents I've seen, Jerry Lauro determined there was no sex abuse in the 1998 case. In the Opperman interview on the notpsu blogspot, Blehar lays out a timeline that makes it clear RG had no opportunity to do the kind of review that was his habitual way of doing business.

Respectfully snipped and bolded by me

That begs the question, why did he not have "the opportunity to do the kind of review that was his habitual way of doing business"? What or who could have limited his ability to do his job? At first glance, that might smack of political influence.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped and bolded by me, likewise.

That begs the question, why did he not have "the opportunity to do the kind of review that was his habitual way of doing business"? What or who could have limited his ability to do his job? At first glance, that might smack of political influence.

Maybe something else. Even before Sandusky came out, I looked at some of his cases. The case of the death of Kintu Sampson. in 1997. RFG was prosecuting a local white man, for shooting an African American man, from Philadelphia, with a history of violence, who had broken into the local's trailer. On top of that, he did it at the start of an election year. RFG had to know that the case would be impossible to win and that public sympathy was with the defendant.

I just do not see RFG acting politically in Sandusky.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

The call came from Route 192, and there was a witness that saw RFG turning onto 192 around that time. The sightings in Lewisburg are consistent with RFG being in the Centre Hall area around 11:30 AM.[/H



Hey JJ that is why this will never be solved the info is there- this would be saying protecting one's self and maybe other's from finding out what the real truth is of this missing person

 

[pittsburghgirl]

These can be ruled out:

2) Never has someone hidden a body this well after a random act. It would be much more likely that the body would be found.
Also, Lewisburg is not known for its violence.

It would not explain such things as his change in demeanor.

3), 4) and 5) can also be ruled out as an assassin could not have known where RFG was or followed RFG; these possibilities have been discussed . The only exception is if RFG was lured to Lewisburg. There is no evidence of a luring.

If this was a luring, it would have to be for something where he would tell neither anyone on staff, or his girlfriend, nor that created an electronic trail.

Wow. I guess there was no need for an investigation. No one could have killed him--huh.

This website is full of cases where people were abducted, murdered, and not found for years. I don't think RG was a victim of random violence, but all anyone would need would be a GPS tracker and we have no way of knowing who RG might have told he was going out for the day--or whom he might have run into who saw the Mini, followed him, and took an opportunity. He wouldn't need to be lured. You're stuck on walkaway. I get it. I'm not.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

There were DA's all over the country not prosecuting child molesters and pedophile rings, going back decades. There is evidence here that RG may well have been interested in prosecuting but the door was shut pretty quickly by Lauro. If the state child welfare agency clears a person, how can a DA get an indictment? DA's don't just "decide to prosecute." There has to be evidence. Testimony. Forensics. Phone logs. Police reports. And all of it has to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We sit here with 20/20 Sandusky hindsight, honed sharper by the abuses that went on all over the world in the Catholic Church. It's 2015. We get it now. But note that in 2005, after RG disappeared, his replacement gave a molester ARD, which is intended for first-time non-violent offenders. And Lee didn't live up to that, and got zero consequences. So I don't buy for a minute that any of us, aside from perhaps JK Arnold her ownself, has any idea what RG was thinking about re: Sandusky.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Blehar give three reasons ("strikes") why RG was not the one who closed the 1998 investigation of Sandusky. His conclusions are based on a very close study of the timeline of contacts, email, time-stamped reports, etc., all of which can be accessed on his blog through the search tool:

As I noted in the previous blogs on this subject, Ray Gricar was notorious for examining the evidence related to the cases that crossed his desk and he would ultimately decide which crimes to charge, which ones not to charge, or charges that could be plead down.

The timeline for the closure of the investigation did not afford Gricar the time to review the evidence pertaining to the 1998 case, thus that is evidence against Gricar making the decision. (Strike 1)

However, those who knew Ray Gricar stated he would never allow someone to tell him how to charge a case and would be very upset if that were to occur. (Strike 2)

The lawyer's nephew Tony Gricar stated: "One thing I can say is that Ray was beholden to no one, was not a politician." He added that Gricar "had a bitter taste in his mouth" for the Penn State program and Sandusky.

I've often wondered why Gricar had this taste in his mouth and I think I know the reason why.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/06/final-analysis-ray-gricar-did-not-close.html

So Blehar argues that first, the timeline closed before RG could review all of the information. Please note that it can take MONTHS for a DA to review a case to determine if there is enough to first, indict, and then convict. Lauro closed the case as soon as he got back to Harrisburg. Now why would he do that?

Because of The Second Mile's ties to DPW. Because Sandusky was an approved foster parent. Because this should have been a giant scandal, that the state approved a pedophile to run a child charity, be in the foster parent system, and ADOPT a boy. The fact that they through Penn State football under the bus served to distract from the decades-long incompetence and enabling of DPW. And what does Lauro do in retirement? Give training to new caseworkers in child protective services.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

The other half of the story involves how Penn State processed the paperwork for 1998. Still quoting Blehar here:

Tom Harmon's sleight of hand in labeling the police report as "Administrative Information" and not as a "criminal investigation" provided Harmon with the authority he needed to close the case.

The local DA isn't required to rule on an administrative inquiry at PSU. (Strike 3, Gricar's out)

All Harmon [Penn State security] needed to hear was that DPW had decided there was not enough evidence to "indicate" a finding of child abuse and the case could be closed.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Finally, Blehar shows the timeline for Lauro closing the case:

Lauro's decision after interviewing Sandusky at around 11:15AM on June 1st, followed by the 90 minute drive to Harrisburg provides the timeline for the Harmon e-mail at 1:10 informing Schultz [Penn State official} that the case was closed and no charges would be filed.

Lauro interviews Sandusky 11:15 am, drives to Harrisburg and emails Schultz that the case is closed at 1:10 pm. Not even 2 hours.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

http://www.post-gazette.com/home/20...8-Sandusky-investigation/stories/201112180175
Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn't indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution's case even more difficult.

"It'd be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn't any abuse."

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mr. Lauro said he closed the case because he lacked substantial evidence that there was abuse.
"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

In their own words. Ray Gricar was NOT the one who decided "not to prosecute." But by then, he was a dead guy who couldn't defend himself, so he can go under the bus with Paterno and the football program.

Spin it how you will. RG did not walkaway or kill himself because he blew the Sandusky case. The case was not, in fact, blown. It was covered up by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And to protect the people who enable Sandusky and looked the other way and in some cases perhaps shared his preferences, the reputations of Gricar, Paterno and others were destroyed because, hey, they're dead, or almost dead.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wow. I guess there was no need for an investigation. No one could have killed him--huh.

This website is full of cases where people were abducted, murdered, and not found for years. I don't think RG was a victim of random violence, but all anyone would need would be a GPS tracker and we have no way of knowing who RG might have told he was going out for the day--or whom he might have run into who saw the Mini, followed him, and took an opportunity. He wouldn't need to be lured. You're stuck on walkaway. I get it. I'm not.

If it was a random trip, RFG could not have told anyone. Likewise a GPS tracker wasn't random. I am not stuck in a hallway, just look at the facts.

The problem with following RFG is that he would likely notice that he was being followed. He is driving down a country road, at a reasonably good clip. If there is a car behind him, he will notice it.

Further, that doesn't explain the other elements of this, like RFG acting oddly in the weeks before he disappeared.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In their own words. Ray Gricar was NOT the one who decided "not to prosecute." But by then, he was a dead guy who couldn't defend himself, so he can go under the bus with Paterno and the football program.

Spin it how you will. RG did not walkaway or kill himself because he blew the Sandusky case. The case was not, in fact, blown. It was covered up by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And to protect the people who enable Sandusky and looked the other way and in some cases perhaps shared his preferences, the reputations of Gricar, Paterno and others were destroyed because, hey, they're dead, or almost dead.

Lauro has not testified publicly. Schreffler did.

Even in the article cited Scheffler said this, "At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors."

Lauro, of DPW, cannot prosecute. He is not a prosecutor. He can make a finding for DPW, but he isn't involved in if criminal charges should be pursued.

How I'm "spinning" it, which is inaccurate, is what I have said. I have said repeatedly, I doubt that RFG's disappearance is related to the Sandusky case. I think this is important for the PSU 3 trial.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mr. Lauro said he closed the case because he lacked substantial evidence that there was abuse.
"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

Apples and oranges. Lauro's job is to make a determination, as the state expert, as to whether there is anything TO prosecute. According to Lauro, Sandusky's 1998 case "did't meet the criteria" and lacked what the reporter characterized as "substantial evidence that there was abuse." How, then, is a prosecutor to proceed when the state expertsays there is no "substantial" evidence? DPW, in the person of their man from Harrisburg, Mr. Lauro, shut the 1998 case down. And the shame of that is the effort to smear RG's memory as a man who turned his back on this case, when in fact, based on established, verifiable timelines, Lauro was in a hot hurry to shut it down within 2 hours of interviewing Sandusky. Some investigation. See also the Seasock report, another piece of investigative garbage.

It's not that I disagree that some misdemeanor charge might have been brought; it's that Lauro's determination that the case "didn't meet the criteria" and the Seasock report would have given a perp with a good lawyer a huge advantage in fighting a case that would have merited, what? a fine? Or as Christopher G. Lee got, ARD? We can debate why RG didn't participate in an exercise in futility all we want. But the Lee case shows that even a good molestation case, 7 years later, got not even a slap on the wrist. And Lee went on about his predatory and child business. So this argument just reveals itself as a continuing attempt to scapegoat a dead man and give DPW--which has done NOTHING since the latest Sandusky case to clean up these pedophile rings--a pass on their enabling of predators.

Ask yourself: why wasn't Lauro front and center at the Sandusky trial? Because his testimony would be a huge embarrassment to the state.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped

Apples and oranges. Lauro's job is to make a determination, as the state expert, as to whether there is anything TO prosecute. According to Lauro, Sandusky's 1998 case "did't meet the criteria" and lacked what the reporter characterized as "substantial evidence that there was abuse." How, then, is a prosecutor to proceed when the state expertsays there is no "substantial" evidence? DPW, in the person of their man from Harrisburg, Mr. Lauro, shut the 1998 case down. And the shame of that is the effort to smear RG's memory as a man who turned his back on this case, when in fact, based on established, verifiable timelines, Lauro was in a hot hurry to shut it down within 2 hours of interviewing Sandusky. Some investigation. See also the Seasock report, another piece of investigative garbage.

First, Lauro does not have the power to tell the DA, any DA, to prosecute or not.

Second, and this the point that both you and Blehar have missed, RFG made the decision not to prosecute before Lauro made his. Even if RFG would for some unfathomable reason decided follow Lauro's lead, Lauro had not made his decision when RFG made his.

Third as for testimony, I do not recall anyone from Clinton C&YS testifying about 2009 incident in Sandusky's trial. Now, they handled it, and handled it properly, but the were not relevant. Further, note that Amendola knew who Lauro was and could have called him as a witness. He did not.

Fourth, as has been noted, neither the Seasock nor the Chambers Reports were admissible in 1998 nor at Sandusky's trial in 2012. The law has since been changed, but for RFG both were scrap paper.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

JJ, these are again, apples and oranges. When was RG to make the decision, in the 90 or so minutes that Lauro used not to investigate but to drive back to Harrisburg and report his findings that what Sandusky did in this case "did not meet the criteria for abuse"? What prosecutor would move that fast? Blehar pretty much destroys this idea, if you read his blog, with a detailed timeline. I find his argument compelling.

It doesn't matter whether these reports were "admissible." They were the background on which a decision to prosecute would be made. Absent the expert reports and the police reports, a prosecutor has nothing to prosecute. There has to be evidence of a CRIME. Which requires, in this case, reports made by LE, evaluations by psychologists or "counselors," in the case of Seasock, and DPW experts. That is what the prosecutor looks at.

No one called Lauro because no one wanted to go deeper than Sandusky. Calling Lauro opens up a huge can of worms about DPW failure. Lauro said--no abuse in 1998. Can't have THAT mucking up the proceedings. Everyone knew Sandusky was going down; the decision was to mitigate the damage that might be cause anywhere but at PSU--which had the deep pockets to weather the scandal. Blame football! No politicians were going down in the immediate wake. (And for what it's worth, I'm no PSU defender. But the fact that investigators didn't look beyond Sandusky is a tell.)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped for space:

JJ, these are again, apples and oranges. When was RG to make the decision, in the 90 or so minutes that Lauro used not to investigate but to drive back to Harrisburg and report his findings that what Sandusky did in this case "did not meet the criteria for abuse"? What prosecutor would move that fast? Blehar pretty much destroys this idea, if you read his blog, with a detailed timeline. I find his argument compelling.

RFG made his decision sometime before the final interview with Sandusky on June 1, 1998. Lauro made his decision at or after that interview.

Schreffler testified that after that interview, he called RFG again and suggested charges.

His testimony is this:

Prosecutor (McGettegan, I think): Okay. Now, after this conversation [with Sandusky on 6/1/98] with this defendant, did you have further consultation with Ms. Arnold from the District Attorney's Office or Mr. Gricar?

A (Schreffler). Mr. Gricar.

Q. Okay. And were any charges lodged as a result of that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. At any point did you either draft a document or make a recommendation the
charges be lodged, if you recall?

A. I felt there should be some charges, something, but the DA didn't feel there should be.

P. 68, ll. 4-16. http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_ JT.pdf

Also see pp. 63-4.

Now this is not Blehar saying it, it is Schreffler's testimony. I cannot tell you if Blehar looked at this or not.

It is also consistent with Lauro's statement: "All he [Schreffler] said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.’ “

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state.html

Both of their stories are consistent. And that story is that Ray Gricar decided not to prosecute Jerry Sandusky before DPW made its decision.

There was a police report and a recommendation from the police investigating Sandusky that charges be filed.