PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll see if I can find a clip of the interview. If someone has it DVR'd and wants to double check, I thought he said it in the last ten minutes of the show.

I found it: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/10/07/2396419/the-investigation-conclusions.html

MTM did not say it. BB did. MTM said that he wasn't aware of a reason, but he didn't know about the incident until he read the grand jury report (and I won't doubt him on that).

Some of logic was the point that Jana raised on another thread. Why kill a guy that is not prosecuting you. That assumes that RFG was murdered. That also assumes that it was this particular case.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Well, the detective doing the investigation said this:

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday,

Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1h80kA8kk


Lauro indicated that he made his decision after RFG made the decision not to prosecute:

‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I [Lauro] said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.”2

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

Now, I'm not defending Lauro's decision at all, but it looks like RFG made his decision prior to Lauro's decision. Lauro has said that he wasn't influenced by RFG's decision.



We do know that another prosecutor looked at the same evidence, and didn't have access to one witness, and is prosecuting. We also do know that the probable cause to prosecute was there, that minimum threshold, to try Sandusky. His attorney did not challenge it.

If RG were here, and knew what we know now, it is highly likely that he would be the first one to regret not doing more or going forward. These judgments are made every day by local police officers, magistrates, child welfare workers, prosecutors, and judges, who have to make judgments about what cases to bring.

I'm sure he would, just as I'm sure MTM would regret some of his official action, even those in the RFG investigation. That does not change the fact that he took them. Nor does his presumed "regret" change the fact of RFG's decision.



You had the victim, possibly another victim, and then the mother, and two LE officers as witnesses to Sandusky's admission. It only becomes a question is any of these are believable, and if the act constituted some or all of the 11 charges filed. Frankly, these are some of the most credible charges filed against Sandusky.

And there is another question regarding RFG's conduct. Why did he not investigate further? He had the tools.



And this raises two other points.

1. Hugging, in this regard, can fall under the Open Lewdness clause of the felony in this incident. [§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor: http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html] In fact, other DA's have charged under that section, competent DA's. It has been upheld by the courts.

Open Lewdness in PA is defined as:
§ 5901. Open lewdness.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he does
any lewd act which he knows is likely to be observed by others
who would be affronted or alarmed.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.059.001.000.html

So tell me, do you think that the average person would be affronted or alarmed, by being bear hugged in this manor, naked? Do you think someone walking in would be affronted or alarmed? Do you just think it is fine to do that?

2. Even if there was not a conviction on the felony charges, there would have been on the misdemeanors. That would have warned the community, inclusive of The Second Mile, that it wasn't a good idea to permit Sandusky to be alone with young children.

In the Fall of 2009, critical of MTM:


http://www.centredaily.com/2009/10/07/2396419/the-investigation-conclusions.html#storylink=cpy

My criticism of MTM was not that he failed to find out what happened to RFG, but that he didn't try to find out. In this case, and it seems to be a rarity, I would say the same thing about RFG.[/QUOTE]

One of your finest 'presentments' yet.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Your droll humor is a bright spot on this forum. So good that we are seeing the same things. Sad but also hard not to LOL at your wit with it.

I changed my avatar because wishing on falling stars seems to be as effective in " some matters" related to this case as anything else.

Why thank you, Jana. I must say that I have suffered bite marks on my tongue, as it is firmly planted in my cheek !

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

It probably was only funny to me anyway...and my humor tends to be dirty on the 8th grade level (If an 8th grader heard of Lady Chatterly) :floorlaugh:

The Lord_Chatterly nic was from years ago that I used in the "Rock N Roll" days of MSN Chat...you know, 'back in the day'. LC got the same response back then, and I couldn't resist bringing him out of the Moth Balls to be 'of service' Once Again !!! :crazy:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

One of your finest 'presentments' yet.

After all the criticism I heaped on MTM over the years, I think I have to say that.

One of the points I made about MTM was that he didn't try hard enough to solve the case. In doing so, if there is a murderer walking around, that person is still a threat to the community. MTM's failure was not trying enough to protect the community

This is one where RFG did not try. It looks probable that he left the community unprotected.

One other point. In looking at other cases, RFG did try. Even against Penn State, he normally did try, even if he didn't succeed all of the time.

That troubles me. Yes, RFG could have a colossal error in judgment, but it is an atypical one. I'm not thrilled that most of inbox is filled with messages that say "then-District Attorney Ray Gricar decided not to file criminal charges."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The Lord_Chatterly nic was from years ago that I used in the "Rock N Roll" days of MSN Chat...you know, 'back in the day'. LC got the same response back then, and I couldn't resist bringing him out of the Moth Balls to be 'of service' Once Again !!! :crazy:

Well, I'm glad you, and everyone else, is here.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

I'll see if I can find a clip of the interview. If someone has it DVR'd and wants to double check, I thought he said it in the last ten minutes of the show.

I see that JJ has already given an answer to this. IIRC, Madeira has never been part in the Dateline productions. Certainly, Buehner has.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

After all the criticism I heaped on MTM over the years, I think I have to say that.

One of the points I made about MTM was that he didn't try hard enough to solve the case. In doing so, if there is a murderer walking around, that person is still a threat to the community. MTM's failure was not trying enough to protect the community

This is one where RFG did not try. It looks probable that he left the community unprotected.

One other point. In looking at other cases, RFG did try. Even against Penn State, he normally did try, even if he didn't succeed all of the time.

That troubles me. Yes, RFG could have a colossal error in judgment, but it is an atypical one. I'm not thrilled that most of inbox is filled with messages that say "then-District Attorney Ray Gricar decided not to file criminal charges."

You draw an interesting parallel between Madeira and Gricar, with leaving the community unprotected.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I see that JJ has already given an answer to this. IIRC, Madeira has never been part in the Dateline productions. Certainly, Buehner has.

He was on 12/16. This was actually Buehner's first appearance on Dateline.

 

[BigCat]

I found it: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/10/07/2396419/the-investigation-conclusions.html

MTM did not say it. BB did. MTM said that he wasn't aware of a reason, but he didn't know about the incident until he read the grand jury report (and I won't doubt him on that).

Some of logic was the point that Jana raised on another thread. Why kill a guy that is not prosecuting you. That assumes that RFG was murdered. That also assumes that it was this particular case.

Jana's point is an excellent one. I can't dispute it. I was thinking more in terms of RFG"s actions, or lack of actions, in the Sandusky case providing a possible motive for a walk away or suicide.

I imagine some the other principals involved in the Sandusky scandal wish they could disappear. In particular, I recall a "tweet" from a young woman covering the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing, "Every time I look over at Gary Schultz, he looks more and more like he is crying." (https://twitter.com/#!/annaorso/status/147696018799075328)

 

[justathought]

Trying to be sure I'm clear: if Ray disappeared/died after he left office his daughter would only get the portion of retirement he put into the system. If he disappeared/was declared dead before he left office, she got both the portion Gricar put in and the state's portion...is that how it worked in Pa.? J.J. I know you have posted on this before...but it's muddled in my mind now. Thanks.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Trying to be sure I'm clear: if Ray disappeared/died after he left office his daughter would only get the portion of retirement he put into the system. If he disappeared/was declared dead before he left office, she got both the portion Gricar put in and the state's portion...is that how it worked in Pa.? J.J. I know you have posted on this before...but it's muddled in my mind now. Thanks.

That is my understanding (you can guess my source). His heir(s) would have gotten only what he paid in, minus at least part of what he paid out. Someone else here caught that even before I joined this board. I think I got a letter from mine about 1-2 years in telling me this.

There would be a tax advantage as well. LG would have to pay a state inheritance tax (which I think is 7.5%). RFG would have had to have paid income tax on at least part of his pension payments.

Some of what RFG did with the Mini title and his joint accounts could be attributed to estate planning. At 59, it is not unusual to do that, and there is nothing nefarious about it.

One of the question recently was about medical issues; it was a good question. One thing that I was looking for would have been something that could have been fatal, or at least had a higher chance of being fatal, in 5-10 years. Something like cancer or ALS. That could have been a motive primarily for suicide but perhaps walkaway first. LE said that there wasn't anything.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Hi J. J.!

Perhaps he visited a different Dr. other than his primary physician. How could LE obtain records from a Dr. that RG may have visited if the Dr is unknown?

The reason I question this is because I broke from my network of health providers and went to a Dr. that I had visited once years before that noone knew about. I never had the records transferred. I was frustrated that my health care providers at that time couldn't seem to diagnose my illness so I returned to the one Dr. who told me years earlier that the Lupus test was borderline positive. A PA diagnosed me with psoriatic arthritis when I asked if I could get some psoriasis creme while I was there.

I guess this is why I am bothered by this. My question is, if RG visited a different Dr. would that Dr be bound by ethics to come forward with information about a patient who is missing without records being subpeoned (sp?)? You know considering HIPPA laws?

wm

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hi J. J.!

Perhaps he visited a different Dr. other than his primary physician. How could LE obtain records from a Dr. that RG may have visited if the Dr is unknown?

It is possible, but there was no known record of him going. He didn't have it on a calendar, for example. Nobody has come forward to say, "I was in the waiting room of Dr. ___ on 3/15, and in walked Ray Gricar." I don't know of any record of payment (he could have paid cash or LE might have looked that closely).

I guess this is why I am bothered by this. My question is, if RG visited a different Dr. would that Dr be bound by ethics to come forward with information about a patient who is missing without records being subpeoned (sp?)? You know considering HIPPA laws?

wm

The medical files would be subject to a subpoena if known. I'm not sure if the fact that he was at a doctor's office would be covered under HIPPA or a doctor could say "Ray Gricar was here on 3/15."

 

[waltzingmatilda]

IMO, it would be easy to visit a new Dr. under an assumed name if one is paying cash. I have never been to a Dr.s office who required an ID upon filling out the initial forms. The only thing that is asked for which verifies ones identity is an insurance card.

Just an observation but IDK that I could identify anyone who was in the waiting room during a drs. visit from yesterday. A dr's waiting room is a somber place. Most folks who are there are under some kind of stress due to health concerns and just sit and look thru a magazine. There is not alot of interaction or chattering going on like there is here. LOL!

MOO

 

[Mamabear1963]

IMO, it would be easy to visit a new Dr. under an assumed name if one is paying cash. I have never been to a Dr.s office who required an ID upon filling out the initial forms. The only thing that is asked for which verifies ones identity is an insurance card.

Just an observation but IDK that I could identify anyone who was in the waiting room during a drs. visit from yesterday. A dr's waiting room is a somber place. Most folks who are there are under some kind of stress due to health concerns and just sit and look thru a magazine. There is not alot of interaction or chattering going on like there is here. LOL!

MOO

this is changing...we don't have insurance and I have been asked several times for a photo id...I think it has to do with HIPPA and homeland security...

 

[waltzingmatilda]

this is changing...we don't have insurance and I have been asked several times for a photo id...I think it has to do with HIPPA and homeland security...

Thanks Mamabear1963! I am glad to hear this is changing. It is apparently not protocol yet in my lil town. It is a good thing that ID is now being required since there is such an epidemic with prescription drug use these days. A crackdown is needed in this area of the health care industry, IMO!

I'm not so sure if such vigilance existed in the medical industry in 2005 when RG disappeared tho.
moo
wm

 

[J. J. in Phila]

IMO, it would be easy to visit a new Dr. under an assumed name if one is paying cash. I have never been to a Dr.s office who required an ID upon filling out the initial forms. The only thing that is asked for which verifies ones identity is an insurance card.

Just an observation but IDK that I could identify anyone who was in the waiting room during a drs. visit from yesterday. A dr's waiting room is a somber place. Most folks who are there are under some kind of stress due to health concerns and just sit and look thru a magazine. There is not alot of interaction or chattering going on like there is here. LOL!

MOO

If it was local, he'd be very recognizable.

Also, why would he go to a different doctor unless he was sure what was wrong with him and didn't want to use his regular doctor?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You draw an interesting parallel between Madeira and Gricar, with leaving the community unprotected.

My problem has always been with murder. I'm not thrilled, on purely moral grounds, with suicide, but it is a matter of choice. Walkaway was always a matter of choice.

My complain about MTM is that there is a potential murder, of a sitting DA, and he really has not taken any solid steps to bring the murderer to justice or to prevent him/her from murdering again. Granted, he did some things when the press got bad enough, but not a lot.

I think that parallel can be appropriately drawn in the Sandusky case. Had RFG tried, and failed, I'd be commending him.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

IMO, it would be easy to visit a new Dr. under an assumed name if one is paying cash. I have never been to a Dr.s office who required an ID upon filling out the initial forms. The only thing that is asked for which verifies ones identity is an insurance card.

Just an observation but IDK that I could identify anyone who was in the waiting room during a drs. visit from yesterday. A dr's waiting room is a somber place. Most folks who are there are under some kind of stress due to health concerns and just sit and look thru a magazine. There is not alot of interaction or chattering going on like there is here. LOL!

MOO

This medical discussion is very interesting. Perhaps this 'identity' for Ray Gricar could have been done as his 'new identity' in the Walkaway scenario. We have learned that Ray Gricar had been one for aliases. Just to add to your thought. Thanks.