PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9

[BigCat]

I think if you are making this hypothetical happen in Lewisburg, I wouldn't be too worried about points 1 and 3.

A woman, or an unfit man, who could persuade a trusting DA to get into a car and drive out of Lewisburg would be a possibility. A gun is a great equalizer and, depending on the circumstances, it would be relatively to use it.

If the same person had access to private land, a shovel, and a weekend, she could bury a body.

Women account for around 13 percent of all murder arrest, and they almost never attempt to dispose of the body.

One such case was the murder of Sandra Cantu. It was such an anomaly, articles were written asking why it's such a rare occurrence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7326555

In that case, we're talking about a woman disposing of the body of an eight-year-old girl. I don't know of any case, off the top of my head, where a woman disposed of a grown man's body.

Women just aren't as cold and methodical as men, and, of course, they're physically smaller. It's in our genes. Men are hunters. Women are gathers.

You can't rule it out, but the likelihood a lone female murdered RFG is not very high. Perhaps lower than he was devoured by wild animals.

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You are making a very good argument for walkaway.

Women account for around 13 percent of all murder arrest, and they almost never attempt to dispose of the body.

One such case was the murder of Sandra Cantu. It was such an anomaly, articles were written asking why it's such a rare occurrence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7326555

In that case, we're talking about a woman disposing of the body of an eight-year-old girl. I don't know of any case, off the top of my head, where a woman disposed of a grown man's body.

Women just aren't as cold and methodical as men, and, of course, they're physically smaller. It's in our genes. Men are hunters. Women are gathers.

You can't rule it out, but the likelihood a lone female murdered RFG is not very high. Perhaps lower than he was devoured by wild animals.

Well, I've known a few women that are both methodical and cold. I don't like to quite so stereotype.

One murder theory, and it is still active, is that RFG met a woman for a tryst. They went to perhaps a vacation home in a rural area; and the area around Lewisburg is rural. There was an argument and in the heat of passion, she killed him. She hid the body on the premises. A disused well would be one possibility, but a shallow grave would be another.

A woman, even a diminutive one, could move a body, and hide it, if she had most of the weekend, and maybe part of the next week, to do it. The key would not being seen, but that would be possible in a rural area.

That is one of the two or three scenarios that is keeping me up at night.

 

[cj327]

"Ex-assistant Sandusky pleased with path Nits are taking"

That is the headline of the article from which the "I thought we got rid of you." quote was taken (JP to JS). Just making sure everyone knew the context of the quote. Two long-time friends and co-workers joking around. I didn't spend the $2.95 to buy the whole article though.

JJ- is part of your reasoning behind the weekend tryst theory, and related theories, that, based on sightings, RG seemed to be taking his time and not trying to make a quick, solo getaway?

Also, it just seems more likely to me that the laptop was disposed of voluntarily, by RG, for whatever reason, than it was disposed of by someone else, or by RG under duress, with the motive of destroying evidence. As has been stated many times here, who would believe that it was the only record of the information that they were so concerned about? If it was destroyed by someone else, then I think it would more likely have to have been as a matter of convenience (i.e., "don't know what else to do with it now that we've taken care of RG"). But given the google searches and the fact the drive was taken out, I am still highly skeptical that anyone other than RG disposed of it or took the drive out. And he probably did it voluntarily, at that. If RG was planning on ever returning home with that laptop, why did he not take it in its carrying case? Wouldn't it have been easier to carry and simpler to just take in in the case? Well, cases have foam in them and thus are buoyant.

Maybe you can tell that the laptop issue keeps coming back to bug me.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ- is part of your reasoning behind the weekend tryst theory, and related theories, that, based on sightings, RG seemed to be taking his time and not trying to make a quick, solo getaway?

Well, there are several reasons.

1. More than one witness who saw RFG with a woman.

2. More importantly, was the reaction of those people that knew him. They initially thought he was with Petito. It have been known really since 2005, that Petito was checked; Buehner knew it since then. In 2008, he openly suggested checking hotel rooms for a women registering. So some of those people that knew RFG said he could have been with a woman.

3. The call and the map. It appears to have been made very close to Centre Hall or possibly west of it. LE has never released the information except to say it was from Brush Valley. Centre Hall is in Brush Valley. Had RFG not wanted to be in Lewisburg by a certain time, he could have delayed his departure by 30-45 minutes to let out the dog. That could indicate he was meeting someone, along with other possibilities. The map could as well.

4. At least three witnesses saw him in Lewisburg on 4/16/05. Now, I don't give them as much strength as the 4/15 witnesses, but if RFG was meeting a witness in a case, he wouldn't be spending the night. He could after spending the night with a woman.

Just to be clear, this is completely consistent with walkaway as well. He could have gotten down their to meet a "helper" or to establish that he was there.

In any case, he might have wanted to arrive early to get rid of the drive.

Also, it just seems more likely to me that the laptop was disposed of voluntarily, by RG, for whatever reason, than it was disposed of by someone else, or by RG under duress, with the motive of destroying evidence. As has been stated many times here, who would believe that it was the only record of the information that they were so concerned about? If it was destroyed by someone else, then I think it would more likely have to have been as a matter of convenience (i.e., "don't know what else to do with it now that we've taken care of RG"). But given the google searches and the fact the drive was taken out, I am still highly skeptical that anyone other than RG disposed of it or took the drive out. And he probably did it voluntarily, at that. If RG was planning on ever returning home with that laptop, why did he not take it in its carrying case? Wouldn't it have been easier to carry and simpler to just take in in the case? Well, cases have foam in them and thus are buoyant.

First, I agree that RFG voluntarily tossed the drive in all probability. I don't think there was anything nefarious in that necessarily. If someone wanted to destroy the data, they would have no way to know that wasn't copied onto one of two other computers, a CD, a flash drive, stored on-line, or printed out. The only way they could be sure is if RFG put the data on in Lewisburg in front of them and if the laptop was never out of sight after that. They wouldn't even know if it had a wi-fi connection; it didn't, but how would a killer know that?

Maybe you can tell that the laptop issue keeps coming back to bug me.

I would not rule out the possibility, however, that the destruction of the drive, at least, was unrelated to the disappearance. We know that RFG had a long standing interest in destroying the data on the drive. He might have thought that, since he would be in Lewisburg for another reason, he'd get down there early and toss it. It might cost $100 to get a replacement drive.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm actually posting this as an example:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...in-death-of-longtime-missing-teen-249817/?p=1

The victim, Curtis Eustey, was murdered in 1992, but his body was just discovered in 2010.

It was not hidden, just dumped, but it remained in a wooded area for 18 years.

I wanted to show that it would be possible to fairly easily hide a body in a rural area.

There are some difference between RFG and this case.

1. There was a substantial time delay between when Eustey was last seen and when he was reported missing.

2. There was never an organized search for him.

3. The investigation was much more sporadic that RFG's.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Just checking back to get refreshed on the Gricar case. Long time, but has stlll been on my mind. Will read up here for a bit.

Glad to see the thread is running.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just checking back to get refreshed on the Gricar case. Long time, but has stlll been on my mind. Will read up here for a bit.

Glad to see the thread is running.

Good to see you!

 

[nittanylioness234]

How is it that the investigation into Gricar's disappearance has gone on for so long and produced no noteworthy results?

Why (and when) were Karen Arnold and Steve Sloane fired? Is it true that Sloane was never interviewed by those investigating Gricar's disappearance?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

How is it that the investigation into Gricar's disappearance has gone on for so long and produced no noteworthy results?

Why (and when) were Karen Arnold and Steve Sloane fired? Is it true that Sloane was never interviewed by those investigating Gricar's disappearance?

There is an 18 part chronology of the investigation, covering the period ending on November 1, 2011. Some information has been withheld over the years.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/08/3045075/the-investigation-part-18-death.html

Arnold, who ran against Madeira in 2005, was not reappointed when Madeira took office in January 2006. She was the sole staffer not reappointed.

In January of 2010, Parks Miller was sworn in. At about that time, a number of staffers, including support staff, either officially voluntarily resigned, or were terminated. Sloane was in the latter category. At least two had arranged to take other jobs prior to the transfer of power.

Note that in 2010, most had been appointed by either Gricar or Madeira, and in one case Smith. Both Gricar and Madeira were Republicans and Parks Miller is a Democrat.

Sloane was interviewed by the PSP profiler in April of 2005 and was interviewed in depth by the BPD in the summer of 2010, as part of the Parks Miller review panel.

 

[asp17061]

checking in to see this is still going strong. good.

I wish the FBI could/would take over. No longer trust the AG's office or the State Police or Bellefonte to get anywhere.

 

[and nothing but]

]I wish the FBI could/would take over. No longer trust the AG's office or the State Police or Bellefonte to get anywhere.[/QUOTE

Exactly. Former Assistant District Attorney Karen Arnold has described the so-called investigation as an "across the board stand down." If anyone thinks it "can't happen here", just take a cursory look at the Sandusky molestation investigation/inaction across the board stand down.

 

[cj327]

Regarding the map, I can't remember if I posted this before of if someone else did, but because RG probably knew well both the route and the time it takes to get to Lewisburg, could he have been looking up a map online simply to print off the route and give the hard copy map to someone else who might not have known the way there?

Edit: This is tangentially related, but looks like the NCAA will be punishing Penn State.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-punish-penn-st-corrective-132853583--spt.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Regarding the map, I can't remember if I posted this before of if someone else did, but because RG probably knew well both the route and the time it takes to get to Lewisburg, could he have been looking up a map online simply to print off the route and give the hard copy map to someone else who might not have known the way there?

Edit: This is tangentially related, but looks like the NCAA will be punishing Penn State.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-punish-penn-st-corrective-132853583--spt.html

Everyone that worked there at the time had worked there for about a decade. It seems inconceivable that anyone that worked in the office would not have known how to get to Lewisburg. Further, if you are giving directions, those directions consist of, "Turn left at the light in Centre Hall and don't stop until you get to Lewisburg."

 

[cj327]

Everyone that worked there at the time had worked there for about a decade. It seems inconceivable that anyone that worked in the office would not have known how to get to Lewisburg. Further, if you are giving directions, those directions consist of, "Turn left at the light in Centre Hall and don't stop until you get to Lewisburg."

I guess I should have read this first.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/02/2556732/dots-on-a-map.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I guess I should have read this first.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/02/2556732/dots-on-a-map.html

There are a couple of other factors.

Centre Hall is, by main road, 6 miles from the Courthouse. The turnoff to it is on the main highway link from Bellefonte to State College, so it should be known by anyone who even traveled that road a few times a year. Considering that much of the staff, especially the ADA's, might have to appear in court (district court) in State College, it is unlikely that any of them would not know where to turn off.

Likewise, Rockview State is along that road, further south than the exit. The DA's Office, I think, would try any criminal cases for crimes committed in prison. They'd probably have to go there to interview witnesses, or victims.

Centre Hall itself had a District Judge's (the current name, they use to be "District Justices") Office as of 2003 and at least as early as 1981.

It is virtually impossible that anyone in the office wouldn't know how to get on 192.

I see two possibilities:

1. He was giving directions over the phone, but that is really weak. If the person he was talking knew how to get to Bellefonte, why not say, **Take the turnoff at Pleasant Gap. When you get to the red light in Centre Hall, after you come off the mountain, turn left?**

2. He wanted to check the drive time, especially if, for once, he was planning to drive under the speed limit, or if, he wanted to check them for someone else who would be.

 

[mysterygirl]

I was watching something on Jerry Sandusky the other day and they mentioned Ray Gricar not pursuing the case?

Any reasons why?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I was watching something on Jerry Sandusky the other day and they mentioned Ray Gricar not pursuing the case?

Any reasons why?

Nothing solid.

One reason, stated by a few of those in the legacy protection business, at first, was that he didn't have enough evidence; he clearly did, as the judge upheld the Victim 6 prosecution with less evidence. We can take that one off the list.

Those e-mails don't indicate any pressure on him from Penn State. There is zero evidence of bribery and when he vanished, he seemed to have too few assets. Nobody is asking, "Where did he get all this money?"

Somebody who talked to Freeh's people thought it was the Seasock report. However, Seasock was not a psychologist, nor had his doctorate, when he wrote it. Chambers was both. Further neither report was admissible at the time.

I'm thinking just horrifically bad judgment, not to mention uncharacteristically horrifically bad judgment.

 

[rlc]

about RFG not filing charges in 1998. The more I think about it, the more I think it was not a horrible decision. Comparing the decision to press charges in 2011, when we also have evidence of a pattern of such behavior, to pressing charges in 1998 is kind of apples to oranges. While they may have been relatively equal on a spreadsheet (the lack of witness replaced by the pattern of behavior), they would not have been equal in the eyes of the public. In 1998, you have a teenager, no penetration or oral sex, and a man who is still a revered member of the coaching staff and a known philanthropist. That victim, pressing charges at that time, would have been subject to quite a bit of criticism, ridicule, skepticism, and probably anger. In 2011, not only is the revered coach and philanthropist aspect gone, but in context of all of the other incidents, you have a really strong pattern of behavior that is going to prevent people from accusing the teenage accuser. RFG was known to be compassionate towards the victims/witnesses. All things considered, weighing the cost to the victim against the likelihood of a conviction, in the absence of any evidence of any other victims, I am not sure one can say he made a horrible choice, with the information he had at the time.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

about RFG not filing charges in 1998. The more I think about it, the more I think it was not a horrible decision. Comparing the decision to press charges in 2011, when we also have evidence of a pattern of such behavior, to pressing charges in 1998 is kind of apples to oranges. While they may have been relatively equal on a spreadsheet (the lack of witness replaced by the pattern of behavior), they would not have been equal in the eyes of the public. In 1998, you have a teenager, no penetration or oral sex, and a man who is still a revered member of the coaching staff and a known philanthropist. That victim, pressing charges at that time, would have been subject to quite a bit of criticism, ridicule, skepticism, and probably anger. In 2011, not only is the revered coach and philanthropist aspect gone, but in context of all of the other incidents, you have a really strong pattern of behavior that is going to prevent people from accusing the teenage accuser. RFG was known to be compassionate towards the victims/witnesses. All things considered, weighing the cost to the victim against the likelihood of a conviction, in the absence of any evidence of any other victims, I am not sure one can say he made a horrible choice, with the information he had at the time.

Well, I think you are missing a few things. First, in 1998, they had a second victim, "B. K." He said same thing as Victim 6. Second, Sandusky admitted to showing with other boys, plural. The investigation, if you can call it that, started with the report on May 4, and ended 28 days later. There was no pattern detected, because nobody looked to see if there was a pattern.

There are other factors:

A. The police report shows that the Chambers' Report on May 8 was attached to the police report. The police report should have been sent to the DA's Office, and they had been in contact with JKA that day; they'd have to have it to make any decision. Later Seasock became involved. Lauro never saw the Chambers report, and possibly never saw the Seasock report either.

B. The person in the DA's Office that specialized in these cases was JKA. She was familiar with the process of dealing with DPW. She was involved on 5/8/98; by 5/13/98, she was off the case. RFG was now handling the case directly. He didn't consult with JKA or bring her in as second chair, which is strange because she was the person that handled this type of case. The police interviews describe "disagreements" that she had with RFG over the case. JKA is not talking publicly about it.

So, we have no actual investigation, in spite of two alleged victims, and Sandusky's admission that there were others. We have reports that sure seemed to go to DA's Office and vanished there, with no coordination with the other investigating agency. We have the top person in the office for this type of case being removed from it. Finally, we have an admission to the act from Sandusky, witnessed by three people, two victims, and no prosecution.

I think that qualifies as horrifically poor decisions, on multiple levels.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In Exhibit 2B in the Freeh Report, I noticed something.

Harmon sent an e-mail to Schultz on 5/13/98 and he was talking about the investigation. Seasock has talked to Victim 6, apparently. Harmon know and knows that they [possibly Schreffler and Lauro?] have not talked to him. Harmon's last line is "I've also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly."

Schreffler and Lauro talked obviously, and Schreffler reported to Harmon, but I have not seen any suggestion that Schreffler was trying to move quickly on Sandusky. In fact, it would be more than a fortnight until the investigation was closed, and Schreffler recommended charges. So, where did Harmon get that impression?