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

[J. J. in Phila]

Family are the people you grow up with. He didn't really know them did he? He didn't communicate with them regularly and they didn't come here to visit.

I should say cousins, to be specific.

I've gotten the impression he did know them, and the region, fairly well. I'm told the "family photos" on the walls of his office were of these cousins.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Fran Ganter? Whoa. When did we learn this? I must have miss it. Ganter was Penn State's offensive coordinator in 98. Why would the DA meet with an assistant coach of the football team?

4/15/12 in Ganim's article. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/ray_gricar_mystery.html

We also found out that the BPD has been translating the missing person flyer into, you guessed it, Slovenian.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Fran Ganter? Whoa. When did we learn this? I must have miss it. Ganter was Penn State's offensive coordinator in 98. Why would the DA meet with an assistant coach of the football team?

On the second part of the question, there were, over the decades, legal issues involving football players. RFG prosecuted some of them. It is possible, as Sloane noted, that it was another case.

That said, Schreffler and Ralston were with different departments, University and State College Police, respectively. The odds that they would be working together, on another case, also involving football, are not particularly strong, but it is possible.

I will expect both to testify. I am wondering if Sloane will be called.

 

[BigCat]

On the second part of the question, there were, over the decades, legal issues involving football players. RFG prosecuted some of them. It is possible, as Sloane noted, that it was another case.

That said, Schreffler and Ralston were with different departments, University and State College Police, respectively. The odds that they would be working together, on another case, also involving football, are not particularly strong, but it is possible.

I will expect both to testify. I am wondering if Sloane will be called.

Should we attach any significance to the order the prosecution is presenting the victims' cases? It appears they are holding back on what happened in 98 to victim 6, even though, chronologically, it pre-dates much of the other alleged abuse.

 

[shefner]

I read that one of the first victims in this case against Sandusky was not going to be presented because he is in the military and serving overseas. Wonder why the prosecutors did not arrange for him to be returned for this trial? Not sure which victim # this man is...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Should we attach any significance to the order the prosecution is presenting the victims' cases? It appears they are holding back on what happened in 98 to victim 6, even though, chronologically, it pre-dates much of the other alleged abuse.

I wouldn't, but Amendola mentioned Gricar/Victim 6 in the opening argument. I want to see if the the AG tries a preemptive strike.

Schreffler, under oath, said that charges should have been filed.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I read that one of the first victims in this case against Sandusky was not going to be presented because he is in the military and serving overseas. Wonder why the prosecutors did not arrange for him to be returned for this trial? Not sure which victim # this man is...

He isn't a listed victim. He's designated B.K. in the grand jury report.

 

[SeekingJana]

Are some people trying to find a reason ( again) for Mr. Gricar's disappearance due to the Sandusky pedophilia?

Apparently, with 20/20 hindsight, it can be said that Mr. Gricar made a wrong choice.

However, I don't see how a wrong decision involving Vic 6 leads people to the inevitable conclusion that Ray Gricar was coerced, bribed, or the victim of a fatality involving the current scandal in PA.

Sometimes very good people make very bad mistakes. Not deliberately, not with malice of forethought.

Sometimes, one occurance is totally unrelated to another of public interest in a town/ county.
I do not and never have believed that Mr. Gricar was harmed years after the Victim 6 report was investigated and closed.

I just wanted to state my opinion. I do not fault Ray Gricar for what Jerry Sandusky was, and is, and has done. I hope Mr. Gricar is alive and well in the place of his choosing.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Apparently, with 20/20 hindsight, it can be said that Mr. Gricar made a wrong choice.

It might not have been hindsight; Schreffler said that there should have been charges, today, under oath. We'll see if Arnold is called.

However, I don't see how a wrong decision involving Vic 6 leads people to the inevitable conclusion that Ray Gricar was coerced, bribed, or the victim of a fatality involving the current scandal in PA.

1. Having had to address the bribery question, at least three times today, there is no evidence of a bribe at this point in time. RFG did not have higher than expected assets; they were lower than expected. From 1998, he was not known to have higher than expected expenditures.

2. While I'm certain that PSU could exert substantial pressure on any public official in the county, I cannot see how they could exert pressure on one who, after 2001, would not be seeking re-election.

3. You have made this point before that no one will murder a DA for not prosecuting them.

Sometimes very good people make very bad mistakes. Not deliberately, not with malice of forethought.

Sometimes, one occurance is totally unrelated to another of public interest in a town/ county.

I do not and never have believed that Mr. Gricar was harmed years after the Victim 6 report was investigated and closed.

I do feel, and I think it's clear at this point, that he had a case strong enough to prosecute in 1998. The judge agreed with me.

I am trouble by two things in this:

A. RFG did prosecute cases, including against PSU football players, even when the controversy around it touched Paterno. And, he prosecuted weaker cases (and lost some).

B. He did not keep Arnold assigned to the case. She was the in-house child abuse person and even if she wasn't going to be the lead prosecutor, she should have been backup (second chair).

I just wanted to state my opinion. I do not fault Ray Gricar for what Jerry Sandusky was, and is, and has done. I hope Mr. Gricar is alive and well in the place of his choosing.

I do fault RFG for his weak response in 1998, on a number of levels, but I cannot fault him for what Sandusky is alleged to have done, or those incidents about which he knew nothing.

1998 was a colossal lapse of judgment, but it may very well have been a honest mistake as well.

 

[Merical2]

having kept up on both the RG disappearance and the Sandusky situation, I still can't help but wonder what went on behind the scenes. Great, so RG didn't prosecute him in 1998...I can't help but wonder what went on between 98 and 2008. College FB is a big deal and you just never know if RG was threatened and he decided to 'disappear'. Reading some of the Sandusky reports today, I had the oddest thought that if and when Sandusky is found guilty, will RG reappear? Will we finally discover the truth? I can't help but think there must be some correlation here. It just seems too coincidental. And really, an investigation in 1998 does not mean it just ended there. It could have been an ongoing investigation. Some investigations take years.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

having kept up on both the RG disappearance and the Sandusky situation, I still can't help but wonder what went on behind the scenes. Great, so RG didn't prosecute him in 1998...I can't help but wonder what went on between 98 and 2008. College FB is a big deal and you just never know if RG was threatened and he decided to 'disappear'. Reading some of the Sandusky reports today, I had the oddest thought that if and when Sandusky is found guilty, will RG reappear? Will we finally discover the truth? I can't help but think there must be some correlation here. It just seems too coincidental. And really, an investigation in 1998 does not mean it just ended there. It could have been an ongoing investigation. Some investigations take years.

At this point, it would probably destroy RFG financially, along with his daughter, if he'd show up.

His daughter moved to have him declared dead after the first story on Sandusky was published, but before the indictment. It wasn't immediately afterward, but there was about a 6 month gap between the first reports and the indictment.

 

[shefner]

Are some people trying to find a reason ( again) for Mr. Gricar's disappearance due to the Sandusky pedophilia?

Apparently, with 20/20 hindsight, it can be said that Mr. Gricar made a wrong choice.

However, I don't see how a wrong decision involving Vic 6 leads people to the inevitable conclusion that Ray Gricar was coerced, bribed, or the victim of a fatality involving the current scandal in PA.

Sometimes very good people make very bad mistakes. Not deliberately, not with malice of forethought.

Sometimes, one occurance is totally unrelated to another of public interest in a town/ county.
I do not and never have believed that Mr. Gricar was harmed years after the Victim 6 report was investigated and closed.

I just wanted to state my opinion. I do not fault Ray Gricar for what Jerry Sandusky was, and is, and has done. I hope Mr. Gricar is alive and well in the place of his choosing.

Sandusky, alone, is responsible for his actions. But I am trying to understand how a man like Gricar, intelligent and responsible, could decide NOT to bring charges in 98. If he had, and Sandusky had convicted, about 90% of all the victims speaking in court this week would never have been abused by Sandusky. That's staggering.

Obviously, as we have been told, there were people knew some of this information about Sandusky for years. It was talked about in hushed tones. Gricar had to know this.

This leads me to believe that Gricar could have been threatened or somehow coerced into silence. He was a great man, but not perfect...and not above being persuaded.

My biggest question is, if Gricar's disappearance had something to do with Sandusky, then why did he disappear at the time he did? What was going on behind the scenes during the time surrounding Gricar's disappearance?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sandusky, alone, is responsible for his actions. But I am trying to understand how a man like Gricar, intelligent and responsible, could decide NOT to bring charges in 98. If he had, and Sandusky had convicted, about 90% of all the victims speaking in court this week would never have been abused by Sandusky. That's staggering.

First of all, smart people do stupid things all the time. Nobody is perfect. Several of the victims reported activity prior to 1998, so it would be less than one half.

Obviously, as we have been told, there were people knew some of this information about Sandusky for years. It was talked about in hushed tones. Gricar had to know this.

I can tell a number of people in my neighborhood who smoke pot. I could not testify that any of them smoke pot. Knowing and proving are two different things.

As far as I've been able to find out, he was not working on Sandusky when he disappeared. While his laptop was destroyed, he had a longstanding interest getting rid of the data on it. His home and office computers were intact and no file is known to be missing.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

One of the witnesses indicated that he testified before different sets of grand jurors (it was on Insession). That jibs with what JKA indicated she was told.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I wanted to address these two points, because I think they are good:

This leads me to believe that Gricar could have been threatened or somehow coerced into silence. He was a great man, but not perfect...and not above being persuaded.

We can rule out political coercion. In 2001, RFG faced a tough primary challenge; he won. In the general election, he was unopposed. According to him, he had, at that point decided that this would be his last term (though he didn't announce that until 1/04). If he's not running, it doesn't matter how many votes he loses. He could have charged Sandusky at that point.

I think physical coercion is impossible. Even if he was threatened, there were the police, the victims, Lauro, and Victim 6's mother. There was that police report floating around. There was Chambers' report. Those things were a ticking time bomb, that would explode 13 years later. There was no physical threat to those people.

My biggest question is, if Gricar's disappearance had something to do with Sandusky, then why did he disappear at the time he did? What was going on behind the scenes during the time surrounding Gricar's disappearance?

LE has said that there was no involvement in the Sandusky case at that point. I can't believe that RFG would only keep the records of it on his laptop, that he was planning to get rid of. The timing doesn't make sense.

 

[shefner]

The 90% Figure that I used above was reported by CNN. So maybe I shouldn't use CNN for my stats anymore. They were reporting that a vast majority of these victims could have been spared abuse if Sandusky was tried in 98. They used the figure 90%....unless I misunderstood them. And that's a possibility. I read my post above and entire phrases were missing....LOL. That's what happens when I wait to this time of night to "work on my cases."

(Hubby says, "What do you do when you 'work on your cases?'" I said, "Well, I read. I think it over and post." "Does that help 'solve' the cases...when you read and think and post?" "Oh yes, absolutely." "Ok then, carry on!")

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Of the 10 known victims, Victims 1, 2, 3, 8 were post 1998. Victim 5 (I think) may have been; he has given two different dates in testimony.

Ironically, I'd call Victims 2, 8, and 5 the ones that are the weakest and the ones Sandusky is the most likely to win on.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From the Washington Post:

Yet evidence and testimony from the trial also show there were plenty of people, not just those at the highest levels of the university, who had ample opportunity to stop a man accused of violating 10 boys over 15 years:

[snip]

— A district attorney with a reputation for prosecuting cases involving children and sexual abuse victims declined to charge Sandusky over a 1998 molestation allegation even though the detective who investigated thought it was a solid case. The DA, Ray Gricar, disappeared in 2005 and was declared legally dead last year.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...cts-cover-up/2012/06/16/gJQA5TbIhV_story.html

 

[SeekingJana]

At what point in time are the statements about the 1998 abuse allegations going to become redundant as applied to a man declared legally dead and unable to tell us WHY he did ANYTHING or DIDN'T DO ANOTHET THING?

This continual posting of the same thing over and over " Gricar knew about Vic 6 and chose not to prosecute" is getting to be both redundant and harmful to the good name of a man who cannot answer back.

Is there anyone following Mr. Gricar's disappearance who doesn't KNOW this by now? I think not!!!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

At what point in time are the statements about the 1998 abuse allegations going to become redundant as applied to a man declared legally dead and unable to tell us WHY he did ANYTHING or DIDN'T DO ANOTHET THING?

This continual posting of the same thing over and over " Gricar knew about Vic 6 and chose not to prosecute" is getting to be both redundant and harmful to the good name of a man who cannot answer back.

Is there anyone following Mr. Gricar's disappearance who doesn't KNOW this by now? I think not!!!

E pluribus unum. (Latin is useful in understanding me.) Bluntly, in the last week, I've had about 20 news alerts telling me the same thing.

The WP is one of the top two newspapers in the US. I wanted to post that because of the paper, and because the article goes further and notes others who failed as well.

One of the very good things about this site is that it is indexed and preserved for research. I felt that this one should be representative.

Remember, I also look at the media reaction to the case. Also remember that some people are not following the case closely.