The opinion that Lara Gricar receiving Ray's assets is a good reason or motivation to disappear and then the opinion that there are missing assets, unaccounted for cannot coincide with one another. Both are baseless opinions. Can't have it both ways.
No one knows what Ray Gricar had in the way of expenses. Just because some expenses are known doesn't mean anyone knows them all. No one on this forum knows what type of investments Ray Gricar made either.
They are twwo very different things, Ray Gricar's pension and his assets. RFG's assets, which
are known to be less than $25,000, are
extremely low for a man making more than $115,000 per year in the four years prior to his disappearance.
LG received those, but also received a lump sum of his pension, plus any life insurance. Those are
not assets.
To explain the difference, I, for example have life insurance. I cannot collect it, or spend it, even though my heirs will collect it. While working, I had a pension, but I couldn't spend though my heirs would collect it. These things are very different than assets.
It's sad to read here yet another degrading shot at Ray's character. Now it's his chosen staff and their problems.
Like this one?
I don't think using a drug addicts opinion of what happened to RG is a good example at all. I also don't believe RG went off to be some hobo.
Sloane was both a long term Assistant District Attorney (about 13 years prior to his disappearance), hired by RFG, along with a close friend. It cannot be denied that he plead guilty to selling marijuana, as this has cited numerous times.
Likewise we have another ADA, LM, also a Gricar hire (about 5 years), that resigned after a "sexting" scandal involving a defendant's girlfriend:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_ba2b4548-5051-5752-801c-8bf42e78e386.html This actually prompted an investigation by the AG's Office (MTM correctly referred it to them), though there was no criminality found.
There were some potential problems with staff. RFG, had be been sitting around, would have been badgered about these things. There would have been questions about who knew what when.
In that case, RFG might not have wanted to be "the ex-DA." Certainly, we are aware that at least one former ADA was called before the grand jury in the Sandusky case. She said, "The grand jury experience was one of the more negative experiences in my life."
http://www.yardbird.com/joe_paterno_takes_the_fall.htm#sthash.QeRaEHo7.dpuf
She said that, even though she had minimal involvement in the case, and possibly favored prosecution, or even a greater investigation, at the time.
We also saw MTM being involved in that case, for just the decision (the correct one) to send the case out to the AG's Office. There was no question of MTM acting improperly, but he was still involved.
Now, I would not expect that "not wanting to be the ex-DA" to be the sole motive for RFG to leave voluntarily, or even the primary one, but clearly, it might be
a motive. Even if RFG had no or minimal knowledge of these things, he'd still be forced back to deal with them. In this case, we have 20 years when RFG was in charge; that is 20 years worth of both case and personnel decisions.
