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

J. J. in Phila · Feb 13, 2012

I think this is worth saying:

A colossal lapse of judgment is not:

1. An abuse of discretion.

2. An unethical act.

3. An illegal act.

pinktoes · Feb 13, 2012

Maybe Gricar is alive, holding some Sandusky evidence from 1998 and subsequent years. For safekeeping, you know, since there are possible lots of the monied/power crowd that'd like the entire Sandusky mess to go away. And he'll show up, at the proper time, evidence in hand! Now THAT would make a happy ending for everybody. Well, all the good guys.

You know, the objective evidence and what's required to get a conviction in a community of interconnected business and political interests, including corruption within both law enforcement and government--those are 2 entirely different things. IF Gricar is/was one of the good guys, he knew that all too well.

That's the answer to why he didn't prosecute in 1998, IMHO. I know JJ disagrees and that's okay!

J. J. in Phila · Feb 13, 2012

pinktoes said:
Maybe Gricar is alive, holding some Sandusky evidence from 1998 and subsequent years. For safekeeping, you know, since there are possible lots of the monied/power crowd that'd like the entire Sandusky mess to go away. And he'll show up, at the proper time, evidence in hand! Now THAT would make a happy ending for everybody. Well, all the good guys.

You know, the objective evidence and what's required to get a conviction in a community of interconnected business and political interests, including corruption within both law enforcement and government--those are 2 entirely different things. IF Gricar is/was one of the good guys, he knew that all too well.

That's the answer to why he didn't prosecute in 1998, IMHO. I know JJ disagrees and that's okay!

Well, that would be a bit strange. The thing is that:

A. He didn't back off politically sensitive cases.

B. It got easier to prosecute, politically, as time went on.

We are missing something.

pinktoes · Feb 13, 2012

I don't mean "politically" in the formal or usual sense. I mean the ability to get the case tried, and a conviction, is very much influenced by the INFORMAL power structure of an entire community--its business leaders, charitable donors (I repeat myself), elected and appointed politicians.

You have to look at human behavior within the context of all the social systems. Not just the formal, on-paper rules/laws/procedures.

I've also noticed that a lot of people get suicided, disappeared, accidental-deathed, etc., when people behind the scenes don't like what's happening. That's what we're not seeing. Things are not nearly as by-the-book as you believe, or present them to be.

Look around. Where is the actual power in the real world? You cannot solve this with an insistence on what is usually referred to as a "rational" explanation. Because, one real possibility is murder. And murderers just aren't all that rational. Especially those who murder out of passion rather than for money.

And, BTW, why does JKA insist on referring to Patty F as "the paramour"? Is it a hint maybe that Gricar's ex-wife regarded Patty as an illicit lover of Ray's? (I know the legal use of the term. JKA was around these people all the time. Why didn't she call Patty his girlfriend? I think she's sending a message to look at the feelings Emma had about Patty. And look for an overlapping timeline.

Might be useful to let it roll around in your head a few weeks, rather than constructing a rationale that rules it out.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 14, 2012

pinktoes said:
I don't mean "politically" in the formal or usual sense. I mean the ability to get the case tried, and a conviction, is very much influenced by the INFORMAL power structure of an entire community--its business leaders, charitable donors (I repeat myself), elected and appointed politicians.

Then you might very well be talking an improper influence. I really do not want to go there.

Keep something else in mind. RFG not only declined to prosecute, but he declined to investigate further.

You have to look at human behavior within the context of all the social systems. Not just the formal, on-paper rules/laws/procedures.

I'm not talking about anything formal. I'm talking about the ability to win the next election.

I've also noticed that a lot of people get suicided, disappeared, accidental-deathed, etc., when people behind the scenes don't like what's happening. That's what we're not seeing. Things are not nearly as by-the-book as you believe, or present them to be.

I would not assume that RFG is dead at this point (or alive).

Look around. Where is the actual power in the real world? You cannot solve this with an insistence on what is usually referred to as a "rational" explanation. Because, one real possibility is murder. And murderers just aren't all that rational. Especially those who murder out of passion rather than for money.

I would not rule out passion, but I would not rule out money either. I would not rule out RFG's disappearance being connected to Sandusky, at least indirectly.

And, BTW, why does JKA insist on referring to Patty F as "the paramour"? Is it a hint maybe that Gricar's ex-wife regarded Patty as an illicit lover of Ray's? (I know the legal use of the term. JKA was around these people all the time. Why didn't she call Patty his girlfriend? I think she's sending a message to look at the feelings Emma had about Patty. And look for an overlapping timeline.

There is about a two to three year gap between #2 and PEF; they were together about three years in 2005 and he separated from #2 in 2000.

I don't know if #2 and JKA were close. Why the word "paramour" was used is anyone's guess, except JKA's. #2 was gone when PEF became involved.

I have heard a few versions of the breakup with wife #2, and neither involved PEF. The problems are, none of them can be confirmed, and, even the story RFG told does not make him look particularly good.

Might be useful to let it roll around in your head a few weeks, rather than constructing a rationale that rules it out.

I prefer to deal in concrete things, like elections, not practicing law, and when actions were taken. Simply put, the idea that RFG didn't prosecute Sandusky because he was worried about a political backlash does not hold water.

pinktoes · Feb 14, 2012

JJ: I give up; I must not be explaining this very well. I KNOW what you prefer to deal in. And that's what I was trying to explain: that by restricting one's thinking to the visible influences, you leave out too much info about the context in which human behavior occurs. Including judicial behavior.

I am, once again, NOT talking about "politics" in terms of backlash, or the ability to win elections. I AM talking about influence of all kinds--the informal power that people "in politics", outside of politics have. And how THAT would affect the ability to bring a case to trial, and obtain a conviction. And to do so with one's and one's family members' personal safety intact.

And, if you cannot consider all the potential data relevant to the larger social context of successfully trying a case, I think you will leave out some potentially vital clues. If it's not your area of expertise, then it's not. It is mine, but I can't give you a PhD and a lifetime career's worth of education on a subject you aren't adept in.

It could be vitally important. It could answer the question about Gricar. About Sandusky. Some posters and readers here know that and I hope will pursue it. As I am.

JKA knew wife #2 pretty well. And, best I can tell now, her use of the word 'paramour' to describe Patty reflects a shared feeling about Patty's "unofficial" presence in Ray's life before he left wife #2.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 15, 2012

pinktoes said:
JJ: I give up; I must not be explaining this very well. I KNOW what you prefer to deal in. And that's what I was trying to explain: that by restricting one's thinking to the visible influences, you leave out too much info about the context in which human behavior occurs. Including judicial behavior.

If you are talking about some greater of influence, you are talking about illegal influence.

I am, once again, NOT talking about "politics" in terms of backlash, or the ability to win elections. I AM talking about influence of all kinds--the informal power that people "in politics", outside of politics have. And how THAT would affect the ability to bring a case to trial, and obtain a conviction. And to do so with one's and one's family members' personal safety intact.

I repeat, you are talking about illegal influence and RFG caving into it.

And, if you cannot consider all the potential data relevant to the larger social context of successfully trying a case, I think you will leave out some potentially vital clues. If it's not your area of expertise, then it's not. It is mine, but I can't give you a PhD and a lifetime career's worth of education on a subject you aren't adept in.

There is no data to support a shadowy "influence." There are also no specifics.

There is a point about raw power and safety that argues against this; all the witnesses to the 1998 incident, the victims, the one victim's mother, the police, and apparantly someone in the DA's Office at the time are all there. They were not threatened. The report that they wrote is still there; there does not even seem to have been an effort to eliminate it.

It could be vitally important. It could answer the question about Gricar. About Sandusky. Some posters and readers here know that and I hope will pursue it. As I am.

A nebulous statement. Obviously, there was a lot of money associated with Sandusky (via his control of Second Mile). Obviously, that money could influence people. Are you suggesting he used it to influence RFG?

JKA knew wife #2 pretty well. And, best I can tell now, her use of the word 'paramour' to describe Patty reflects a shared feeling about Patty's "unofficial" presence in Ray's life before he left wife #2.

I'm not certain about that. There was ever any claim that JKA ever socialized with RFG; she was far from alone in that. The involvement does not "overlap" as you suggested.

I do note that you used the phrase "he left wife #2." Care to give a reason why he would leave? I'm not saying you are wrong.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 15, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
Where did you get that? If, as you have suggested, he didn't prosecute for political reasons, those reasons vanished in 2001. RFG for example, didn't file charges in the Mendez-Vargas case for almost a year and only after a lot of internal debate in the office.

I'm sorry, but that comment bears no resemblance to reality.

Except he did have enough to bring charges, and PSU didn't cover that one up (unless you are suggesting that RFG was "in cahoots" with PSU in 1998. Are you?).

I've ask you for evidence that RFG was the victim of foul play. Your statement does not make it so.

We have evidence that RFG did not prosecute Sandusky in 1998. We know that there was no new evidence in the case, and one victim available in 1998 was not available in 2011.

Even if this was foul play, you better start praying that RFG's 1998 was only a colossal lapse of judgment (and it may have been).

Why would a prayer, now help a declared dead person? There is no threat to RG, he is LEGALLY declared dead. He won't be here to defend himself. Anything said about what he did or didn't do will be total hearsay. Anyone can blame the man and say what they will but the truth is he is not here. It all becomes hearsay at this point in time.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 15, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
Why would a prayer, now help a declared dead person? There is no threat to RG, he is LEGALLY declared dead. He won't be here to defend himself. Anything said about what he did or didn't do will be total hearsay. Anyone can blame the man and say what they will but the truth is he is not here. It all becomes hearsay at this point in time.

Well, because, there are far worse things that a colossal lapse of judgment. Some of those things might even produce evidence. As I've said, I'm praying that it was only a colossal lapse of judgment.

I think the claim that RFG left wife #2 is one of the more interesting aspects. Again, I'm not saying it is inaccurate.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 15, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
Well, because, there are far worse things that a colossal lapse of judgment. Some of those things might even produce evidence. As I've said, I'm praying that it was only a colossal lapse of judgment.

I think the claim that RFG left wife #2 is one of the more interesting aspects. Again, I'm not saying it is inaccurate.

What does any of this have to do with wife 2? Can you explain because I have heard nothing about EG being a cause for anything other than Ray and her perhaps had difference and that it was a bad divorce as per the nephew. I took that to mean that Rays assets was divided.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 15, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
What does any of this have to do with wife 2? Can you explain because I have heard nothing about EG being a cause for anything other than Ray and her perhaps had difference and that it was a bad divorce as per the nephew. I took that to mean that Rays assets was divided.

It has a lot to do with Pinktoes' comment about the use of the word "paramour." And the timing of that divorce. And the reason for it.

Hypothetically:

John is married to Mary, but is having an affair with Jane. Here are a couple of possibilities:

1. John tells Mary that he wants out and wants to be with Jane. He leaves her and moves in with Jane, very soon after leaving Mary.

2. Mary finds out and wants a divorce. She leaves him.

We know the breakup time and when RFG moved in with PEF; it is a two year gap. It wasn't immediate.

According to Pinktoes, #2 does not leave; RFG leaves #2.

It doesn't make sense for the reason for RFG to leave wife #2 to be hooking up with PEF (or possibly anyone else). We have no suggestion that he hooked up with anyone between 2000 and 2002.

Pinktoes said "he left wife #2." If Pinktoes comment there is right, RFG didn't leave #2 for another person.

Is Picktoes right that RFG left wife #2? You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

pinktoes · Feb 15, 2012

JJ: don't you have access to people who knew the situation between Ray, wife#2, and PEF way back when? Not necessary to answer publicly. I just supposed you would, possibly thru CDT.

'Cause I'm pretty sure JKA isn't gonna talk to you about it!

J. J. in Phila · Feb 15, 2012

pinktoes said:
JJ: don't you have access to people who knew the situation between Ray, wife#2, and PEF way back when? Not necessary to answer publicly. I just supposed you would, possibly thru CDT.

'Cause I'm pretty sure JKA isn't gonna talk to you about it!

As I've said, the version of the breakup RFG told to some friends had nothing to do with infidelity, involving PEF or anyone else.

The two year time gap indicates that he didn't leave #2 to hook up with PEF.

Remember the Cleveland trip, while he was with #2. He was "fed up," and I think that is a quote from SS.

On a slightly different subject, when talking about his record, one thing some people mentioned was making the DA position full time. Some consider that a major accomplishment.

RFG said, in the DC:

"It's a big job," Gricar said. "I devote all time to it, and I just would like to be paid accordingly."

At that point, DA's had an outside law practice; RFG was the first in Centre County that didn't.

A new statute permitted him to hire an additional ADA; he had five and could add another.

"If I become full-time, I will waive a sixth assistant to spare the county the expense," Gricar said.

Daily Collegian, 1/17/86

http://digitalnewspapers.libraries....ateTo=%31%32/%31%31/%31%39%38%37&ViewMode=GIF

I don't know if the link works, so here is the main page: http://digitalnewspapers.libraries.psu.edu/Default/Skins/collegian/Client.asp?skin=collegian

His salary was low, $26,000, but that would be in the low $50 K range in today's dollar. He wanted that to go up to $64 K then (about the equivalent to $127 K). Keep in mind he was married to wife #1 at the time, and she was probably make close to double what he was.

He said these things within three weeks of first taking office. Notice what he's saying. He didn't say **The caseload is too large, so either hire help or pay me more.** He wanted more money.

Money was a reoccurring theme in RFG's life. There is nothing illegal or immoral in that, but it does show the importance RFG gave to money.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 15, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
As I've said, the version of the breakup RFG told to some friends had nothing to do with infidelity, involving PEF or anyone else.

The two year time gap indicates that he didn't leave #2 to hook up with PEF.

Remember the Cleveland trip, while he was with #2. He was "fed up," and I think that is a quote from SS.

On a slightly different subject, when talking about his record, one thing some people mentioned was making the DA position full time. Some consider that a major accomplishment.

RFG said, in the DC:

"It's a big job," Gricar said. "I devote all time to it, and I just would like to be paid accordingly."

At that point, DA's had an outside law practice; RFG was the first in Centre County that didn't.

A new statute permitted him to hire an additional ADA; he had five and could add another.

"If I become full-time, I will waive a sixth assistant to spare the county the expense," Gricar said.

Daily Collegian, 1/17/86

http://digitalnewspapers.libraries....ateTo=%31%32/%31%31/%31%39%38%37&ViewMode=GIF

I don't know if the link works, so here is the main page: http://digitalnewspapers.libraries.psu.edu/Default/Skins/collegian/Client.asp?skin=collegian

His salary was low, $26,000, but that would be in the low $50 K range in today's dollar. He wanted that to go up to $64 K then (about the equivalent to $127 K). Keep in mind he was married to wife #1 at the time, and she was probably make close to double what he was.

He said these things within three weeks of first taking office. Notice what he's saying. He didn't say **The caseload is too large, so either hire help or pay me more.** He wanted more money.

Money was a reoccurring theme in RFG's life. There is nothing illegal or immoral in that, but it does show the importance RFG gave to money.

On the other hand Ray was reported as not worried about money as per friends.
He donated half his salary in the beginning to the woman's abuse resource center.
Lets remember that Ray's original plans to retire included PF to retire with him and she would not at her young age of 42 or 43 at the time have a cozy pension. Keep in mind that her retirement if she would need it would take a hit for retiring before the proper age. Therefore Ray's pension was probably understood to be their main source of income.
If Ray had such a care about money then why share his bank account with Lara?
Nah, I don't see the reoccurring theme. Are you now trying to show Ray took a buyout to leave maybe? Please explain the rest of it.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 15, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
On the other hand Ray was reported as not worried about money as per friends.
He donated half his salary in the beginning to the woman's abuse resource center.

He was described as "frugal." The donation was a one time donation when he went full time. He didn't lose anything by it, and gained some good PR.

Lets remember that Ray's original plans to retire included PF to retire with him and she would not at her young age of 42 or 43 at the time have a cozy pension.

It would be close to 20 years, though she could not claim it immediately (age).

If Ray had such a care about money then why share his bank account with Lara?

A. To write checks in case something to him, e.g. disability or death.

B. There would be a savings on inheritance taxes.

Neither reason is uncommon.

The question is, and has been, why isn't more in those accounts?

Nah, I don't see the reoccurring theme.

You would not the person it would be directed to. Interestingly it was a major theme of Bryant's 1993 campaign. http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1993/10/10-29-93tdc/10-29-93dnews-8.asp

Are you now trying to show Ray took a buyout to leave maybe?

No, though if that is the case, there might be evidence.

BTW: Do you like Billy Joel?

cloudbuster05 · Feb 16, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
He was described as "frugal." The donation was a one time donation when he went full time. He didn't lose anything by it, and gained some good PR.

So IMO Ray bought himself some good PR, nothing there but a show of how he liked spending money.

It would be close to 20 years, though she could not claim it immediately (age).
So they would have to live on Ray's money, thank goodness he was being frugal.

A. To write checks in case something to him, e.g. disability or death.

B. There would be a savings on inheritance taxes.

Neither reason is uncommon.

The question is, and has been, why isn't more in those accounts?

So where does that show Ray fixated on money?

You would not the person it would be directed to. Interestingly it was a major theme of Bryant's 1993 campaign. http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1993/10/10-29-93tdc/10-29-93dnews-8.asp
Bryant in 1993 had political reasons to attack Ray on going from part time to full time. Bryant could do that because the part time position would benefit his schedule and his funds. Bryant as per your article was to remain a attorney , so he could only be DA part time. Attorneys make more money. Ray could of done that but he chose not to and thought it would conflict with the District Attorney position. That is not someone worried about money.
Ray was already working full time hours with a part time status. His argument wasn't the money it was the fact that he had four assistants working in full time positions all the while he was only part time. Ask yourself as Ray did if that makes sense? In other words would you sit back and work full time along with your assistants while you only was a part timer? Being full time also would give him his health insurance.

No, though if that is the case, there might be evidence.
Please let us know if you find it.
BTW: Do you like Billy Joel?

Oh I get it lol, this question is like the question I have received daily lol. I thought that was a friend of yours. I get it lol.:woohoo:

J. J. in Phila · Feb 16, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
So IMO Ray bought himself some good PR, nothing there but a show of how he liked spending money.

The spending was purposeful (and deductible). He was not known for spending.

So they would have to live on Ray's money, thank goodness he was being frugal.

The pension was around $120 K per year, from what I understand. You may have to watch your pennies in Manhattan or Beverly Hills, but not in Bellefonte. The median household income in the county is about $50,400 in 2010.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42027.html

Add to that an absence of debt.

So where does that show Ray fixated on money?

1986, three weeks after taking office, RFG was asking for more money.

1993, Bryant is bringing it up, because RFG still is asking for more money.

At some point, from what I understand, RFG when to the PDAA, the state DA's association, with a resolution calling for all DA's to be full time. They would not support it, so he resigns from that.

1995-96, RFG comes into disagreement with Commissioner Wedler, because she opposes making the post full time.

According to you, this isn't a pattern of 9-10 years? :what:

pinktoes · Feb 16, 2012

JJ: In your thinking, try using the term 'paramour' in the layman's sense, ie, not requiring living together. More like a lover on the side. Because if you insist on going by the written record of official domiciles, so to speak, you're not going to learn anything new.

How many of us know of people who had "paramours" on the side for years, then got divorced, and for any one of many reasons, did not marry that paramour until years later? I've seen it a LOT.

Here are some examples, none of which might apply in Gricar's situation. Just examples:

so family members wouldn't suspect there had been an illicit relationship during the marriage, and thus think badly of the parties

for political or social reasons; just doesn't look good in some social settings

to prevent an ex-spouse from raising questions about the fairness of the divorce settlement

just generally to prevent the exspouse from getting angrier and possibly revengeful/retaliatory in whatever realm she had the power to do so

anybody else feel free to chime in or else JJ will take each one of these and apply them to Ray and discount them (lol)

brainstorm...

pinktoes · Feb 16, 2012

JJ: Question: Do you know yet what's going to happen yet with CDT and the interest in Gricar's disappearance? I remember you saying it was Heisse's interest in it that drove things. New guy coming.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 16, 2012

pinktoes said:
JJ: In your thinking, try using the term 'paramour' in the layman's sense, ie, not requiring living together. More like a lover on the side. Because if you insist on going by the written record of official domiciles, so to speak, you're not going to learn anything new.

No, I'm saying that the account RFG gave to friends had nothing to do with infidelity of any party.

I'm thinking of a corespondent as that term is used. RFG gave at least some friends a reason for a divorce that had nothing to do with infidelity, from either party in the marriage.

That frankly did surprise me, because there were rumors that RFG was involved with other women.

Now, whether he was being honest about the reasons or not is another question. You indicated that RFG left wife #2. Okay, but that wouldn't be a reason not to become seriously involved until two years after that.

Here are some examples, none of which might apply in Gricar's situation. Just examples:

so family members wouldn't suspect there had been an illicit relationship during the marriage, and thus think badly of the parties

His family is out of town; her parent's are dead.

for political or social reasons; just doesn't look good in some social settings

RFG was never said to be social and there was no political need after RFG wins the primary in 2001.

to prevent an ex-spouse from raising questions about the fairness of the divorce settlement

If the ground is infidelity, it would be in there.

just generally to prevent the exspouse from getting angrier and possibly revengeful/retaliatory in whatever realm she had the power to do so

And that occur before, prior to the primary in 2001. Take a look at the number of times ex spouses attack politicians (McCain's ex wife was probably an exception). Heck, that dates back to Stevenson.

Further, according to you, RFG left her, a year prior an election.

Like I've said, what RFG told friends had nothing to do with infidelity, his or wife #2's. There breakup might have had nothing aspect to it.

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

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

New Member

Verified Insider

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics