PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #7

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pensfan said:
He was present at the very public announcement that there was a grand jury investigation about the largest heroin ring in his county where HE was the DA....and a few days later, he and his work computer disappeared.
Click to expand...

So were about ten other people; none of them disappeared or were murdered. The actual prosecutor of the case was out campaigning for office; he'd be an ideal target. He is still around.

The laptop was generally unused and his home an office desktops were there, untouched.

Following RFG from Bellefonte to Lewisburg was virtually impossible and he was there for hours, untouched. It is virtually impossible he wouldn't have spotted someone tailing him. Yet, despite having a cell phone, he never called anyone to say, "I think I'm being followed." Heck, he was in the county seat and knew the DA there, at least slightly.

Further, he was wearing a suit and tie at the press conference, and was in casual clothing on 4/15. It is unlikely that he would have been recognized randomly.

Druggies and drug cartel members are a serious safety concern for DAs, police officers, and judges. ( It is common knowledge where I live (PA) that judges and DAs are armed. There is even a gun called "The Judge". The Judge was not made to be easily concealable. This gun is described as being made for in vehicle use. It is essentially a shotgun that is a revolver. )
Click to expand...

It is common for public officials to carry, but RFG did not carry a firearm.
 
ellehill said:
I think some new evidence came in on Sandusky and RG was building a case against him. I think he felt awful that he didn't prosecute in 1998 and wasn't going to back down this time.
Click to expand...

He could still prosecute the 1998 case in 2005, or any time in between.

As for RFG's disappearance being related to the Sandusky case, I don't know.
 
ellehill said:
I think some new evidence came in on Sandusky and RG was building a case against him. I think he felt awful that he didn't prosecute in 1998 and wasn't going to back down this time.

I feel people higher up in the DA's office, AG's office, State University, maybe Second Mile were directly involved with his dissapearance, or have knowledge of what happened to him. If you look at the people who have lost or are losing their jobs now that the Sandusky case has come to light, those are the people police need to be talking to (the people who held these positions in 2005).

I think Ray was followed to Lewisburg or was planning on meeting someone to discuss the case, someone he knew & trusted. I don't think he would get in a vehicle with a random person/drug informant, and for somebody to pull a gun in a parking lot in broad daylight to force him in a vehicle would be risky. Also, if it was drug related I don't think they would be concerned with the body being found and he would've turned up by now.

Did anyone in the DA's office smoke? Have they tested the cigarettes found at the scene for DNA from anyone in his office? I think part of the cover-up was to make it look like RG walked away or committed suicide. I think they destroyed his laptop in case it had any incriminating evidence on it, shredded any files in the office and removed data from his office computer...easy to do if it was an inside job. I am dumbfounded at how many people seem to be involved with the Sandusky cover-up, that I don't discount the idea that this could've been an inside job.
Click to expand...

This is what I've thought too-- and now that the Sunducky case has broke, I've read (in the past week or so) that many witnesses were afraid to be seen speaking with police (in Happy Valley) so they often arranged meetings in parking lots that were out of the way. This is the setting/how/when Mike McQeary admitted to witnessing the rape.

Because I can't recall which article I read that bit in, this is MOO.
 
Quiche said:
This is what I've thought too-- and now that the Sunducky case has broke, I've read (in the past week or so) that many witnesses were afraid to be seen speaking with police (in Happy Valley) so they often arranged meetings in parking lots that were out of the way. This is the setting/how/when Mike McQeary admitted to witnessing the rape.

Because I can't recall which article I read that bit in, this is MOO.
Click to expand...

USAToday http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/...-Key-Files-from-Sanduskys-Charity-Are-Missing

I'm not going to run off on too many conspiracy theories today. Yeh, it would provide a plausible reason for RFG's travels on 4/14 and 4/15. "Plausible" is not evidence or proof.
 
Pensfan said:
Although RG was interested in antiques, I never saw a "missing-have you seen this man" flyer for him. I am also a long-term addict of junktique/antiques and I help a friend with her two large antique booths in antique malls located within 60 miles of State College. PA. No flyers were posted there for RG. None. I have helped with several antique shows each summer in this area for a decade and I never saw a flyer for RG posted at these either. None.

I am not sure that the daughter looked very hard for her dad. I don't think she wanted people to find him or she knew he was dead. He had recently busted a huge narcotics ring.

RG disappeared 7 years after Sandusky's case was brought to the attention of campus police and then to the DA's office. SEVEN YEARS. It is not logical to assume his disappearance had anything to do with Sandusky. It is logical to assume that his disappearance had everything to do with disrupting a large narcotics operation.

Read the similarities between RG's disappearance and another nearby DA that also disappeared after disrupting a narcotics ring. His body was eventually located though. He had been tortured before his murder.
http://www.yardbird.com/midnight_ride_similarities_w_luna_gricar.htm
http://www.yardbird.com/midnight_ride_another_missing_PA_prosecutor_2.htm
Click to expand...


Two excellent and comprehensive articles-- thank you! :seeya:
 
J. J. in Phila said:
Except RFG hadn't busted the ring. The AG's Office did. The only thing RFG did was show up at a press conference with ten other DA's.
Click to expand...


Tony Gricar, the family spokesman, said that his uncle didn't begin the largest heroin bust investigation in his county, but he took it over. Here is the post from Tony Gricar's twitter.

RayGricar Tony Gricar
@SPORTSbyBROOKS @rkamruddin No, as AG he didnt begin the investigation, he took it over from Centre County via unknown conflict of interest.
http://twitter.com/#!/RayGricar





Tony Gricar also recently responded to this statement on November 13, 2011:

Statement not made by Tony Gricar: “However, it is strange to me that a prosecutor declines to prosecute a case wherein a full confession is in the file.”

Tony Gricar's response: A full confession of what is on file? He confessed to nothing re: sexual gratification, which is what is needed under PA law. I’ve had hours of discussions with PA prosecutore re: this very issue so that I would have an education, rather than an opinion. It’s too bad that journalists themselves have not done this.
Of note, the Children’s Services investigator (CPS) is also quoted as saying they didn’t have enough and subsequently closed their own inquiry (of Sandusky), even though they knew. Proving in a court of law, as you are familiar, is an entirely different matter.
http://www.dallasjustice.com/dallas...gricar-is-alive-and-well-and-the-fbi-does-too
 
Quiche said:
Two excellent and comprehensive articles-- thank you! :seeya:
Click to expand...

Quiche, with all respect, I would like to strongly caution you against the Yardbird. com writings. There is much " spin" there.
If I didn't know of what I speak. I would remain silent. I promise.
 
Not surprised at all at any missing records from TSM.
I'd be more surprised if the records were STILL there and obviously not tampered with.

J.J., did you get a little chill when reading this sentence?
"Because Penn State is a tight-knit community, investigators chose to meet McQueary in an out-of-the-way parking lot. McQueary, a key witness in the case, eventually unburdened himself, the article says, giving investigators the lead they were seeking. "

Dear God, please let Ray Gricar be as smart as I think he is, and please keep him safe.
 
Pensfan said:
Tony Gricar, the family spokesman, said that his uncle didn't begin the largest heroin bust investigation in his county, but he took it over. Here is the post from Tony Gricar's twitter.

RayGricar Tony Gricar
@SPORTSbyBROOKS @rkamruddin No, as AG he didnt begin the investigation, he took it over from Centre County via unknown conflict of interest.
http://twitter.com/#!/RayGricar
Click to expand...

That relates to the Sandusky investigation, not the drug ring.




Tony Gricar also recently responded to this statement on November 13, 2011:

Statement not made by Tony Gricar: “However, it is strange to me that a prosecutor declines to prosecute a case wherein a full confession is in the file.”

Tony Gricar's response: A full confession of what is on file? He confessed to nothing re: sexual gratification, which is what is needed under PA law. I’ve had hours of discussions with PA prosecutore re: this very issue so that I would have an education, rather than an opinion. It’s too bad that journalists themselves have not done this.
Of note, the Children’s Services investigator (CPS) is also quoted as saying they didn’t have enough and subsequently closed their own inquiry (of Sandusky), even though they knew. Proving in a court of law, as you are familiar, is an entirely different matter.
http://www.dallasjustice.com/dallas...gricar-is-alive-and-well-and-the-fbi-does-too
Click to expand...

It wasn't a "confession" but an admission to activities. Further it only relates specifically to one charge in the 1998 case, which is a misdemeanor. There are ten other charges into that incident 4 felonies (which might be different degrees for the same action), and 6 other misdemeanors, none of which require "gratification" or "arousal."

The felony is here:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).
(3) Prostitution as defined in section 5902 (relating to
prostitution and related offenses).
(4) Obscene and other sexual materials and performances
as defined in section 5903 (relating to obscene and other
sexual materials and performances).
(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312
(relating to sexual abuse of children).
(6) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in
section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html

I bolded the "Open Lewdness" clause, because of its legal definition:

§ 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

I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to would not constitute "open lewdness." Some might disagree with that argument.

I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and washing back and hair his would not constitute "open lewdness." Many might disagree with argument.

I could not make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would not constitute "open lewdness."

Anyone want to make that argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would not constitute "open lewdness?" I'm open to listening.

And you don't even need the child to testify it happened; four adult witnesses said he admitted to it.

As for the CYS worker:

A. He said in the press that he had not known about the prior admission; it is unclear if he knew about B. K. or the admission of Sandusky showering with other young boys.

B. It was not his responsibility to prosecute the case.

C. We are not sure if he made his decision before or after RFG made his decision not to prosecute.

Now, that said, there might be an explanation. RFG might not have had the text of the statute in 1998 (it was less than 5 months old) or he just might have been focusing of the "arousal" aspect and missed the "open lewdness" requirement. Like everyone else.

(And I never thought I'd be talking about open lewdness in the Gricar case!)
 
J. J. in Phila said:
That relates to the Sandusky investigation, not the drug ring.






It wasn't a "confession" but an admission to activities. Further it only relates specifically to one charge in the 1998 case, which is a misdemeanor. There are ten other charges into that incident 4 felonies (which might be different degrees for the same action), and 6 other misdemeanors, none of which require "gratification" or "arousal."

The felony is here:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).
(3) Prostitution as defined in section 5902 (relating to
prostitution and related offenses).
(4) Obscene and other sexual materials and performances
as defined in section 5903 (relating to obscene and other
sexual materials and performances).
(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312
(relating to sexual abuse of children).
(6) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in
section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html

I bolded the "Open Lewdness" clause, because of its legal definition:

§ 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

I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to would not constitute "open lewdness." Some might disagree with that argument.

I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and washing back and hair his would not constitute "open lewdness." Many might disagree with argument.

I could not make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would not constitute "open lewdness."

Anyone want to make that argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would not constitute "open lewdness?" I'm open to listening.

And you don't even need the child to testify it happened; four adult witnesses said he admitted to it.

As for the CYS worker:

A. He said in the press that he had not known about the prior admission; it is unclear if he knew about B. K. or the admission of Sandusky showering with other young boys.

B. It was not his responsibility to prosecute the case.

C. We are not sure if he made his decision before or after RFG made his decision not to prosecute.

Now, that said, there might be an explanation. RFG might not have had the text of the statute in 1998 (it was less than 5 months old) or he just might have been focusing of the "arousal" aspect and missed the "open lewdness" requirement. Like everyone else.

(And I never thought I'd be talking about open lewdness in the Gricar case!)
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your information. I am very appreciative. :)
 
Pensfan said:
Thank you for sharing your information. I am very appreciative. :)
Click to expand...

Well, I went to the docket and then looked up the statute; it really wasn't too hard to figure out.

Could you imagine the defense, standing up and saying, "Oh, I don't think it's open lewdness for a naked 55 year old to take a shower with a naked 11 year old boy that he's not related to, and bear hugging him while we were showering." In public. :)

That's not going to pass the giggle test.

Tony has a point on the misdemeanor Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Years of Age. That charge requires "for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant."

http://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2010/title-18/chapter-31/3126/

The felony doesn't require it, but could permit it as well, at least from my reading. The other six misdemeanors don't require anything sexual.

Really, the only thing the defense can do is either to try to say that the victim, and four adult witnesses, including two cops, are all lying, Sandusky himself was lying, or to plead insanity.

I think that some of the charges are very weak against Sandusky. In 2000, Victim 8, they don't have an eye witness or a victim. I think that one might get tossed, and wouldn't too surprised it if there would not guilty verdicts on some of the others. Victim 6, which isn't the most serious incident is probably one of the two that will survive.

And the whole thing is that RFG actually might not have had the updated statute in 1998. It was about five months old when he looked at the case, they were not available until 2007. Granted, if that was the case, he should have checked later. He might have just focused on the "arousal" aspect and missed the open lewdness clause.
 
nanwv said:
Comment following article on Sports by Brooks.

4:15 pm on November 17th, 2011
is this even remotely possible?? :

Thad Will
@thadwill Thad Will

Just heard on the street: Ray Gricar–in witness protection since ‘04–to testify about #Sandusky case. #PSUCharges
20 minutes ago

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/gov-funded-sandusky-pet-project-hid-his-abuse-29901
Click to expand...
While interesting, he wasn't missing in 2004. He didn't go missing until 2005. So that really doesn't make any sense.
 
I wonder what Ray's prosecution record is on child rape and pedophilia.
 
If I was a woman in love with Ray, if I was his daughter, I would get a GPS ap on my phone, and then go out and scour every inch of those woods, looking for at least the bones of my hearts desire.

it just blows my mind...I have seen footage and the questioning...something strikes me is weird and it's not just Patty's weird 80's haircut.
 
Just saw report on HLN that a former FBI Investigator is now heading up an investigation into PSU scandal. Hope there is something to investigate.
 
My issue with WPP is this...

why wouldn't the whole family go into protection? would they turn down the offer? would the age and actual marital status of his daughter and GF play into it?
 
minazoe said:
If I was a woman in love with Ray, if I was his daughter, I would get a GPS ap on my phone, and then go out and scour every inch of those woods, looking for at least the bones of my hearts desire.

it just blows my mind...I have seen footage and the questioning...something strikes me is weird and it's not just Patty's weird 80's haircut.
Click to expand...

Yes, the ground search that some have discussed leaves lots to be desired. From some interviews with LE, there just seemed to be an "air" of detachment, with no urgency
of RG's strange disappearance. Just does not seem right, and I am sure LE has held onto just what is known, and we, the Public, have the "tip of the Iceburg" u know where.
 
minazoe said:
...something strikes me is weird and it's not just Patty's weird 80's haircut.
Click to expand...

lol yinz know much of PA is stuck in the eighties....(I'm from a Stillers town in W PA "Just a Steel Town girl on a Sturday Night..."ala Flashdance);)...I kept thinking, Patty would look so cute in a pixie cut, or even a page boy cut...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 3,295 (members: 76, guests: 3,219)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
3,219
Total visitors
3,295
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,629
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top