PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #8

[SeekingJana]

I know we've covered this ground before, but I can't sleep without first saying that although Ray Cricar's name is connected with Vic 6- Vic 6 is the only one who was NOT raped, and NOT abused like the other boys reported. It is the earliest KNOWN case to date ( I don't think it was the first by decades, FWIW).

RAY GRICAR is not tainted by Sandusky's actions with regard to his processing of Vic 6s case at the time. In hindsight, with all that happened later, it is easy to point the finge at a missing and possibly deceased man who cannot speak for himself..

A DA has the choice to prosecute or not. The reasonable standard for prosecution was not there, in his expert opinion. For some reason which I do not believe is related to his actions, there is no documentation by him which has been released to date and may not exist any longer.

NONE of this means that he was less than diligent, less than concerned, or less than one heck of a good DA and a good man.

Have you all read the complete GJ presentment summary? Until you do, please reserve judgment on what Ray Gricar did. Read every word of every accusation against Sandusky. Read what happened with Vic. 6. Read what happened with the others. Compare.

I've read it over 5 times, just to put the cases in order and context mentally.
Victim 6's case is notable for the fact that his mother was successful in eliciting the only known possilbe halfway confession from Sandusky, but is the the weakest case in terms of criminal prosecution.
I cannot be sorry. He is fortunate, as he didn't have to recover physically and emotionally from the sicko's rapes.

JJ, I think you are so wrong to say that Ray Gricar showed an incredible lapse in judgment. You don't know what he knew. You just THINK you know, but you do not. I happen to think that Gricar looked at PA case law, studied other case histories and the outcomes and used the best possible reasoning available to him concerning the specifics of Vic 6's case. Period.

Sansusky told Vic 6's mother that he wished he were dead. ( I wish he had been dead right then and there too. Maybe Ray would be alive).

Thanks for reading my opinion. Unless something new is released that directly links DA Ray Gricar to another Sandusky case, the matter is closed, as far as I am concerned.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I know we've covered this ground before, but I can't sleep without first saying that although Ray Cricar's name is connected with Vic 6- Vic 6 is the only one who was NOT raped, and NOT abused like the other boys reported. It is the earliest KNOWN case to date ( I don't think it was the first by decades, FWIW).

RAY GRICAR is not tainted by Sandusky's actions with regard to his processing of Vic 6s case at the time. In hindsight, with all that happened later, it is easy to point the finge at a missing and possibly deceased man who cannot speak for himself..

A DA has the choice to prosecute or not. The reasonable standard for prosecution was not there, in his expert opinion. For some reason which I do not believe is related to his actions, there is no documentation by him which has been released to date and may not exist any longer.

First, it very clearly was not rape; I have gone out of my way to say that. Second, there has no that he had the decision was his within his discretion as a prosecutor. I've said that I do not feel that he abused his discretion.

The investigator on the case said yesterday that there was enough evidence to charge Sandusky in 1998 on some of the charges. The AG has charged charged him in relation to the incident, with the same evidence. Sandusky could have challenged that on 12/13/11, but he did not. I would call that expert opinion.

The question is if Ray Gricar used good judgment in making that decision? He did not. I was, for example, very critical of MTM. I was critical of his judgment, but, with one exception, I did not question if he was acting inappropriately (and that was not in a blog).

There is also the question of if he should have done more, in terms investigating, like calling a grand jury. Did he show good judgment in not investigating further? He did not.

NONE of this means that he was less than diligent, less than concerned, or less than one heck of a good DA and a good man.

I've called the decision an anomaly; the more I look, the more anomalous it becomes. It was not typical of his cases, at least so far as I can determine. And yes, I've read the grand jury report and looked at the legal definition of the charges.

Thanks for reading my opinion. Unless something new is released that directly links DA Ray Gricar to another Sandusky case, the matter is closed, as far as I am concerned.

The problem is that the decision was an anomaly. It may be related, directly or indirectly, to his disappearance (which is also an anomaly).

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

Baby girl, let me tell ya-- You do the limbo barefoot.
You don't want any extra height.
~~ From the tallest female limbo dancer at the party. :rocker:

lolol!! Thats perfect! I am better off WITHOUT shoes!! .....don't have too far to fall that way! ....

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

I am wondering why I am just reading this-but it blows my mind.

So, The "monsters" attorney-Joe Amendola represents a 16 year old girl, who wants to be "emancipated" from her parents. Still not sure if he won that case, but he DID get her pregnant and marry her when she was 23. ---(be right back i'm sick)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am wondering why I am just reading this-but it blows my mind.

So, The "monsters" attorney-Joe Amendola represents a 16 year old girl, who wants to be "emancipated" from her parents. Still not sure if he won that case, but he DID get her pregnant and marry her when she was 23. ---(be right back i'm sick)

He won and it is legal in Pennsylvania.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

He won and it is legal in Pennsylvania.

I understand that perfectly. And that in Pennslyvania, there is also a HUGE leap between what is legal, and what is moral.

 

[cj327]

Low flows for Susquehanna at Lewisburg PA from April to Nov. 2005.

Sorry I am not good with posting images on here, but here is a link to the file for those who are interested in when the low flows occurred during 2005.

I will make another graph that shows the big picture (high flows too).

Now, I would have converted the flow rate data (cubic ft per second) to gauge height for this graph, however the relationship between those two variables was complex (non-linear for sure)...and I didn't want to use a less than perfect model, so I am just showing actual flow rate with a couple of reference values. Maybe later I will show it as gauge height, if I come up with the right model.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28107810/LowFlow2005.JPG

 

[cj327]

And here is the big picture for 2005 river levels. Max flow was 105,000 cubic feet per second, which is about 18.0 to 19.0 feet on the river gauge. Low flow was 903 CFS, which was about 1.0 foot on the gauge.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28107810/AllFlows2005.JPG

 

[quixote]

Honey, not to beat a dead horse or a dead Dupont, but are you aware that, much like Sandusky with TSM, Dupont had a very elite room and board type of training facility at the Duport mansion for several years where young ( very young) males trained with Schultz and Dupont was right in the thick of it? Not saying he abused anyone, but my hinky meter went ZOOM when I learned it.
The young guys would be very vunerable since they were living with Dupont, even if they could wrestle..

It stands to reason that anything he had would be elite. While I'm in that general area, my life was much different at the time, so I didn't fully follow all of the story. duPont certainly redlined my creepometer, and I wouldn't put much of anything past him. Part of me thinks the lure of a moneygrab would have caused some accusations by now, but on the other hand, a duPont would have plenty of "hush money" to pay out in advance...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Low flows for Susquehanna at Lewisburg PA from April to Nov. 2005.

Sorry I am not good with posting images on here, but here is a link to the file for those who are interested in when the low flows occurred during 2005.

I will make another graph that shows the big picture (high flows too).

Now, I would have converted the flow rate data (cubic ft per second) to gauge height for this graph, however the relationship between those two variables was complex (non-linear for sure)...and I didn't want to use a less than perfect model, so I am just showing actual flow rate with a couple of reference values. Maybe later I will show it as gauge height, if I come up with the right model.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28107810/LowFlow2005.JPG

Thank you.

In general, Lewisburg had a dry August, and a wet early September 2005. The drive would probably be in and out of the water.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

By the way, this afternoon I found an old laptop in my garage. It is probably mid-late 1990s and is non-functional, but it looked like it would be similar enough to a 2003-04 era laptop in terms of the case etc. that it might behave similarly in water... Maybe I will check the density and sink it in the bathtub! I was going to get rid of it anyway. Actually it's my wife's but she wouldn't miss it. Though it might be hard to explain to her why I would do something like give it a bath!

I will check the low water levels during late spring to early fall 2005 for Lewisburg.

Perhaps it could be used for our Bridge Toss Contest, too !!! With some fishing line attached, so there is no littering, of course.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Perhaps it could be used for our Bridge Toss Contest, too !!! With some fishing line attached, so there is no littering, of course.

A simulation might be possible.

 

[SeekingJana]

Perhaps it could be used for our Bridge Toss Contest, too !!! With some fishing line attached, so there is no littering, of course.

Your droll humor is a bright spot on this forum. So good that we are seeing the same things. Sad but also hard not to LOL at your wit with it.

I changed my avatar because wishing on falling stars seems to be as effective in " some matters" related to this case as anything else.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

The investigator on the case said yesterday that there was enough evidence to charge Sandusky in 1998 on some of the charges. The AG has charged charged him in relation to the incident, with the same evidence. Sandusky could have challenged that on 12/13/11, but he did not. I would call that expert opinion.

The question is if Ray Gricar used good judgment in making that decision? He did not. I was, for example, very critical of MTM. I was critical of his judgment, but, with one exception, I did not question if he was acting inappropriately (and that was not in a blog).

There is also the question of if he should have done more, in terms investigating, like calling a grand jury. Did he show good judgment in not investigating further? He did not.

I've called the decision an anomaly; the more I look, the more anomalous it becomes. It was not typical of his cases, at least so far as I can determine. And yes, I've read the grand jury report and looked at the legal definition of the charges.

The problem is that the decision was an anomaly. It may be related, directly or indirectly, to his disappearance (which is also an anomaly).

Well, this is all 20-20 hindsight. Now we have a number of other accusers. Now the original young men (children, then, really) are not children and can speak for themselves. Now there is (as I have said ad nauseum) an eyewitness of the 2002 incident who was willing and able to talk about sexual contact, a witness who should be a highly credible figure as he was an adult at the time, although the media assault on McQueary should give us all pause to consider why so many people were willing to keep quiet. Powerful men like Sandusky don't go to prison quietly and are willing to take down their accusers.

Here is what the child welfare investigator of the 1998 case has said:

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, interviewed Sandusky on June 1, 1998, along with Schreffler. During the interview, Sandusky admitted to showering naked with Victim 6 and hugging the 11-year-old boy while in the shower. Sandusky admitted his behavior was wrong.
Lauro said the findings of the 1998 investigation did not meet the state's definition of child abuse. Lauro said he made his decision based on "available evidence at the time."
He said their investigation included nothing like the accounts of oral sex and alleged rape that have since been made by other alleged victims in testimony to the grand jury.
"All I had were boundaries issues," he said. "It didn't rise to the level of child abuse by the laws of Pennsylvania."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/10/v-print/132730/sandusky-penn-state-police-chief.html

I am not an attorney. I am not an expert in PA child abuse laws, nor am I an expert in the prosecution of child abuse cases in PA. We do not have Ray Gricar here to ask him why he didn't prosecute, but Lauro's statement above is one significant indicator as to why this case didn't go to prosecution. If the child welfare investigator says what he investigated "didn't rise to the level of child abuse" in Pennsylvania--boy, that's a great witness for the defense. A DA wouldn't get beyond the preliminary hearing with that and the vague statement "I wish I were dead."

If RG were here, and knew what we know now, it is highly likely that he would be the first one to regret not doing more or going forward. These judgments are made every day by local police officers, magistrates, child welfare workers, prosecutors, and judges, who have to make judgments about what cases to bring. Having watched the Casey Anthony trial, I had no doubt that her butt would be in prison for life, as the evidence seemed overwhelming, and really anyone with a modicum of common sense could see she was guilty. Or so I thought. The fact is, without a body, murder is hard to prove, and without a witness, no one could definitively tie CA to her child's death. All her attorney had to do was be willing to through her father under the bus as a child molester.

A DA bringing charges against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 in Centre County would have needed a lot of PROOF of child sexual abuse--proof that the child had been touched, etc. At that point, Sandusky's reputation was spotless. How soon, then, before the child and his mother would have been thrown under the bus, quite publicly, and 12 Centre County PSU fans would have believed Sandusky and not some troubled child? The state's attorneys can now go back to the original investigation as part of a far larger probe that looks at multiple counts and victims. So of course now they can bring those charges because they are part of a criminal pattern of behavior.

Take a look at how the Bernie Fine case played out in Syracuse when that started--and in that case, there was a tape in which Fine's wife admitted that Fine had a problem. Two major media outlets sat on that tape and Fine stayed on as an assistant coach. It's easy for a non-DA to say "RG should have prosecuted" or "he should have turned this over to the state's attorney," etc. But even in 2011, with multiple victims, eyewitnesses to contact, and a media firestorm, Sandusky walked away from his original arraignment with no bond and no monitoring. It took a national outcry and even more charges to get him into an ankle bracelet. And the attempt to discredit McQueary shows how the defense will go about trying to get Sandusky acquitted--by attacking witnesses.

Police and prosecutors often know who committed a crime but can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore do not file charges. To try someone and lose is to lose ANY chance of ever getting a conviction. In this case, the problem was proving the crime. Naked showering and "hugging" weren't going to get Sandusky a felony conviction, not with only one victim and not without a finding of abuse by child welfare agents. But now, that investigation (which is on the record) may go a long way toward corroborating Victim 1's current allegations. So while we can all regret that Sandusky wasn't stopped sooner, the fact that RG didn't try and lose the 1998 case may seal Sandusky's fate now.

 

[abstr]

You have come this far, don't let us hang ! Pray tell !

It probably was only funny to me anyway...and my humor tends to be dirty on the 8th grade level (If an 8th grader heard of Lady Chatterly) :floorlaugh:

 

[abstr]

And I may have to yield to the 3rd category, awaiting abstyr's reply !

Well...I am in the second category I hope. In this forum I am just a bystander listening to opinions. I became interested because I "knew" J. Luna. ( I crossed paths with him in a very casual way....and was just floored when he died.)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, this is all 20-20 hindsight. Now we have a number of other accusers. Now the original young men (children, then, really) are not children and can speak for themselves. Now there is (as I have said ad nauseum) an eyewitness of the 2002 incident who was willing and able to talk about sexual contact, a witness who should be a highly credible figure as he was an adult at the time, although the media assault on McQueary should give us all pause to consider why so many people were willing to keep quiet. Powerful men like Sandusky don't go to prison quietly and are willing to take down their accusers.

Well, the detective doing the investigation said this:

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday,

Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1h80kA8kk


Lauro indicated that he made his decision after RFG made the decision not to prosecute:

‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I [Lauro] said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.”2

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

Now, I'm not defending Lauro's decision at all, but it looks like RFG made his decision prior to Lauro's decision. Lauro has said that he wasn't influenced by RFG's decision.

I am not an attorney. I am not an expert in PA child abuse laws, nor am I an expert in the prosecution of child abuse cases in PA. We do not have Ray Gricar here to ask him why he didn't prosecute, but Lauro's statement above is one significant indicator as to why this case didn't go to prosecution. If the child welfare investigator says what he investigated "didn't rise to the level of child abuse" in Pennsylvania--boy, that's a great witness for the defense. A DA wouldn't get beyond the preliminary hearing with that and the vague statement "I wish I were dead."

We do know that another prosecutor looked at the same evidence, and didn't have access to one witness, and is prosecuting. We also do know that the probable cause to prosecute was there, that minimum threshold, to try Sandusky. His attorney did not challenge it.

If RG were here, and knew what we know now, it is highly likely that he would be the first one to regret not doing more or going forward. These judgments are made every day by local police officers, magistrates, child welfare workers, prosecutors, and judges, who have to make judgments about what cases to bring. [/quote]

I'm sure he would, just as I'm sure MTM would regret some of his official action, even those in the RFG investigation. That does not change the fact that he took them. Nor does his presumed "regret" change the fact of RFG's decision.

A DA bringing charges against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 in Centre County would have needed a lot of PROOF of child sexual abuse--proof that the child had been touched, etc.

You had the victim, possibly another victim, and then the mother, and two LE officers as witnesses to Sandusky's admission. It only becomes a question is any of these are believable, and if the act constituted some or all of the 11 charges filed. Frankly, these are some of the most credible charges filed against Sandusky.

And there is another question regarding RFG's conduct. Why did he not investigate further? He had the tools.

Naked showering and "hugging" weren't going to get Sandusky a felony conviction, not with only one victim and not without a finding of abuse by child welfare agents. But now, that investigation (which is on the record) may go a long way toward corroborating Victim 1's current allegations. So while we can all regret that Sandusky wasn't stopped sooner, the fact that RG didn't try and lose the 1998 case may seal Sandusky's fate now.

And this raises two other points.

1. Hugging, in this regard, can fall under the Open Lewdness clause of the felony in this incident. [§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor: http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html] In fact, other DA's have charged under that section, competent DA's. It has been upheld by the courts.

Open Lewdness in PA is defined as:
§ 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

So tell me, do you think that the average person would be affronted or alarmed, by being bear hugged in this manor, naked? Do you think someone walking in would be affronted or alarmed? Do you just think it is fine to do that?

2. Even if there was not a conviction on the felony charges, there would have been on the misdemeanors. That would have warned the community, inclusive of The Second Mile, that it wasn't a good idea to permit Sandusky to be alone with young children.

In the Fall of 2009, critical of MTM:


http://www.centredaily.com/2009/10/07/2396419/the-investigation-conclusions.html#storylink=cpy

My criticism of MTM was not that he failed to find out what happened to RFG, but that he didn't try to find out. In this case, and it seems to be a rarity, I would say the same thing about RFG.

 

[BigCat]

**Respectfully shortened**

My criticism of MTM was not that he failed to find out what happened to RFG, but that he didn't try to find out. In this case, and it seems to be a rarity, I would say the same thing about RFG.

I was surprised to hear MTM on "Dateline" say, emphatically, that RFG's disappearance was not related to the Sandsusky case. How can he so boldly rule it out? Has MTM said what he believes happened to RFG?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I was surprised to hear MTM on "Dateline" say, emphatically, that RFG's disappearance was not related to the Sandsusky case. How can he so boldly rule it out? Has MTM said what he believes happened to RFG?

Do you have a link? I didn't hear that.

 

[BigCat]

Do you have a link? I didn't hear that.

I'll see if I can find a clip of the interview. If someone has it DVR'd and wants to double check, I thought he said it in the last ten minutes of the show.