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

[SeekingJana]

Good to see you back, Jana.

The question is when any of those other three grand juries were investigating and what were the other three looking at?

Hi, J.J.,
Thanks, I've had an awful upper resp. virus. Hopefully on the mend now.
Yes, I too, wonder when the 3 other GJs met and why no true bill of indictment was returned... That is mind-boggling...

Edited to add: The more details continue to slowly leak out about the MASSIVE cover up of Sandusky's child sex abuse, the more convinced I am that PA has had some very rotten people in positions of power, and I certainly don't mean Ray Gricar.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hi, J.J.,
Thanks, I've had an awful upper resp. virus. Hopefully on the mend now.
Yes, I too, wonder when the 3 other GJs met and why no true bill of indictment was returned... That is mind-boggling...

Edited to add: The more details continue to slowly leak out about the MASSIVE cover up of Sandusky's child sex abuse, the more convinced I am that PA has had some very rotten people in positions of power, and I certainly don't mean Ray Gricar.

I hope you are feeling better.

On the old CDT Forum, someone asked PB about a grand jury (GJ) investigation, and made reference to it being current; the questioner asked if it was linked to RFG's disappearance. This would have been 2006-07; PB never heard about it. It is possible that there was one and they discovered the Sandusky link.

In 2008, I was (and still am) calling for a GJ (and somebody else suggested it first) in the RFG case, on-line. In January of 2009, before the Sandusky GJ, I did a guest blog on it in PB's old blog; I laid out the need for one in the RFG case. Sometime in between, Mr. Buehner speaks in favor of one. Maybe MTM was listening and called one. They could have discovered the link. Possibly SPM was listening and called one. One of them discovered the link.

Maybe the reason RFG didn't prosecute in 1998 was that he called one. I'm actually hoping that is the case.

Possibly, there was an incident in another county and the DA there called one.

Here is some information on the process in PA: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=207

I'm surprised that the investigator didn't mention it, if he were called.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The AG's Office now says there were no prior Grand Jury investigation into Sandusky:

But the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office said that the board’s explanation is wrong because there were no prior grand jury investigations into Sandusky, said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, spokesman for the office.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...state-board-of-trustees-claim-on-sex-scandal/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I could not disagree more. There is no evidence that we are aware ofthat he made the "wrong" decision in 1998, based on what he knew at the time. There is only hindsight fueled by what we learned in 2011. Once PSU releases the 1998 file (don't hold your breath) or the perjury trials and other public legal proceedings begin, then we may learn some interesting things about who knew what when (assuming that people don't continue to commit perjury).

Actually, we do have ample evidence.

In the 1998 incident, we have 11 charges filed against Sandusky, by the AG, based on less evidence than RFG had. We also know that the case was not given to the person who normally prosecuted child abuse cases, JKA. She has indicated her involvement was short. We also know that the investigator has said that there could be charges. We also know that Mr. Amendola chose not to challenge this (or any of the other charges).

More likely, had RG brought charges, Sandusky would have pled to some garbage misdemeanor and that would have been that.

I believe 10 of the 11 charges are misdemeanors, but each is punishable by up to two years in jail. It would have been more than "garbage misdemeanor." It would have warned Penn State, Second Mile, and the community in general that Sandusky should not be around young children, even if it would be a suspended sentence.

Then the 1998 victim and evidence would be useless today. When talking heads on TV and elsewhere talk about what RG would have done, they are either blowing smoke to make themselves look good or never prosecuted a case.

The Attorney General has a long record of prosecuting cases; she brought the charges.

A conviction on the 1998 evidence could have prevented many of the other alleged incidents from taking place. Even then, a conviction then could have used today in establishing a pattern of action and in sentencing.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

New article, with a nice summary of the case:

http://www.phillytrib.com/newsarticles/item/2327-cops-no-closer-to-finding-missing-d-a.html

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Maybe RFG did do more: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/19/3058390/psu-trustees-sandusky-investigated.html

I had always wondered about previous investigations, and now it is revealed about 3 prior Grand Juries into Sandusky.
Coming from you, JJ, the 'maybe RFG did do more' comment is huge.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I had always wondered about previous investigations, and now it is revealed about 3 prior Grand Juries into Sandusky.
Coming from you, JJ, the 'maybe RFG did do more' comment is huge.

First, it is good to see you back.

Other than what I posted about the "Q & A," I have not heard of one. The AG said, however, that there were no other grand juries investigating Sandusky.

So there is a question about the trustees statements:

1. The trustees are lying. I don't see the motivation for lying, especially since it would easily be refuted.

2. Baldwin was lying. Well, maybe, but she's a former State Supreme Court Justice.

3. The AG is lying. Why? No apparent motive. She could easily say, "See, I succeeded where the others failed."

4. The trustees just screwed up the message. They thought Baldwin said that and she didn't.

5. There was another grand jury out there that called PSU personnel, maybe Sandusky, but wasn't investigating Sandusky directly. The questioner didn't specify.

The comment, however, was between 5/10/06 and roughly 3/31/08. The AG's grand jury wasn't empaneled until early 2009.

BTW: I would be overjoyed if RFG did more in the Sandusky case.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

First, it is good to see you back.

Other than what I posted about the "Q & A," I have not heard of one. The AG said, however, that there were no other grand juries investigating Sandusky.

So there is a question about the trustees statements:

1. The trustees are lying. I don't see the motivation for lying, especially since it would easily be refuted.

2. Baldwin was lying. Well, maybe, but she's a former State Supreme Court Justice.

3. The AG is lying. Why? No apparent motive. She could easily say, "See, I succeeded where the others failed."

4. The trustees just screwed up the message. They thought Baldwin said that and she didn't.

5. There was another grand jury out there that called PSU personnel, maybe Sandusky, but wasn't investigating Sandusky directly. The questioner didn't specify.

The comment, however, was between 5/10/06 and roughly 3/31/08. The AG's grand jury wasn't empaneled until early 2009.

BTW: I would be overjoyed if RFG did more in the Sandusky case.

Thanks for the Welcome Back. I had been away, due to the recent passing of my Mother, whom I had been living with and caring for the last year and a half. I have just recently returned to my home, and with lots to do in the aftermath.

Thanks for your insights into the "3 Grand Juries". I need to read more on that issue, as something I have not heard much about. Great Posts since I have been here, and lots to get caught up on !!!

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

I urge the readers to read JJ's blog from last week:


http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/13/3051899/the-odds-january-2012.html

Upon my return, I was going to ask just where the 'Odds' seemed to stand, and I see that has been neatly covered !!!

So murder is 'up', eh ?

 

[SeekingJana]

I'm so sorry about your mother's passing.
Very glad to see you back. Maybe we will uncover a few more off the wall anecdotes to laugh about, eh?

This case really gets to me after a while.. My humor is never meant to be disrespectful but simply to lighten the gloom a bit..

I,too, have pretty much reached the conclusion that Mr. Gricar is deceased.
It's just so hard to let go of all hope of him being alive... but I have.
The Sandusky crimes and extreme coverup has opened my eyes to the evil around Ray Gricar.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks for the Welcome Back. I had been away, due to the recent passing of my Mother, whom I had been living with and caring for the last year and a half. I have just recently returned to my home, and with lots to do in the aftermath.

Thanks for your insights into the "3 Grand Juries". I need to read more on that issue, as something I have not heard much about. Great Posts since I have been here, and lots to get caught up on !!!

Quite sorry about the passing of your mother, I was in the same situation with my father in 2007. In my case it was 22 years. That is why I understand some of what Lara Gricar had to do and her emotional reaction.

Other than that one comment, I have heard nothing prior to any grand jury prior the statement from the Board of Trustees.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I urge the readers to read JJ's blog from last week:


http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/13/3051899/the-odds-january-2012.html

Upon my return, I was going to ask just where the 'Odds' seemed to stand, and I see that has been neatly covered !!!

So murder is 'up', eh ?

Yes. The more credible and corroborated witnesses that exist that put RFG alive after 4/6/05, the less likely it is that he was murdered. The "meeting for murder" scenario becomes weaker in particular. The sighting that really weakened that scenario is the Wiles-Barre sighting. Now that sighting is off the table.

Every other post 4/15 sighting, including Lewisburg 4/16/05, is not a strong sighting. All are possible, but I don't give any above 50%.

Taking out the Wilkes-Barre sighting is really the only thing since 1/1/06 that has strengthened any murder scenario, singularly.

Ironically, a lot has come out that weakened suicide, but that strengthened both foul play and walkaway.

Jana's comment "the evil around Ray Gricar" really comes into play. We know that McQueary did not want to be seen talking to investigators and met them in an out of way place.

McQueary, a 6'4" tall, 27 year old with flaming red hair, is never going to be mistaken for the "Mystery Woman." Could it be someone else? The purpose would not be limited to PSU. It could be another large institution in Centre County, like County government, or Rockview State Prison? Could he have been meeting someone for information something like corruption in one of those institutions?

The lowest I've ever had murder was 40%, about 11 months ago. It is slowly creeping up.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Yes. The more credible and corroborated witnesses that exist that put RFG alive after 4/6/05, the less likely it is that he was murdered. The "meeting for murder" scenario becomes weaker in particular. The sighting that really weakened that scenario is the Wiles-Barre sighting. Now that sighting is off the table.

Every other post 4/15 sighting, including Lewisburg 4/16/05, is not a strong sighting. All are possible, but I don't give any above 50%.

Taking out the Wilkes-Barre sighting is really the only thing since 1/1/06 that has strengthened any murder scenario, singularly.

Ironically, a lot has come out that weakened suicide, but that strengthened both foul play and walkaway.

Jana's comment "the evil around Ray Gricar" really comes into play. We know that McQueary did not want to be seen talking to investigators and met them in an out of way place.

McQueary, a 6'4" tall, 27 year old with flaming red hair, is never going to be mistaken for the "Mystery Woman." Could it be someone else? The purpose would not be limited to PSU. It could be another large institution in Centre County, like County government, or Rockview State Prison? Could he have been meeting someone for information something like corruption in one of those institutions?

The lowest I've ever had murder was 40%, about 11 months ago. It is slowly creeping up.

Yes, the comment Jana made, 'the evil around Ray Gricar' does seem to come into play. Another thought I had, increasing the odds of murder, is in consideration of the extended time since 4-16, along with no other 'credible' sightings, also increases the odds of murder. What the heck, we are approaching the 7 year mark. If Ray Gricar would still be alive, I think something would have surfaced in some regard. I suppose I am doing some re-thinking on this case, as it surely seems cold.

PS: Not giving UP !!!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, the comment Jana made, 'the evil around Ray Gricar' does seem to come into play. Another thought I had, increasing the odds of murder, is in consideration of the extended time since 4-16, along with no other 'credible' sightings, also increases the odds of murder. What the heck, we are approaching the 7 year mark. If Ray Gricar would still be alive, I think something would have surfaced in some regard. I suppose I am doing some re-thinking on this case, as it surely seems cold.

PS: Not giving UP !!!

First, I'm quite glad for your PS.

Second, the time since would not make a difference. Some of that could be an unfound body after suicide. Some of that could be leaving the country. Some of that could be the numerous uncorroborated might contain real sightings. Some of that could be RFG dying in the time between his disappearance, after leaving voluntarily, and today.

There is more evidence that RFG left voluntarily than that he was murdered, but it is not strong evidence.

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

First, I'm quite glad for your PS.

Second, the time since would not make a difference. Some of that could be an unfound body after suicide. Some of that could be leaving the country. Some of that could be the numerous uncorroborated might contain real sightings. Some of that could be RFG dying in the time between his disappearance, after leaving voluntarily, and today.

There is more evidence that RFG left voluntarily than that he was murdered, but it is not strong evidence.

I offer the Post Script as reason to continue on in this most perplexing case...there has been good material offered here.

Now, if the 'uncorroborated' sightings have been taken as dead-end no answers (because LE has just flat out said so), then we need to corroborate those stories perhaps, or at least seriously challenge dead end responses that have been given, without reasons why !

Even though not strong evidence, you still have high percentages running with Walk Away ! I have yet to read anything regarding Ray Gricar and his Slovenian ties or relations there.

BTW: Is this the January slowdown here ?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I offer the Post Script as reason to continue on in this most perplexing case...there has been good material offered here.

Now, if the 'uncorroborated' sightings have been taken as dead-end no answers (because LE has just flat out said so), then we need to corroborate those stories perhaps, or at least seriously challenge dead end responses that have been given, without reasons why !

LE has ruled some out, but there the 4/16 and 5/27 sightings are considered "credible." The witnesses are good and they have not been ruled out.

Even though not strong evidence, you still have high percentages running with Walk Away ! I have yet to read anything regarding Ray Gricar and his Slovenian ties or relations there.

BTW: Is this the January slowdown here ?

I would not say "high." I would say "higher." All the evidence out there, possibly excepting where the laptop was located, is consistent with walkaway. Most of the evidence also fits murder.

That was mentioned in a few blogs. He had distance cousins there and had visited Slovenia. I'm told that some of the photos in his office were of these cousins.

I'm doing some endurance tests, so I've been away from my computer.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

JJ, thanks for the thoughtful response to my post. To focus on one aspect of your response, can you provide a link that corroborates that Sandusky was a tenured professor? Most people are aware that Paterno was a tenured professor, but it is highly unusual for an assistant to hold such a position. I can't think of a single example in Div I sports, as assistants are usually cut loose when the head coach is fired or takes a better position. If this statement is true, what rank does he hold? I haven't found a single reference to his academic status in any article. Thanks, in advance.

I don't agree that all of the evidence supports walkaway. I am not convinced that RG was ever in Lewisburg, although I will grant that his car was left there and we can count that as a concrete fact. In addition, the fact is that there has been no known activity on his social security number and no indication he had the kind of money to support the 20+ most expensive years in an individual person's life (ages 60-80+). It takes about a million dollars cash to produce $40,000 a year, which is not much to live on if you don't have health insurance or medicare as you move into old age. I know I worry about living on more than that once I retire, if I can in fact afford to retire by age 70. Moreover, there is evidence that RG maintained consistent, affectionate contact with his daughter and there is no evidence that he was willing to "walk away" from her, or for that fact, others in his life, however much people speculate to the contrary. The "evidence" in Lewisburg can more easily be explained by staging than by RG as a walkaway (e.g., the cigarette smell and ash, the lack of RG's scent beyond the car, and the lack of NEED for a man retiring with full pension to walkaway, for starters.) Mostly, I don't see a reason for RG to walkaway that doesn't involve ignoring what the public knew about as a professional and what we learned about him as a private person.

 

[SeekingJana]

First, I'm quite glad for your PS.

Second, the time since would not make a difference. Some of that could be an unfound body after suicide. Some of that could be leaving the country. Some of that could be the numerous uncorroborated might contain real sightings. Some of that could be RFG dying in the time between his disappearance, after leaving voluntarily, and today.

There is more evidence that RFG left voluntarily than that he was murdered, but it is not strong evidence.

J.J., chances are, none of us will solve this missing person case.. but for me, at least, Ray Gricar is important. All the missing are, but he wasn't a drunk teen at a rock concert, or a runaway.. didn't engage in high- risk activities that we know of, IOW. ( One Cleveland trip and some possible speeding in a car meant for the wind in your hair kind of driving). Not high risk at all.
Some of the Missing cases, I read ths circumstances and just shake my head because it's so obvious that the person lacked the personal or mental resources to survive a high- risk lifestyle.
Like a few of the pretty young girls who hung around with 10 different guys now listed as possible POIs. Their cases are here on WS, but it really doesn't take a genius to realize that they were someone's victim a long time ago.

Ray Gricar is a man worth caring about, praying for, and trying to find answers for his disappearance. His demographics are not in a high risk category unless the Sandusky proximity got him killed almost 7 years ago now.
I am also continually intrigued by how little is known about Ray Gricar personally--- or how limited his personal interactions were, one or the other.
In any case, unless I find out that he was a Pedophile like Sandusky ( which is too far off the radar to even chart), I will care.
And I know you and Lord C. will care!

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Check that--I just found a Boston Globe piece that indicates Sandusky was an assistant professor, no tenure. Thus, he could have been fired in 1998 has PSU chosen to do so. Even tenured faculty can be fired, for cause, and improprieties with minors would indeed be cause for termination. Instead he was allowed to "retire," was given the courtesy title of "professor emeritus," as well as keys, etc.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, thanks for the thoughtful response to my post. To focus on one aspect of your response, can you provide a link that corroborates that Sandusky was a tenured professor? Most people are aware that Paterno was a tenured professor, but it is highly unusual for an assistant to hold such a position. I can't think of a single example in Div I sports, as assistants are usually cut loose when the head coach is fired or takes a better position. If this statement is true, what rank does he hold? I haven't found a single reference to his academic status in any article. Thanks, in advance.

Here: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ndusky-saga/UC12lcJFWTZ5DDl2lZkY8I/story.html

His actual title was assistant professor (the lowest rank), and the article says it was common when Sandusky was granted it, in 1975.

I don't agree that all of the evidence supports walkaway.

Cite one piece of evidence that could not point to walkaway. Actual evidence, not theory. I will grant you that a lot of it does not exclusively point to walkaway, but all of it could point to walkaway.

I am not convinced that RG was ever in Lewisburg, although I will grant that his car was left there and we can count that as a concrete fact.

The witnesses, dog, cell call, and DNA all say otherwise.

In addition, the fact is that there has been no known activity on his social security number and no indication he had the kind of money to support the 20+ most expensive years in an individual person's life (ages 60-80+).

Money is one of the key factors. He was making more than $100 K/year and wasn't spending it. Where is it?

Moreover, there is evidence that RG maintained consistent, affectionate contact with his daughter and there is no evidence that he was willing to "walk away" from her, or for that fact, others in his life, however much people speculate to the contrary.

And, as noted, she would benefit, quite well, from his voluntary departure. That does not it was a voluntary departure.