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

[J. J. in Phila]

Just MOO I truely think he found out about EVerything, and motive to get rid of him when he would not go along with these people.

I think one of the problems with that theory. Why did it take them nearly 7 years to get around to it?

 

[quixote]

A few pages back, I referenced a message board post. I sent a "private message" to the poster. The exchange is below, with my message in bold, and the reply in italics:

Out of curiousity, how do you "know" Penn State officials "continuously nagged Gricar" not to press charges?? If you put it out there as fact, you should have the decency to explain.

It is just something I know to be fact. How I know is not from a link I can post so everybody can go and read the information themselves, and it is most certainly not something I am going to explain on a message board.

If you choose to not believe what I wrote that is fine.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A few pages back, I referenced a message board post. I sent a "private message" to the poster. The exchange is below, with my message in bold, and the reply in italics:

Out of curiousity, how do you "know" Penn State officials "continuously nagged Gricar" not to press charges?? If you put it out there as fact, you should have the decency to explain.

It is just something I know to be fact. How I know is not from a link I can post so everybody can go and read the information themselves, and it is most certainly not something I am going to explain on a message board.

If you choose to not believe what I wrote that is fine.

So far, I've not seen evidence of it. He did complain about "crazy football fans" to friends whenever he prosecuted a player. I've never seen any evidence about anyone official pressuring him.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I found a photo of Joe Paterno taken on 4/15/05. If the link doesn't work, it #46 in the photostream.

http://photos.denverpost.com/2011/11/08/photos-penn-state-football-coach-joe-paterno/24019/#46

Paterno was in State College at spring training. From the shadows, it appears to be late afternoon (after 4:30 PM at least), or early morning (prior to 9:00 AM). It looks like it was in the afternoon: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...nittany-lions-spring-football-practice-primer

His clothing is a sweatshirt pulled over a regular dress shirt, so that might give some indication of of how warm it felt.

A few people have wondered about the weather and RFG clothing. RFG was wearing a fleece pullover.

 

[BigCat]

There's been some scuttlebutt on the Penn State football boards about a possible chat/discussion in 2004/2005 concerning the 2001 shower incident. Obviously, the timeframe is an interesting one in terms of RFG's disappearance. Unfortunately, even though multiple people claimed to have seen it, as of yet, no one has produced a transcript.

I only bring it up here because Mike McQueary testified during the C&S preliminary hearing that he has "absolutely" told other people about the shower incident since February of 2001. If it wasn't MM himself discussing the incident on the fooball boards, it could have been someone he told or someone who heard the story second hand. It's a possibility.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There's been some scuttlebutt on the Penn State football boards about a possible chat/discussion in 2004/2005 concerning the 2001 shower incident. Obviously, the timeframe is an interesting one in terms of RFG's disappearance. Unfortunately, even though multiple people claimed to have seen it, as of yet, no one has produced a transcript.

I only bring it up here because Mike McQueary testified during the C&S preliminary hearing that he has "absolutely" told other people about the shower incident since February of 2001. If it wasn't MM himself discussing the incident on the fooball boards, it could have been someone he told or someone who heard the story second hand. It's a possibility.

I've been getting questions on it, and it was posted on here before. No, I don't know about it.

 

[quixote]

I'm pretty sure that MM used to post on the "Fight on State" board, or, at the very least, had a friendship with the person who runs it. My brother is a sportswriter by trade, and knows the person who runs it. I know some have indicated that MM's brother also posted there. I don't know that the software used for the "chat" portion of the site would keep a log of the various chats, but I'm not sure about that. FWIW, I also had another exchange with the person who claims to know that PSU pressured Gricar not to press charges, but the obvious immaturity of the person made it a complete and utter waste of my time. They offer nothing to move things forward, and I'm done pursuing that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm pretty sure that MM used to post on the "Fight on State" board, or, at the very least, had a friendship with the person who runs it. My brother is a sportswriter by trade, and knows the person who runs it. I know some have indicated that MM's brother also posted there. I don't know that the software used for the "chat" portion of the site would keep a log of the various chats, but I'm not sure about that. FWIW, I also had another exchange with the person who claims to know that PSU pressured Gricar not to press charges, but the obvious immaturity of the person made it a complete and utter waste of my time. They offer nothing to move things forward, and I'm done pursuing that.

Freeh didn't find anything, at least in what was released (but his premise that the Seasock report did it was silly).

Even before I heard the name Sandusky, Buehner indicated that RFG never talked to him about pressure from Penn State.

Looking at some of RFG's cases, especially the Phillips case, which could have been damaging to Paterno, I have not seen a pattern where he'd back off.

I have heard some rumors about RFG not prosecuting, but telling someone (maybe Sandusky, maybe someone at Penn State) that Sandusky needed help with the problem, but nothing solid.

I wouldn't rule it out entirely, but it lacks evidence.

 

[Datchery]

Hi, all. I’ve recently become fascinated with the Gricar case, and just wanted to run some thoughts by those who have spent far more time than I have analyzing it, especially J. J.

I consider murder the least likely scenario. The fact that Gricar had previously done a search for destroying a hard drive could, as J. J. has suggested, be nothing more than a coincidence. However, it is difficult for me to imagine a reason that a murderer would have taken pains to dump the laptop and hard drive. Even if the killer assumed that Gricar had damaging information on the laptop, there would be no reason to assume a)that Gricar hadn’t already shared that information with others b) that the information wasn’t backed up on a flash drive, his home computer, or on paper. Combined with the knowledge that Gricar himself had looked into ways to destroy a hard drive, as well as the effect of water damage on laptops, I think this makes it far more probable that the disappearance was the result of some premeditation on Gricar’s part.

That leaves us with suicide or walkaway. Which one is more probable depends, I think, on whether you consider it more fantastic that a man would have both the inclination and means to vanish and start a new life, or that a man could kill himself without authorities finding the body after an exhaustive search. I’m not sure myself, but I do think that it is unlikely that, if Gricar did commit suicide, he did so by jumping into the Susquehana, since the body would probably have been found in that case. Rather, I think he may have killed himself elsewhere while deliberately staging a misleading crime scene for police. If this seems fanciful, consider that this was a man with a lot of experience with crime who could have anticipated what the police would do and had, apparently, been interested before in a parallel story of a missing DA.

What is more important, to me, is the question of why. People commit suicide for any number of reasons, but Gricar also, it seems, had something specific to hide that led him to get rid of the computer.

This leads me to the Penn State case. Obviously, there is no guarantee that there is any link between Gricar’s disappearance and the Sandusky investigation, and I’m not sure if a direct connection is even likely. I do think, however, that we need to consider the possibility that whatever Gricar was so determined to hide may also be the explanation for why he didn’t press harder in 1998. As J. J. has shown, there is no evidence that Gricar was bribed or even pressured to drop the investigation. On the other hand, not only was Gricar’s decision spectacularly bad judgment – and not just in hindsight – at odds with his usual record, he also deliberately excluded from the case the department’s usual child abuse expert. This makes the decision suddenly appear less innocent.

So, if he wasn’t paid off, why drop the case? The best answer I can think of is blackmail. J. J, I know you’ve said that there is no evidence of that. But frankly, there’s no evidence of much of anything (no records, no body, no note, no motive), and blackmail, especially if it was exerted subtly, would be likely to have less of a paper trail than, for instance, a bribe. A pointed remark that served as a veiled warning might have been enough, especially in 1998, when we weren’t yet talking about something quite as serious as child rape.

I’m not going to speculate openly about what in Gricar’s life might have left him susceptible to blackmail, and, of course, I have no evidence of anything that would call his character into question. I do think that the bizarre proposal to the woman he had just met might be some indication of either a degree of instability or an eccentricity, especially in romantic matters, that might have also had other, more compromising manifestations.

Even if I’m right, this doesn’t mean that Gricar was being blackmailed in 2005. Rather, it might provide insight into why someone who was about to kill himself or disappear – for whatever reason – might want to destroy his laptop. If the laptop contained evidence of whatever secret had forced a man of integrity to drop a good case seven years earlier, he might well have wanted it destroyed before leaving his old life behind.

Thoughts? Is there a particular reason that you've dismissed the blackmail scenario as unlikely, J. J?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Welcome Datchery.

First, LE is saying, at least privately, and with SPM's comments a few years ago, that homicide is the least likely. Based on what has been released, I would not call foul play the least like. I would not call it the most likely either.

Second, I cannot find any evidence of blackmail, either with RFG being the victim or the blackmailer. There were no unexplained regular cash withdrawals nor did RFG suddenly seem to receive unexplained income.

As for RFG being a potential victim, there is another problem. Anything politically or personally embarrassing really wouldn't make too much of a difference in the near future. He wasn't planning to run for anything or even practice law in 8 1/2 months. Why would he care? That would leave something illegal, but, so far, there is nothing.

Third, I agree with your assessment of the body not being in the river. The search was possibly the greatest of any search of the Susquehanna. I could find no example of a body going into the river in the Lewisburg area and not being recovered.

That would not preclude RFG to have killed himself in some of the rural areas across the river from Lewisburg. There is a wetlands area and several wooded areas within 2 miles of the bridge on the other side of the Susquehanna.

Suicide is possible, but that would be the least likely possibility.

Fourth, the case he had talked to Sloane (et al.) about was Hinckley Township Ohio police chief Mel Wiley. It wasn't another DA.

On not prosecuting Sandusky, it could have been a failure to understand a recently adopted statute or simply that he didn't want to prosecute "the Great Sandusky," and then face the electorate in 2001.

 

[Datchery]

Thanks for the reply, J. J.

I agree that Gricar wouldn't have been susceptible to political pressure in 2005, but personal embarassment is another issue. I also don't think there would have been a money trail in the blackmail scenario, because the person wouldn't have been blackmailing RG for money, he would have been blackmailing him for dropping the case.

I also think that it is important to consider that whatever RG may have been hiding - if that is what he was doing - might not be something that the average person would consider reasonable justification for such extreme behavior. If Gricar committed suicide or ran off to start a new life, those are both actions rather far outside the norm. Was Gricar depressed? Paranoid? Suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder? Maybe, maybe not, but his actions in either the suicide or walkabout scenarios don't sugget a fully psychologically healthy person. And one of the common thought patterns in a depressed or anxious person is to "catastrophize" events (i.e, a single negative comment from a superior might make them anticipate getting fired, not being able to find a new job, and losing their home), which might explain what seems in either of those cases to be a massive overreaction.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gricar was bisexual (this is just an example - I'm not suggesting this was actually the case). He suppresses it, but sometimes downloads some pornographic material to his laptop. This is not illegal or (to my mind) immoral, but it is certainly something a person might want to hide, from wives and lovers, if no one else, and also something he might see as shameful. It is even something that, if exposed, might have jeapordized his job and, in some segments of the community, reputation. Say someone involved involved in the Sandusky case hires someone to get dirt on Gricar, who hacks into his files and finds some compromising photos. Someone brings this to RG's attention, and strongly implies that he should drop the case if he doesn't want this to be made public.

RG's a good man, and doesn't want to let a pedophile go. But no one is talking about rape in 1998, and there is enough gray area that he can persuade himself that dropping the case isn't a dereliction of duty. Maybe he hears some chatter in 2005 that leads him to recognize the consequences of his earlier action, and kills himself out of guilt. Maybe he hears something, anticipates that this is all going to come out in a investigation (possibly a paranoid assumption, but one that causes him fear), and decides to disappear. Maybe he is depressed for totally unrelated reasons, and decides to commit suicide. Maybe the blackmail resumes, for some reason, although I consider that far-fetched. In any of these cases, he still would have been anxious to hide any embarassing photos before he vanished, hence destroying the hard drive.

Obviously, this is just one possible scenario. But while the details are invented, I do think the outline provides a plausible example of how blackmail might be a reasonable explanation for a very bizarre sequence of events.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll be snipping just for length.

Thanks for the reply, J. J.

I agree that Gricar wouldn't have been susceptible to political pressure in 2005, but personal embarassment is another issue. I also don't think there would have been a money trail in the blackmail scenario, because the person wouldn't have been blackmailing RG for money, he would have been blackmailing him for dropping the case.

Possibly, but it would deal with two things not in evidence:

1. There was something to blackmail RFG with.

2. Somebody at Penn State knew about it. Because of the Phillips case, it would be unlikely to be Paterno.

I also think that it is important to consider that whatever RG may have been hiding - if that is what he was doing - might not be something that the average person would consider reasonable justification for such extreme behavior. If Gricar committed suicide or ran off to start a new life, those are both actions rather far outside the norm.

Maybe not. He might have been worried about litigation over Sandusky or that some old foe would get out of jail and come for him.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gricar was bisexual (this is just an example - I'm not suggesting this was actually the case). He suppresses it, but sometimes downloads some pornographic material to his laptop. This is not illegal or (to my mind) immoral, but it is certainly something a person might want to hide, from wives and lovers, if no one else, and also something he might see as shameful. It is even something that, if exposed, might have jeapordized his job and, in some segments of the community, reputation. Say someone involved involved in the Sandusky case hires someone to get dirt on Gricar, who hacks into his files and finds some compromising photos. Someone brings this to RG's attention, and strongly implies that he should drop the case if he doesn't want this to be made public.

He didn't have the laptop in 1998; he only got it in 2003-04.

RG's a good man, and doesn't want to let a pedophile go. But no one is talking about rape in 1998, and there is enough gray area that he can persuade himself that dropping the case isn't a dereliction of duty. Maybe he hears some chatter in 2005 that leads him to recognize the consequences of his earlier action, and kills himself out of guilt.

In 2005, he could still prosecute on 1998. I could see him reopening the 98 case.

Obviously, this is just one possible scenario. But while the details are invented, I do think the outline provides a plausible example of how blackmail might be a reasonable explanation for a very bizarre sequence of events.

Yes, I can think of another. Maybe he was going to look at the 1998 case again, and someone stopped him.

 

[BigCat]

Would someone really need to threaten, bribe, or blackmail RFG to not prosecute Sandusky in 98? Maybe, but I'm not sure. RFG and Sandusky were separated by only one year in age; the two were born and raised approximately 100 miles from each other; and both men were not only the same race but shared the same ethnicity (Slavic). Most importantly, they were both pillars of of the community in Centre County.

In contrast, Anwar Phillips was a young, African-American man, who was born and raised in the south. He was a good player, but he could be replaced.

No one has ever excused me of being a liberal, but I think it's fair to suggest that a person would be more sympathetic toward person with whom they share similiar characteristics than they would toward someone with whom they have little in common.

(And we could also talk about the differences in the victims. We know children from the Second Mile were considered disadvantaged in some sense. We really know nothing about Phillips' accuser, and since we don't sleuth victims, we never will. But there could have been reasons for RFG to feel more sympathetic toward one victim over the other. For instance, Phillips' accuser could have reminded Gricar of his own daughter, who, I believe, would have been in her mid 20's at the time).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Would someone really need to threaten, bribe, or blackmail RFG to not prosecute Sandusky in 98? Maybe, but I'm not sure. RFG and Sandusky were separated by only one year in age; the two were born and raised approximately 100 miles from each other; and both men were not only the same race but shared the same ethnicity (Slavic). Most importantly, they were both pillars of of the community in Centre County.

Washington, PA, is a bit more than 100 miles, and there is not a lot of cross connection between the two areas. Even in the 1950's, they were not part of the same media market.

Also, there tends to be a cultural divide across Slavic groups. Often the churches, while all Catholic, are tied in with ethnic background. I was once given directions to, "Turn right at the German Church, left the Italian Church, then left at the Polish Church." They were all Catholic Churches and all within a town of no more than 7,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windber,_Pennsylvania (and look at the names of the council members)

They, Sandusky and Gricar, were both high status individuals.

In contrast, Anwar Phillips was a young, African-American man, who was born and raised in the south. He was a good player, but he could be replaced.

He went to high school in Germantown, MD, to a better than average public school and a wealthier than State College. It is not quite as wealthy as Ferguson Township.

No one has ever excused me of being a liberal, but I think it's fair to suggest that a person would be more sympathetic toward person with whom they share similiar characteristics than they would toward someone with whom they have little in common.

(And we could also talk about the differences in the victims. We know children from the Second Mile were considered disadvantaged in some sense. We really know nothing about Phillips' accuser, and since we don't sleuth victims, we never will. But there could have been reasons for RFG to feel more sympathetic toward one victim over the other. For instance, Phillips' accuser could have reminded Gricar of his own daughter, who, I believe, would have been in her mid 20's at the time).

Unless I'm judged by my friends, there is no way I'm a liberal. There were some claims of racial bias on RFG's part over the years, but the statistics have never born it out.

The thing is that, because Paterno permitted Phillips to suit up for a bowl game, trying Phillips became a "Paterno issue." Paterno received public criticism, even from Spanier, for doing so. If Paterno had "something" on RFG, that was the time to use it. It wasn't used, and RFG pushed the case, almost solely on the fact that the victim changed schools after the incident, forgetting that the victim just accused a popular student of a hideous crime.

My point is, if Paterno had something on RFG, this would have been have been the time to use it, not in 1998.

 

[Datchery]

Forgive me if this has come up - I read through the thread very quickly, and probably missed some salient points - but do we know what kind of social circle Ray Gricar moved in? Did he socialize with well-connected people (either in the government or PSU) who might have had some awareness of newer accusations against Sandusky (the 2002 incident, or else just general rumors) in 2004-2005? Was he friendly with any major PSU boosters, or Second Mile higher-ups? Do we know if he was a Second Mile donor?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Forgive me if this has come up - I read through the thread very quickly, and probably missed some salient points - but do we know what kind of social circle Ray Gricar moved in? Did he socialize with well-connected people (either in the government or PSU) who might have had some awareness of newer accusations against Sandusky (the 2002 incident, or else just general rumors) in 2004-2005? Was he friendly with any major PSU boosters, or Second Mile higher-ups? Do we know if he was a Second Mile donor?

No to political types. His two closest friends were Sloane, an ADA, and a local developer, Walker, who was a minor contributor to TSM (under $500/year). In the 1980's, he tended to associate with University people (his then wife, Gray, worked there). There was a woman he was close to while married to his first wife (and no, I don't know if was a sexual relationship or not).

Over the years, RFG was close to a TV reporter, Petito, a nurse, Day, flirted with a woman, and of course, was living with PEF. These relationships may or may not have been sexual, though he asked Day to marry him. Except as noted with his first wife, none of them appear to be contemporaneous with another relationship.

I'd naturally assume that his relationships with both wives and PEF were sexual. I'd assume he at least wanted a sexual relationship with Day, since he asked her to marry him.

I frankly have not spent the last 40 years hiding under his bed, but I think the idea that RFG was probably sleeping with his wife while married to her, is not exactly radical, though some have thought so.

He did not donate to TSM from what I've seen.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Would you all please take a look at page 35 of this and give me your impressions: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY, GERALD 061112 JT.pdf

You might want to look at the rest.

 

[Tipstaff]

Would you all please take a look at page 35 of this and give me your impressions: http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY, GERALD 061112 JT.pdf

You might want to look at the rest.

After reading several pages before and after page 35 - my impression is that Gricar knew more about the Sandusky problems and somewhere somebody expressed concern about a conspiracy in this regard. But then nothing further came out about it in the trial.

Interesting that this was even addressed - then set aside!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

After reading several pages before and after page 35 - my impression is that Gricar knew more about the Sandusky problems and somewhere somebody expressed concern about a conspiracy in this regard. But then nothing further came out about it in the trial.

Interesting that this was even addressed - then set aside!

Well. it wasn't directly related to if Sandusky committed the crimes, but to why Sandusky wasn't prosecuted in 1998.

Amendola made the argument that RFG was a good prosecutor that "went after people that committed those crimes fiercely." Then he said RFG didn't prosecute in 1998, with the implication that there was not enough to prosecute. http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY, GERALD 061112 DEF OPENING.pdf (p. 7)

Fina, one of the prosecutors, was responding to that comment. I'm not seeing Amendola suggesting, "hinting," that there was some sort of a "conspiracy" involving the grand jury, AG or McQueary. He certainly wasn't suggesting anything Relating to Curley and Schultz were. In Amendola's opening, he was saying that that McQueary misinterpreted something he had seen.

 

[Tipstaff]

Amendola in his constant public statements would use ANYTHING to muddy the waters in this case including Gricar and the word conspiracy. I think the prosecution team tried to head off anything in this regard to stop Amendola doing this.

Not saying that was part of the transcript - just a reaction to the big picture here.