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

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks for all of you help. I will be spending a lot of time reading the blog. You have taken so much time writing it, I am both thankful and amazed!

Be amazed if I solve the case. That blog is just logic coupled with research.

IF the computer was used as a home computer-I believe that anyone that entered that home would have had the ability to use it, and make the searches. I also believe that there were those in his office that could and DID use his computer. The IMPORTANT thing to know is what was searched the night he vanished on those computers. The calls made from his cell phone, and office. And just what happened at home. Those are the things we probably will never know the real answers to.

His office computer was both intact and password protected. His home computer may have been. LE has said all his cell calls were accounted for, and the office line ran through a central switchboard, so it was effectively untraceable.

I keep thinking this was a well thought out plan either for Mr. Gricar to start a new life, or for someone to murder him. I believe he was murdered. I have little faith in LE in Centre County, I mean -look how long it took to arrest Jer.

Walkaway: 51%
Foul Play: 44%

Not a lot of daylight between those two numbers. Walkaway is more likely, but it wouldn't take too much to shift those numbers.

 

[PaulR]

Thanks, PaulR! I have taken a course in computer forensics, and I agree that Mr. Gricar "should have" known this. But there are some who would say he wasn't a computer person.

I see your point. But - he wouldn't need to be tech saavy to have handled cases where the computer forensics team managed to recover data from a hard drive, just like he didn't need to be a medical expert to understand the basics of forensic medicine (enough to prosecute a case at least.)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that there should be noted about the computer searches; LE did not discover them until late 2006. They were not "hidden," but this wouldn't be the very first thing LE would look at either. It was highly probable that, by the time it was discovered that there were searches, the laptop/drive would be in the water for weeks (or in this case months).

 

[quixote]

I guess there's also a slim chance that Mr. Gricar was a fan of red herrings. Perhaps he did choose to vanish for personal reasons, but wanted to muddy the proverbial waters by leaving breadcrumbs ("how to fry a hard drive"), as well as the whole loaf of bread (the fried hard drive). He was obviously smart enough to know people would be quick to think his disappearance had to be related to work issues, so if you wanted to throw them off the track, what better way to do it?? By all accounts, he was (is??) a highly intelligent man. If he did walk away, he's proven it by the fact that a number of people are still hopelessly trying to figure out whether he did or not.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

One possibility is that RFG walked away, in part, to prove he could do it and to show that he was mentally superior to everyone.

 

[BennyHill2012]

One possibility is that RFG walked away, in part, to prove he could do it and to show that he was mentally superior to everyone.

While I do think he walked away, is there any evidence to indicate that this motive was consistent with his personality? It seems plausible (and one I hadn't considered), if he tended to be the type who liked to "show" people and put them in their place.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

While I do think he walked away, is there any evidence to indicate that this motive was consistent with his personality? It seems plausible (and one I hadn't considered), if he tended to be the type who liked to "show" people and put them in their place.

There are some things that could be interpreted that way. After his first reelection, where his opponent knocked on several hundred (if not thousand) doors, he asked the Daily Collegian reporter to ask him how many doors he knocked on. When the reporter did, he held up his thumb and index finger to show a zero.

His comments in the 1987 Dana Bailey murder were roundly criticized and was the nadir of RFG's prosecutorial career, prior to Sandusky. http://www.centredaily.com/2010/03/08/2397221_poetic-injustice.html

Keep in mind that he was a capable prosecutor, a public official with an electoral mandate, and a very bright guy, and this comes with that territory to some extent.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Over the last 45 years, there have been a total of 12 prosecutors that have been murdered possibly because of their official duties. At least two, including one last week, are possibly job related. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Te...ery-Short-List-of-Murdered-DAs-189402821.html

There are probably tens of thousands prosecutors in the US currently, including county, state and federal government. Over a 45 year period, there would be 100,000 at a minimum. The chances that RFG's disappearance is due to foul play related to his job are very low.

 

[Migmuu]

I think there's a good possibility that Gricar's disappearance was related to the scandal at Penn State.

This is my idea of what may have happened:

Someone connected to Penn State may have learned of Gricar's investigation into the child rapes and the university's cover-up. So, to keep it from getting out, this person may have threatened to publicize any dirt on Gricar that would have seriously damaged his reputation or career. That, or they offered a large bribe.

Either way, Gricar may have agreed to meet up with this person, maybe to exchange the laptop (and any other evidence that implicated Penn State) for the bribe and/or certainty that any blackmail material wouldn't get out. After meeting this person or persons, something goes wrong - Gricar calls off the deal, refuses to accept, or an argument breaks out - and it ends with Gricar dead.

It might explain the cigarette ash found on the passenger seat of his car, despite the fact that Gricar was a non-smoker and would refuse to allow smoking in the car. In a very serious and stressful situation, most people are going to let something that minor slide. And if you're carrying out an important deal, it's probably not a very good idea to tell the other person in the negotiation to not do something that minor.

It might also explain the internet searches for ''water damage to a harddrive'' and other such things. Maybe the person (or persons) wanted the harddrive damaged beforehand to make sure it was all done, and (presumably after Gricar was killed), began damaging it himself to make sure it was unsalvageable.
Or maybe Gricar was checking to see if data would be recoverable if the harddrive were damaged, because if it was found later on, maybe it could be recovered and he (or whatever officer finds it) can retrieve the notes and evidence on the Sandusky case.

Maybe something similar happened in 1998 and that's why Gricar refused to go ahead with prosecuting Sandusky. And it came up again in 2005 and that one ended badly.


It's probably a far-fetched theory. But this case is like something out of CSI or a mystery thriller movie and this is the only thing I can come up with right now.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Some of the details are a bit off.

I think there's a good possibility that Gricar's disappearance was related to the scandal at Penn State.

This is my idea of what may have happened:

Someone connected to Penn State may have learned of Gricar's investigation into the child rapes and the university's cover-up. So, to keep it from getting out, this person may have threatened to publicize any dirt on Gricar that would have seriously damaged his reputation or career. That, or they offered a large bribe.

1. PSU officials knew about the 1998 investigation; their e-mails show that and Harmon was being updated.

2. 1998 was not rape. The victim (Victim 6) never claimed rape and Sandusky was not charged nor convicted of rape in regard to that victim. It was an "inappropriate touching," type of charge.

3. I have not seen any evidence that RFG ever knew about the other incidents. LE found no evidence that he was working on it when he disappeared.

4. There is no evidence of bribery.

Either way, Gricar may have agreed to meet up with this person, maybe to exchange the laptop (and any other evidence that implicated Penn State) for the bribe and/or certainty that any blackmail material wouldn't get out. After meeting this person or persons, something goes wrong - Gricar calls off the deal, refuses to accept, or an argument breaks out - and it ends with Gricar dead.

I would not rule out a meeting in Lewisburg regarding Sandusky.

It might explain the cigarette ash found on the passenger seat of his car, despite the fact that Gricar was a non-smoker and would refuse to allow smoking in the car. In a very serious and stressful situation, most people are going to let something that minor slide. And if you're carrying out an important deal, it's probably not a very good idea to tell the other person in the negotiation to not do something that minor.

It might also explain the internet searches for ''water damage to a harddrive'' and other such things. Maybe the person (or persons) wanted the harddrive damaged beforehand to make sure it was all done, and (presumably after Gricar was killed), began damaging it himself to make sure it was unsalvageable.
Or maybe Gricar was checking to see if data would be recoverable if the harddrive were damaged, because if it was found later on, maybe it could be recovered and he (or whatever officer finds it) can retrieve the notes and evidence on the Sandusky case.

There is a fundamental problem with the computer.

1. The searches were done prior to RFG's disappearance (within 30 days), and he was asking about how to destroy the data for about a year before he disappeared.

2. No one, other than RFG, could be certain that any incriminating data was exclusively on the laptop, unless they were with the laptop from the moment it was put on the laptop. He could copied it either his home or office computer, had it on-line, on a removable source (flash drive), or printed it out and had it in office.

Maybe something similar happened in 1998 and that's why Gricar refused to go ahead with prosecuting Sandusky. And it came up again in 2005 and that one ended badly.

It's probably a far-fetched theory. But this case is like something out of CSI or a mystery thriller movie and this is the only thing I can come up with right now.

Some of the details are off, but the core theory is possible. I would not rule out the Sandusky situation as being the motivation for either murder or at least part of the motive for voluntary departure.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

New blog up, with some things we can probably rule out:

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/05/3491540/what-didnt-happen.html

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

Back to check in Gang. Glad to see the vigil is still on. So we seem to be more towards the Walkaway scenario, JJ ? Inclined to agree on that. I need to read up a bit before making commentary. Good to see all of you.

Lordy

 

[Lord_Chatterly]

There is a book out, The Myths and Mysteries of Pennsylvania, by Kara Hughes that has a section on the Gricar disappearance. It really doesn't offer anything new, however, and just has a summary.

Ironically, it quotes Ive Butterworth.

Now after all this time, you know Ivy Butterworth would catch my attention...indeed how ironic. LoL

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Back to check in Gang. Glad to see the vigil is still on. So we seem to be more towards the Walkaway scenario, JJ ? Inclined to agree on that. I need to read up a bit before making commentary. Good to see all of you.

Lordy

It is good to see you back.

Walkaway is slightly more likely, but only slightly.

As for Ivy Butterworth, well, she does typify public opinion (which might be wrong).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Parks Miller (SPM) will be running for re-election as Centre County DA:

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/11/3498994/centre-county-da-stacy-parks-miller.html

 

[Rlaub44]

I would not rule out a meeting in Lewisburg regarding Sandusky.

JJ, are you considering any connection with Jack Harclerode as you write this?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, are you considering any connection with Jack Harclerode as you write this?

Short answer, no.

Longer answer, Harclerode was not a contemporary of Sandusky at Penn State, nor were they in the same departments. The not so good doctor got his Ph D in 1958; Sandusky didn't start as an undergraduate until 1962. I found no reference to Sandusky ever being employed at Bucknell.

Harclerode was not in RFG's jurisdiction.

One possibility, that I am considering, is some type of a clandestine meeting, one that regarded the Sandusky situation. The logic is that it was in a spot where RFG and/or the person he was meeting would not be recognized. The other hypothetical participant didn't to be seen talking to the DA, or RFG didn't want to be seen talking with that person.

It obviously was not McQueary, but when LE first met with him, it was in an out of the way parking lot. There is absolutely no way anyone wouldn't note a 6 foot 4 inch guy with bright red hair!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If you read the first page of this thread, you will how poorly I regard Bill Keisling. He was trying to implicate Corbett initially and was generally pro-Gricar.

Here is part of what he published last month:

DA Gricar was set to retire later in2005, a few months after his mysterious and famous disappearance.

Had he lived, Ray Gricar certainly would have taken heat for stopping the 1998 investigation involving ---- and ----.Due to DA Gricar’s inactions, Sandusky would be given a green light.

Thanks in large part to Gricar, Jerry Sandusky would proceed to molest a long list of kids with impunity.

Thanks to Ray Gricar, the stage was set for all that was to come.

For Ray Gricar, his disappearance would turn out to be a smart career move.

http://newslanc.com/2013/01/19/district-attorney-ray-gricar-drops-the-ball/


Note: I redacted the victim's names.


The last line goes too far, based on the evidence. It would only be a "smart career move" if something from 1998 would effect his pension; to date, there is no evidence of that.

I am posting this primarily to show just how much the public perception of RFG has collapsed in the last 18 months.

From my standpoint, prior to Sandusky, when I told people that I wrote a blog, and they would ask me what it was about, I'd say, "Do you remember the DA from State College that disappeared? Him."

Today, I say, "Do you remember the DA from State College that didn't prosecute Jerry Sandusky, and then disappeared? Him."

 

[Rlaub44]

Short answer, no.

Longer answer, Harclerode was not a contemporary of Sandusky at Penn State, nor were they in the same departments. The not so good doctor got his Ph D in 1958; Sandusky didn't start as an undergraduate until 1962. I found no reference to Sandusky ever being employed at Bucknell.

Harclerode was not in RFG's jurisdiction.

One possibility, that I am considering, is some type of a clandestine meeting, one that regarded the Sandusky situation. The logic is that it was in a spot where RFG and/or the person he was meeting would not be recognized. The other hypothetical participant didn't to be seen talking to the DA, or RFG didn't want to be seen talking with that person.

It obviously was not McQueary, but when LE first met with him, it was in an out of the way parking lot. There is absolutely no way anyone wouldn't note a 6 foot 4 inch guy with bright red hair!

Thanks - I wouldn't have expected them to be connected, with the exception of the fact that Lewisburg has no other relation that we know of to the Sandusky case, and that Harclerode was involved in child *advertiser censored*. As you recall, there was lots of speculation early in the Sandusky case about his possible involvement with a child *advertiser censored* ring as well.

Nothing has come of that, or of the wilder accusation of farming 2nd Mile kids out to wealthy donors, but it could have been one explanation as to why Gricar would have been following a lead in the Lewisburg area.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks - I wouldn't have expected them to be connected, with the exception of the fact that Lewisburg has no other relation that we know of to the Sandusky case, and that Harclerode was involved in child *advertiser censored*. As you recall, there was lots of speculation early in the Sandusky case about his possible involvement with a child *advertiser censored* ring as well.

Nothing has come of that, or of the wilder accusation of farming 2nd Mile kids out to wealthy donors, but it could have been one explanation as to why Gricar would have been following a lead in the Lewisburg area.

The Harclerode case was interesting. He was first accused in 1995 by a man named Gundrum. That was seven years after the assault and two after Gundrum was convicted of murder. The DA in Union County, D. Peter Johnson, and the PSP still spent 20 months looking for a corroborating witness and found none. Harclerode denied it.

Johnson, who is still the DA, has said that he didn't (and presumably still doesn't) think that Harclerode could have been convicted for that incident, so that is why Johnson didn't press charges. There was no corroboration and Gundrum is a convicted murderer.

http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x691267398/Ex-professor-paid-25-000-to-convict-to-settle-lawsuit

First, I would contrast that with the situation in 1998.

Second, and returning to your original question, let's assume that RFG discovered a Sandusky/Harclerode connection, a *advertiser censored* or pedophile ring. If that is the case:

A. Why doesn't RFG start by calling Johnson, who was the DA in 2005 (and still is)? Johnson obviously knows more about what is happening in Union County than RFG does. RFG wouldn't need to meet anyone from LE in a parking lot (Johnson is a paraplegic, so he could have difficulty getting there). I think they knew each other professionally.

B. Why doesn't RFG tell his girlfriend or some member of his staff that there might be a connection between Harclerode and someone in Centre County and he will be going over to Lewisburg to check in out? He wouldn't have to mention it was Sandusky. RFG doesn't have to keep this a secret, concoct the "play hooky" story, because it would be a job related trip.

In short, it is unlikely that the Harclerode case was related to RFG's disappearance. However, the detail that I've given should indicate that I did check it out.