PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #13

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipping, and trying to get use to the new format

My original post



Prosecute on a rumor, no of course not. Rumors, however, often contain grains of truth and one has to do due diligence to seek out those truthful parts. Considering the difference between 1998 and 2005 of where Sandusky stood within the God-like persona of the entire PSU football family it could have been the catalysis that RFG would need to take a shot at him, and actually be winnable. Although technically RFG could have prosecuted on the 1998 incident, having an additional incident(s) and with a better chance at getting an educated jury about how grooming works in child abuse, he would virtually be able to strip any positive remaining attitude about Sandusky away.

Okay, we can look at 1998. RFG did not investigate. The police brought the information to him.

The "grooming" evidence might not have been admissible, at all. He could not, in 1998 or 2005, put a psychologist or psychiatrist on the stand and have them testify about grooming.

Also keep in mind, in 1998, he had two victims and an admission. Only if he had evidence of a more serious crime would the case be much stronger.

RFG would be working on trying to substantiate a rumor. He would not be looking at the 1998 stuff. He was already familiar with that. Going on how I would go about something of this nature, I would be more inclined to not speak to anyone that would be remotely connected to PSU or the office staff about it. I also would not be documenting anything about this “rumor” where it could be easily found. In my experience, there are very few people who never ever not tell someone else something even when they are asked to keep it to themselves.

JKA, the abuse go to person in 2005, has no connection to PSU. Sloane is an alumnus, but he does not work for them.

The issue with RFG’s lack of assets, until we have more information about possible financial losses, any established trusts or other estate planning is simply a point that cannot be fully explained.
The desire, and his very openness in that desire to get rid of data on the computer could originally very well have been just the normal wanting to make sure you don’t leave sensitive personal/and or personnel information where others can get their hands on it. Since RFG hadn’t used the laptop for work in some time, who would think that he was currently using it now. Other than PF bringing it to LE attention, did anyone else even mention the laptop? We also don’t know who actually tossed the computer and drive into the river only that is where they ended up.

PEF mentioned it, when asked.

The laptop problem is that, under this scenario, RFG has data related to Sandusky on a device he is planning to make unreadable. If he would prosecute, that would be the last place he'd put it.

The assets still are not there. Even an irrevocable trust would mean that RFG would not have access to the money in retirement; same with a single premium life insurance policy. Even if every penny is tied up in estate planning, RFG still cannot spend it.

When you don’t want anyone to see you meeting with someone, you don’t meet somewhere that has a significant chance of being recognized by people who know you, even if it’s just simple recognition of your face.

Who couldn't explain being seen with the DA? Spanier? No. Spanier could simply say that he was discussing drugs or underage drinking on campus or offering RFG an adjunct professorship after he retires or asking him to be a guest lecturer. Schultz? He's the manager of the police force. Even Sandusky could claim that they were meeting to discuss delinquency. Curley, maybe, but that's it. We also know that RFG was in Lewisburg in the late afternoon.

Again, if it were me, I would try and choose a day and time when I knew that the people/person I was gathering information about would be somewhere else. Meeting on a Friday in the early afternoon would be a great time to meet with a variety of people. Anyone with a job who may have been able to take a half day off at the end of a work week would not raise any questions work wise or interrupt any family plans. A mother with children in school would have enough time to get back to meet the bus.

Nearly anyone with information was at the football practice. If you want to investigate someone involved with the PSU football program, you don't travel 50 miles away from where they all are.

 

[Trackergd]

50 miles away and seen walking and talking with an (as of this time) unidentified woman, where his county issued laptop was found (for all intents and purposes) destroyed and data unrecoverable, where his Mini was found abandoned and the last place he was seen by anyone who knew him by sight.

Lewisburg is "Ground Zero" in my mind. Arguably, we could be working forwards and backwards from that particular spot till the cows come home.

Unless I am missing something, I don't see anything that rises to "life altering" other than the PSU/Sandusky case. Even if RFG committed suicide, I still would think that this case would have played into it somehow. "Failure to protect the children" being the major stressor.

The "mystery woman" intrigues me. Wondering if there was a PSU staffer, privy to inside information from meetings and has kept mum so as not to draw attention to herself and the ire of her employers.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit:

Unless I am missing something, I don't see anything that rises to "life altering" other than the PSU/Sandusky case. Even if RFG committed suicide, I still would think that this case would have played into it somehow. "Failure to protect the children" being the major stressor.

I don't see Sandusky as being "life altering" in the spring of 2005, except that JKA knew something about it (in 1998) and she was running for DA. She did not have the details, and she could have assumed that it was properly handled in 1998. That is the only known element that changed.

I'm stuck with these things:

1. There is no evidence of RFG planning to investigate or charge Sandusky in 2005. There was no computer activity looking for anything related to Sandusky. He was not receiving any police reports on Sandusky. There is no other trigger other than the DA's race.

2. RFG was pretty much out of time to prosecute the case. Whatever happened, by 1/1/06, he would not be the DA. At this point, it is unlikely that he will be prosecuting the case. Even though the 2011-12 trial moved at breakneck speed, it still took a few weeks longer than 8 1/2 months. There was also a Christmas holiday at the end mark. Even if he wanted to prosecute Sandusky on 1998, that time frame was still there.

3. There is no evidence of an official appointment with someone in Lewisburg. Nothing on his calendar, no e-mail exchange stating "Meet me in Lewisburg." No notes about a meeting. RFG tells his girlfriend that he's taking the day off. He doesn't phone Sloane, talk to Smith or JKA about the "real reason" he's going to Lewisburg.

Now, none of that fits with planning to prosecute Sandusky. It might fit with doing something regarding Sandusky "off book" as it were, but it does not point to that. I am not ready to go there, at this point.

The "mystery woman" intrigues me. Wondering if there was a PSU staffer, privy to inside information from meetings and has kept mum so as not to draw attention to herself and the ire of her employers.

I still would rule out the possibility of it just being a random shopper. He could have been meeting her, or not.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay the direction of taking this to a Sandusky related meeting bothers me. I don't want to go in that direction, but I'll play along.

Assume that this was a Sandusky related meeting, and it relates to RFG contemplating an official action against Sandusky.

1. There was no evidence he was reviewing anything with Sandusky. No searches, no talking to JKA. Any searches on the laptop don't make too much sense, because he is planning to get rid of the data on that computer.

2. He basically lies to PEF that he's taking the day off. He doesn't even say where he's going.

3. There are no prep notes to this meeting, no e-mail exchanges about it, nothing on his calendar. Look at Penn State regarding both the 1998 and 2001 meetings; they are exchanging e-mails and there are notes about it. There is a paper trail.

Okay for something official, RFG has a clandestine meeting, and he is not creating a paper trail about it. If it is Sandusky related, he is either not taking any reasonable efforts to find background or he is hiding them.

 

[TechWriter797]

The only way I'd walk away from my pension is if I received a big enough "windfall" from somewhere/someone. What if he was there to get a pay-off and then he took off for a new life?

 

[SeekingJana]

The only way I'd walk away from my pension is if I received a big enough "windfall" from somewhere/someone. What if he was there to get a pay-off and then he took off for a new life?

So, you'd hypothetically leave your live- in lover, never to see her or him again, and you would remove yourself permanently from all aspects of your only child's life for MONEY or other financial gain? Forever? I hope to God I never know anyone like that in my life. That's so COLD, it's psychopathic behavior.

Wouldn't the usual and loving thing to do IF one received the hypothetical windfall of an enormous sum of money to be to SHARE with one's love and one's only child? How much money does a man pushing 60 actually need or want to manage?

This doesn't make sense to me at all, I'm sorry. Avarice is not a valid reason to leave loved ones forever. Neither Patty nor Lara lived a lavish lifestyle.. He knew that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The only way I'd walk away from my pension is if I received a big enough "windfall" from somewhere/someone. What if he was there to get a pay-off and then he took off for a new life?

There would be one other reason, to avoid losing that pension.

Now, if RFG had done something as DA that was illegal, and it was discovered decades later, he would lose that pension upon conviction. Now, if he robbed a bank on his own time, that would be different.

Now, two things. I don't know of anything that would fall into that category in regard to Sandusky. Just not prosecuting is not criminal or even unethical, even if he did back off because he was afraid of Sandusky.

Second, if there was something, there was no suggestion that it was was about to be discovered.

In regard to his pension, however, there was an incentive; his heirs would get it and it would be more that if he died after leaving office (which is an incentive for walkaway or suicide). In that respect, he would be "sharing" it with his heirs.

 

[TechWriter797]

SeekingJana: The windfall I was referring to was a huge bribe aka hush money.

 

[SeekingJana]

And to both of you, J.J.and Techwriter797, I'd like to respectfully rebut your theories that a man living a very low key lifestyle would leave everything behind for either an illegal bribe ( he was not a dishonest person by all accounts, so the reference is somewhat disrespectful to begin with) or to give his pension to his daughter without paying taxes on it ( presumably, since there had to be a financial advantage somewhere).

What, in the known life of Ray Frank Gricar, points to either criminality or a warped sense of financial responsibility for taxation on money earned? Retirement accounts which are tied into one's employment- in this case, presumably the Commonwealth of PA or Centre County) are figured into the benefit summary every year. You get a nice little summary of what you make as a salary, then the perks such as insurance, PTO, AND retirement account balance are figured in.
There could be no doubt in his mind but that this was HIS money and his responsibility.

Look at the facts. He lived in a house owned by his girlfriend. A very modest house. He bought one small sports car at a very low price point. To a few people who might not get out and about much, a Mini is deemed " showy". Around my part of the country, it's as much of a " starter car" for a teenager as a Kia is in other parts of the country. As far as I know, he didn't want a showy house, new furniture ( the events related about Emma's purchases), a country club membership, or luxury vacations with Patty to exotic lands. I've never read of him taking a cruise, and the one time he was known to have visited Europe, he was said to have stayed with RELATIVES!!!
I've seen photos of him on weekends. He dressed down. Very casually and low key. He did shop for antiques on occasion, but I am told that he looked for bargain antique toys. Not exactly the family heirloom Hepplewhite Highboy, appraised years ago for $150,000 that I have in my house, right?
He also hiked. Another activity which is extremely low key and requires little gear except in snowy winter, I'd imagine, not knowing anything about snowy winter hiking.

And I definitely do think that had he lived 6 more months, he would have retired and he and Patty would have traveled by car every now and then, living in her house as usual, with one old sick dog that he appeared to love very much, and lived off his pension and possibly other investments made ( of a type which do not/ did not require reporting on his job financial disclosure form every year). He had a modest lifestyle ALL his life. He was NEVER prone to overspending or irresponsible spending habits. He was never known as a " dirty DA" who would take a bribe or cheat on his taxes.

Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

This man was an HONORABLE DA, and he deserves our respect, for he earned it through his many years of public service. There is also ample evidence that he was an HONORABLE MAN. He loved his daughter, provided her with an education, he loved Patty enough to pay off her debts on her house and title the Mini in her name.
He is a victim of crime, most likely. I'd say overwhelmingly most likely. This means that he is NOT a perpetrator of wrongdoing, whether morally wrong or legally wrong. A victim, not a perp.

 

[TechWriter797]

He is a victim of crime, most likely. I'd say overwhelmingly most likely. This means that he is NOT a perpetrator of wrongdoing, whether morally wrong or legally wrong. A victim, not a perp.

It was just a theory. It's not even the theory I believe the most. But we just don't know, do we? So we should be open to all theories, in varying degrees.

 

[SeekingJana]

I guess I'd say at this time-" If you went missing and Ray Gricar was posting as part of a large online community wanting to help you be found, wold you want him to treat your case as a missing person case or to throw shade on you which had no basis in fact whatsoever?"

This goes back to 2 things: The Golden Rule, and Websleuth's Rules about how certain people ARE victims. Ray Gricar is a victim, has been a victim since the day he went missing, and will continue to be a victim until the case is resolved. This is how I see it too. Websleuths Rules!!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It was just a theory. It's not even the theory I believe the most. But we just don't know, do we? So we should be open to all theories, in varying degrees.

Yes, we should.

My discomfort is personal. It does not mean my personal discomfort should determine what happened, or what we talk about.

This is the premise for some of this:

1. RFG had a clandestine meeting.

2. RFG left no paper, conversational, or electronic record of that meeting. To flesh that out a bit, he left no notes, calendar notations, told no one, and didn't leave an e-mail exchange about who he was meeting, didn't leave a cell record of talking to the person he was meeting. If there was a meeting, he didn't want someone to even stumble across information about it if he was not present.

3. That meeting involved his official duties.

There could be a lot of explanations for #1 and #2 happening. Throw #3 in there, the most likely reason would be something in his official conduct RFG wanted to hide, and something bad.

That said, we have no evidence that this involved his official duties.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped

This goes back to 2 things: The Golden Rule, and Websleuth's Rules about how certain people ARE victims. Ray Gricar is a vicrim, has been a victim since the day he went missing, and will continue to be a victim until the case is resolved. This is how I see it too. Websleuths Rules!!

Someone can be a victim and still be not on the up and up. Some people are victims because they are not on the up and up. The victim's bad actions do not excuse the bad actions taken against him.

 

[shadow of my mind]

Yes, we should.

My discomfort is personal. It does not mean my personal discomfort should determine what happened, or what we talk about.

This is the premise for some of this:

1. RFG had a clandestine meeting.

2. RFG left no paper, conversational, or electronic record of that meeting. To flesh that out a bit, he left no notes, calendar notations, told no one, and didn't leave an e-mail exchange about who he was meeting, didn't leave a cell record of talking to the person he was meeting. If there was a meeting, he didn't want someone to even stumble across information about it if he was not present.

3. That meeting involved his official duties.

There could be a lot of explanations for #1 and #2 happening. Throw #3 in there, the most likely reason would be something in his official conduct RFG wanted to hide, and something bad.
That said, we have no evidence that this involved his official duties.

BBM
On #3....
Would not necessarily have to be about his official conduct nor does it mean he wanted to hide it, but just make sure whatever it was he had enough accurate information before going forward.

I do agree, it would have been something hugely bad. Again, the question would be what could RFG have heard about, been told about or suspected about, that he would have handled it via #1 and #2.

Just as the first 48 hours after someone goes missing is the best time frame needed by LE to quickly resolve the case, it is the prior 48 hours before they went missing that gives LE the most relevant information to determine what caused them to go missing in the first place.

In this case, I think that the prior time that needs to be looked at should start about the six weeks or so before he disappeared. There is something in that time period that caused a change in RFG behavior. Every person he came in contact with, by phone, in person, email, etc., as well as every case he worked on, looked at, checked into or checked up on, including all of the staffs needs to be gone over. Every person re-interviewed or in this case some actually to be interviewed for the first time. Statements analyzed. Every place that he went; not just for work, but on his off time. Find out what he did, what he didn't do that he normally does. It all needs to be re-evaluated.

There is something that was missed. :moo:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped

BBM
On #3....
Would not necessarily have to be about his official conduct nor does it mean he wanted to hide it, but just make sure whatever it was he had enough accurate information before going forward.

I do agree, it would have been something hugely bad. Again, the question would be what could RFG have heard about, been told about or suspected about, that he would have handled it via #1 and #2.

I could not come up with a reason why RFG would legitimately not keep notes and references to something official. They could have been locked in a desk drawer. Same for not saying where he was going.

There may have been a clandestine meeting, but it may not have been official.

As for contact, they have checked as much as they could.

At the time, the Courthouse had a main switchboard. It would be impossible to know what calls came in to the DA's Office specifically.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I have not wanted to toss this out, but assuming it was not suicide or walkaway, how about this option.

RFG was seen with a woman who may or may not have been with him, Could she have been:

A. A defendant.

B. The relative, or S.O. of a defendant.

C. A witness.

D. The relative, or S.O. of a witness.

Premise: RFG became interested in someone, a woman, involved in a pending case, or a recently pending one. He wouldn't want to be seen publicly with her, because it would appear to be a conflict of interest, even if it wasn't.

It has not been unknown for a prosecutor to become interested in the S.O. or a relative of a defendant/witness.

 

[MissJ]

And to both of you, J.J.and Techwriter797, I'd like to respectfully rebut your theories that a man living a very low key lifestyle would leave everything behind for either an illegal bribe ( he was not a dishonest person by all accounts, so the reference is somewhat disrespectful to begin with) or to give his pension to his daughter without paying taxes on it ( presumably, since there had to be a financial advantage somewhere).

What, in the known life of Ray Frank Gricar, points to either criminality or a warped sense of financial responsibility for taxation on money earned? Retirement accounts which are tied into one's employment- in this case, presumably the Commonwealth of PA or Centre County) are figured into the benefit summary every year. You get a nice little summary of what you make as a salary, then the perks such as insurance, PTO, AND retirement account balance are figured in.
There could be no doubt in his mind but that this was HIS money and his responsibility.

Look at the facts. He lived in a house owned by his girlfriend. A very modest house. He bought one small sports car at a very low price point. To a few people who might not get out and about much, a Mini is deemed " showy". Around my part of the country, it's as much of a " starter car" for a teenager as a Kia is in other parts of the country. As far as I know, he didn't want a showy house, new furniture ( the events related about Emma's purchases), a country club membership, or luxury vacations with Patty to exotic lands. I've never read of him taking a cruise, and the one time he was known to have visited Europe, he was said to have stayed with RELATIVES!!!
I've seen photos of him on weekends. He dressed down. Very casually and low key. He did shop for antiques on occasion, but I am told that he looked for bargain antique toys. Not exactly the family heirloom Hepplewhite Highboy, appraised years ago for $150,000 that I have in my house, right?
He also hiked. Another activity which is extremely low key and requires little gear except in snowy winter, I'd imagine, not knowing anything about snowy winter hiking.

And I definitely do think that had he lived 6 more months, he would have retired and he and Patty would have traveled by car every now and then, living in her house as usual, with one old sick dog that he appeared to love very much, and lived off his pension and possibly other investments made ( of a type which do not/ did not require reporting on his job financial disclosure form every year). He had a modest lifestyle ALL his life. He was NEVER prone to overspending or irresponsible spending habits. He was never known as a " dirty DA" who would take a bribe or cheat on his taxes.

Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

This man was an HONORABLE DA, and he deserves our respect, for he earned it through his many years of public service. There is also ample evidence that he was an HONORABLE MAN. He loved his daughter, provided her with an education, he loved Patty enough to pay off her debts on her house and title the Mini in her name.
He is a victim of crime, most likely. I'd say overwhelmingly most likely. This means that he is NOT a perpetrator of wrongdoing, whether morally wrong or legally wrong. A victim, not a perp.

ITA. All points I have been making.Most people who walk away have someone or something they are running FROM. he had no such obligations or crime. Well stated post.

 

[shadow of my mind]

I have not wanted to toss this out, but assuming it was not suicide or walkaway, how about this option.

RFG was seen with a woman who may or may not have been with him, Could she have been:

A. A defendant.

B. The relative, or S.O. of a defendant.

C. A witness.

D. The relative, or S.O. of a witness.

Premise: RFG became interested in someone, a woman, involved in a pending case, or a recently pending one. He wouldn't want to be seen publicly with her, because it would appear to be a conflict of interest, even if it wasn't.

It has not been unknown for a prosecutor to become interested in the S.O. or a relative of a defendant/witness.

In my opinion, any one of A through D could fit the mystery women. Except I would lean more to RFG wanting to hear what that person had to say regarding a past case, pending case or something that this person did not want to take to LE as opposed to a romantic interest. Again, in my opinion, it would have to have been something extraordinary huge for RFG to bypass all normal and standard protocol and operating procedures of the DA's office.

There has never been any evidence of RFG being involved with more than one women at a time, and I would suspect, that by now, that information would have surfaced. He may have been flirtatious with women, but it was a known attribute of his personality and from what has been written about him; seen as (his) normal. I would also assume that by this point in his life, this behavior was probably something that was actually expected of him, or the absence of it would have been noticed.

Which brings us right back to the same question of what could have been of such importance?:banghead:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am not entirely sure that this is the case. We don't know of any but people are vague about the exact timelines.

RFG was not married at the time he disappeared, so that might make a difference.

I would think anything case related, including Sandusky, would account for this change, at least that was legitimate.

 

[SeekingJana]

I have not wanted to toss this out, but assuming it was not suicide or walkaway, how about this option.

RFG was seen with a woman who may or may not have been with him, Could she have been:

A. A defendant.

B. The relative, or S.O. of a defendant.

C. A witness.

D. The relative, or S.O. of a witness.

Premise: RFG became interested in someone, a woman, involved in a pending case, or a recently pending one. He wouldn't want to be seen publicly with her, because it would appear to be a conflict of interest, even if it wasn't.

It has not been unknown for a prosecutor to become interested in the S.O. or a relative of a defendant/witness.

When he first disappeared, there was a rumor that he had been seen with a defendant or a defendant's gf ( former gf?) outside the courtroom... A young, pretty blonde is how I remember the description.
Not trying to be disrespectful but I read it here on WS so IMO, there could be some truth to what was posted. WS is not a gossip site and I am not even sure if the post is still online.
Does anyone remember more about this? It was really important at the time it was posted, it seemed.

Did Ray have a history of meeting his girlfriends or dates from cases? I mean, he didn't ever seem to have a varied and exciting night life.. Did he meet women through the court house in some capacity when their case was over? I don't think that would be improper, if the case was settled. and the settlement was just and fair. I'm definitely not implying that he trolled inmates or criminals, but innocent people are in court rooms every day. I want to make this point very clear- I do not think he was involved with a guilty or bad person IF the very old rumor has some truth to it, or IF the MW had a tie to the CC courts in some way.