PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #14

[J. J. in Phila]

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with SPM. She made the Gricar case a major part of her campaign. Yet in 5 1/2 years, she has given us nothing but lip service. Talks a big game, but nothing comes of it. Just little teasers like what the public knows is "just the tip of the iceberg". No new information has been revealed during her tenure as DA. Given how she's acted as a DA (forging things and aggressively fighting RTKL requests) it wouldn't surprise me to find it she was involved and/or is covering her butt or someone else's butt.

Well, first, she agreed to move the case to the PSP in November of 2013 and that was something a number of folks called for.

There was a lot of information released under her tenure, as a second point. A new witness sighting was revealed, for example.

I would say that she made the Gricar case a major point of her campaign, but said that there would a greater emphasis after she was elected.

Now, I think that yes, she could have done some more, sooner, but she was still a vast improvement.

Part of the problem was the Sandusky case. It, rightly or wrongly, added a new dimensuion to the Gricar case.

 

[wijg]

Well... agree to disagree. I think she's done jack squat on this case besides talk. Not that it matters much. She stands no chance of getting re-elected, and it's in PSP's hands now anyway.

A close friend of mine in Centre County once told me last year "She (SPM) is a frickin loon. I wouldn't be surprised if she was somehow involved (in taking out Gricar)". The only reason I bring that up is because now, with all that's going on with her, he seems to be at least right about the first part (that she's a frickin loon).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well... agree to disagree. I think she's done jack squat on this case besides talk. Not that it matters much. She stands no chance of getting re-elected, and it's in PSP's hands now anyway.

A close friend of mine in Centre County once told me last year "She (SPM) is a frickin loon. I wouldn't be surprised if she was somehow involved (in taking out Gricar)". The only reason I bring that up is because now, with all that's going on with her, he seems to be at least right about the first part (that she's a frickin loon).

So far, she is winning court, so I think she is right.

She was re-elected, unopposed, and with a healthy percentage of the vote (slightly better than RFG's one uncontested election).

 

[wijg]

She was re-elected, unopposed, and with a healthy percentage of the vote (slightly better than RFG's one uncontested election).

As long as she was unopposed, whatever percentage she got is irrelevant.

I have no idea whether or not she is linked to this (she most likely isnt). I just know she made promises about doubling down on the Gricar investigation and then just passed the buck after about 4 years. I also know what people in Centre County say about her; that she often comes unhinged in (and out of) the courtroom.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

As long as she was unopposed, whatever percentage she got is irrelevant.

I have no idea whether or not she is linked to this (she most likely isnt). I just know she made promises about doubling down on the Gricar investigation and then just passed the buck after about 4 years. I also know what people in Centre County say about her; that she often comes unhinged in (and out of) the courtroom.

No, because, first of all, nobody running against her indicates that other attorneys believe that they cannot win. In terms of percentage of votes, I compared SPM with RFG unopposed run in 1997. All things considered, she diid slightly bettter.

As for the campaign in 2009, the only thing that she said, in response to a question is that she would go through the file, which she did. She never promised anything else.

 

[wijg]

No, because, first of all, nobody running against her indicates that other attorneys believe that they cannot win.

Not necessarily true. It could very well indicate a backroom deal. Some sort of quid pro quo. Happens in rural counties all the time.


Also, with regards to this:

So far, she is winning court, so I think she is right.

She might be "winning" her contempt ordeal right now, but it does not make her "right". It simply means that a poorly conceived law may be on her side. Doesn't mean she's "right" from an ethical standpoint. If a criminal is let off because the evidence used against him was the result of an illegal search, it doesn't vindicate him or make him "right". He's still a criminal. Also, while she may be having early success in her contempt filing, it's yet to be seen what her fate will be with regards to the forgery allegation.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not necessarily true. It could very well indicate a backroom deal. Some sort of quid pro quo. Happens in rural counties all the time.

The county is not particularly "rural" and candidates would come out of the woodwork ifshe was weak.

Also, with regards to this:


She might be "winning" her contempt ordeal right now, but it does not make her "right". It simply means that a poorly conceived law may be on her side. Doesn't mean she's "right" from an ethical standpoint. If a criminal is let off because the evidence used against him was the result of an illegal search, it doesn't vindicate him or make him "right". He's still a criminal. Also, while she may be having early success in her contempt filing, it's yet to be seen what her fate will be with regards to the forgery allegation.

So far, on the lawsuit, she is winning and two local judges have filed suit making the same argument. Looking at the statute, I think they are correct. That raises no ethics problems.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm posting this for two reasons:

1, The man, a convicted murderer, had been in hiding for 38 years.

2. It is a "local" story,

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/07/marshal_convicted_killer_on_th.html#incart_river

 

[SuperSmith]

http://newslanc.com/2015/07/16/keisling-luna-was-the-worst-murder-ive-ever-seen/

 

[wijg]

http://newslanc.com/2015/07/16/keisling-luna-was-the-worst-murder-ive-ever-seen/

Now THAT is some interesting stuff.

The only thing: it doesn't appear to be a 'hit', but rather something "personal" (as evidenced by the trauma to the scrotum). Of course, it could have started as "business" and ended with "personal"? I have a theory on this. But I'll wait for other explanations first.

 

[SuperSmith]

Now THAT is some interesting stuff.


The only thing: it doesn't appear to be a 'hit', but rather something "personal" (as evidenced by the trauma to the scrotum). Of course, it could have started as "business" and ended with "personal"? I have a theory on this. But I'll wait for other explanations first.

Read the first part of Keislings Luna story. The wounds seem to be not only personal but could have been applied to make him talk about what he knew.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

http://newslanc.com/2015/07/16/keisling-luna-was-the-worst-murder-ive-ever-seen/

I would not mix the two cases. Even assuming both were murders, the M.O. is quite different.

The FBI has thought Luna was suicide. I've suspected accidental suicide.

Also, the coroner said that no scrotum wounds and described some of the hand wounds as "pinpricks."

 

[wijg]

Read the first part of Keislings Luna story. The wounds seem to be not only personal but could have been applied to make him talk about what he knew.

That would make sense.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Read the first part of Keislings Luna story. The wounds seem to be not only personal but could have been applied to make him talk about what he knew.

I would not rely of Keisling. He is usng a second hand story from a mortician and some of stuff contradicts the autopsy.

 

[wijg]

I would not mix the two cases. Even assuming both were murders, the M.O. is quite different.

I don't think we can rule anything out at this point.

In Dec. 2003, after inexplicably leaving hastily, an Assistant US Attorney's body is found 52 miles from Harrisburg, PA.
16 months later, after inexplicably leaving hastily*, a District Attorney goes missing. His car is found 60 miles from Harrisburg, PA.
Both cases have plenty examples of possible decoys and misdirection.
Authorities in both cases, without any evidence whatsoever, and sometimes with evidence to the contrary, have tried to pass these off as voluntary actions (suicide in one case, walkaway or suicide in the other).
Both cases - despite being pushed as "voluntary" actions - are still being investigated, and access to materials has been repeatedly denied.

*I say Gricar left "hastily", because I feel if he wasn't in a hurry, he would have stuck around for another half hour to let the dogs out.

 

[SuperSmith]

I would not rely of Keisling. He is usng a second hand story from a mortician and some of stuff contradicts the autopsy.

Funny how you gave Keisling credibility when he argued Gricar dropped the ball on the Sandusky case but you suggest we shouldn't apply any of his other writings. I think it's very clear at this point that Luna did not committ suicide. If you don't want to mix the cases that's your right. If you don't give the story credibility that is your rig has well. Others think differently.

 

[Sutton]

Little bit O/T, but wijg's post mentioning letting the dogs out reminded me of an earlier thought.

If my bf could not stick around for half an hour to take the dog out, instead wanting me to use my lunch break to do so, I would be pretty irritated. I wouldn't just say, good for you, enjoy your drive. I'd be annoyed because that's selfish.

Was PF really that laid back? She acted like it was just fine and she didn't care. If she were a stay-at-home wife, took responsibility for the domestic duties and he supported the two of them, then I could probably understand it. But she was at work. Would this bother anyone else?

 

[SuperSmith]

Little bit O/T, but wijg's post mentioning letting the dogs out reminded me of an earlier thought.

If my bf could not stick around for half an hour to take the dog out, instead wanting me to use my lunch break to do so, I would be pretty irritated. I wouldn't just say, good for you, enjoy your drive. I'd be annoyed because that's selfish.

Was PF really that laid back? She acted like it was just fine and she didn't care. If she were a stay-at-home wife, took responsibility for the domestic duties and he supported the two of them, then I could probably understand it. But she was at work. Would this bother anyone else?

Kind of makes you wonder if he had to be somewhere at a certain time.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Funny how you gave Keisling credibility when he argued Gricar dropped the ball on the Sandusky case but you suggest we shouldn't apply any of his other writings. I think it's very clear at this point that Luna did not committ suicide. If you don't want to mix the cases that's your right. If you don't give the story credibility that is your rig has well. Others think differently.

Except, I did not do that. I do cite it as example of how the press turned on that issue. I also was critical of BK's assigning the Sandusky case as reason why RFG vanished.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Little bit O/T, but wijg's post mentioning letting the dogs out reminded me of an earlier thought.

If my bf could not stick around for half an hour to take the dog out, instead wanting me to use my lunch break to do so, I would be pretty irritated. I wouldn't just say, good for you, enjoy your drive. I'd be annoyed because that's selfish.

Was PF really that laid back? She acted like it was just fine and she didn't care. If she were a stay-at-home wife, took responsibility for the domestic duties and he supported the two of them, then I could probably understand it. But she was at work. Would this bother anyone else?

AS for PEF, she had left him a note to call if he was not there to yake the dog out.