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

[J. J. in Phila]

It appears that JoPa and Penn State knew about Sandusky in 1976. What did Ray know? Could this in any way have influenced Ray to go missing or for others to silence him?

http://6abc.com/news/insurer-says-child-told-paterno-in-76-sandusky-molested-him/1326055/

I think there was some arrangement between RFG and someone or some people at PSU. I do not know who. Such an arrangement would likely not be illegal nor a violation of legal ethical canons. RFG could not know if this could ever become public.

I would see it as being a motive for RFG to walk away, nor a motive for anyone at PSU to murder him.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think there was some arrangement between RFG and someone or some people at PSU. I do not know who. Such an arrangement would likely not be illegal nor a violation of legal ethical canons. RFG could not know if this could ever become public.

I would see it as being a motive for RFG to walk away, nor a motive for anyone at PSU to murder him.

Make that "would not being a motive for RFG to walk away."

 

[BigCat]

I think there was some arrangement between RFG and someone or some people at PSU. I do not know who. Such an arrangement would likely not be illegal nor a violation of legal ethical canons. RFG could not know if this could ever become public.

I would see it as being a motive for RFG to walk away, nor a motive for anyone at PSU to murder him.

Surely you're not saying that it's not illegal or a violation of legal ethical canons to ignore allegations of childhood sexual abuse. I must be missing something.

btw, CNN is reporting that Paterno ordered a victim to drop an allegation as far back as 1971.

http://deadspin.com/cnn-sandusky-victim-says-joe-paterno-ordered-him-to-dr-1775315000

PSU paid for the man's rehab, so I guess the university isn't disputing his allegations.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Surely you're not saying that it's not illegal or a violation of legal ethical canons to ignore allegations of childhood sexual abuse. I must be missing something.

btw, CNN is reporting that Paterno ordered a victim to drop an allegation as far back as 1971.

http://deadspin.com/cnn-sandusky-victim-says-joe-paterno-ordered-him-to-dr-1775315000

PSU paid for the man's rehab, so I guess the university isn't disputing his allegations.

Well, in regard to the case, PSU settled. That does not mean that there is evidence and that they would have lost in court. It might be that they felt settlement was cheaper.

I was one of the plaintiffs in a class action suit. There was, after discovery, no real evidence that I saw against the defendant, but the defendant wanted to settle. Had I been the defendant and had a huge amount of money, I never would have settled, based on that information.

As to DA's, they have "prosecutorial discretion" and can determine what cases to pursue. Any DA can look at a case, even think that he can legitimately pursue the case, and decline to prosecute. http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/

It is fairly common, and we saw an example from the recent Johnstown-Altoona Diocese investigation (and I knew the attorney, now a judge, who exercised it). Prosecutors get to make those decisions. It may be a bad decision, a colossal collapse of judgment, but it is neither illegal nor is it unethical. Had RFG been there in 2011, and assuming he was honest with the grand jury and that there was no quid pro quo, he would have faced no professional or legal penalty.

 

[BigCat]

Well, in regard to the case, PSU settled. That does not mean that there is evidence and that they would have lost in court. It might be that they felt settlement was cheaper.

I was one of the plaintiffs in a class action suit. There was, after discovery, no real evidence that I saw against the defendant, but the defendant wanted to settle. Had I been the defendant and had a huge amount of money, I never would have settled, based on that information.

As to DA's, they have "prosecutorial discretion" and can determine what cases to pursue. Any DA can look at a case, even think that he can legitimately pursue the case, and decline to prosecute. http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/

It is fairly common, and we saw an example from the recent Johnstown-Altoona Diocese investigation (and I knew the attorney, now a judge, who exercised it). Prosecutors get to make those decisions. It may be a bad decision, a colossal collapse of judgment, but it is neither illegal nor is it unethical. Had RFG been there in 2011, and assuming he was honest with the grand jury and that there was no quid pro quo, he would have faced no professional or legal penalty.

If he was here in 2016, I think he would be wishing he could disappear, regardless of whether he was within legal and ethical boundaries in deciding not to prosecute Sandusky.

 

[Trackergd]

Possibly not illegal or unethical, but could be damning in the court of public opinion and a poor legacy.

The more we are hearing about how far back the abuse went, the more I think about that computer hard drive.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If he was here in 2016, I think he would be wishing he could disappear, regardless of whether he was within legal and ethical boundaries in deciding not to prosecute Sandusky.

He isn't the only one. No matter what, this would create a ****storm.

My point is, much like those folks in Cambria County who went the bishop, RFG would not be in legal, or ethical, trouble. Yes, a PR disaster, but nothing that would cause anything beyond a reputation problem. It does make for a strong motive for anything voluntary.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He isn't the only one. No matter what, this would create a ****storm.

My point is, much like those folks in Cambria County who went the bishop, RFG would not be in legal, or ethical, trouble. Yes, a PR disaster, but nothing that would cause anything beyond a reputation problem. It does make for a strong motive for anything voluntary.

It does not make fora strong motive for anything voluntary.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

It does not make fora strong motive for anything voluntary.

Hey JJ what do you think of meeting's that no one know's about but only a few and to be blind sided to boot someone got RG to go to lewisburg and well never returned

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hey JJ what do you think of meeting's that no one know's about but only a few and to be blind sided to boot someone got RG to go to lewisburg and well never returned

That is a possibility. The questions are who and how?

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

That is a possibility. The questions are who and how?

the plan was thought out very well--- when that happends it only take's mins for it to go down and I can not still get over this big hair thing that IB seen

 

[Trackergd]

That is a possibility. The questions are who and how?

I am wondering if that hard drive contained abuse reports from the beginning. It would explain keeping it in a closet at home. I'm sure PSU would have loved to have that kind of documentation disappear. This scenario goes in a number of directions from motive for murder and destruction of evidence to walking away before the whole story came out. A number of people had to know that Jerry was a hot potato and with no abatement in his behavior, the risk of discovery increased every day. How far these tentacles of cover up went are anyone's guess at this point...but it is only now coming out how long it had existed. Two people can keep a horrible secret if one is dead (or somewhere else in the world).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am wondering if that hard drive contained abuse reports from the beginning. It would explain keeping it in a closet at home. I'm sure PSU would have loved to have that kind of documentation disappear. This scenario goes in a number of directions from motive for murder and destruction of evidence to walking away before the whole story came out. A number of people had to know that Jerry was a hot potato and with no abatement in his behavior, the risk of discovery increased every day. How far these tentacles of cover up went are anyone's guess at this point...but it is only now coming out how long it had existed. Two people can keep a horrible secret if one is dead (or somewhere else in the world).

The computer was not in Gricar's possession in 1998. The Chamber's Report was faxed to the DA's Office. It could not have been originally on there.

Okay, assuming it was on the laptop:

1. Where are the originals?

2. Why would there not be copies on other computer?

3. Why would RFG have put it, solely, on a computer he was using as a home computer?

Further, if RFG was working on the case, privately, why were there no reference to Sandusky in anything RFG had?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A nice summary article on the investigation: https://issuu.com/robschmidt80/docs/april_2015_t_g

It is a year old.

 

[Trackergd]

The indisputable fact remains that something on that hard drive was so sensitive (at least in RG's mind) that it had to be destroyed in a manner that even Kroll could not recover it. Offshore funds "might" rise to that level. Murder and other horrible crime do. I am of the opinion that the earlier visit to another lake was a first attempt to destroy the data, or at least a trip to see if it were possible. Running into someone who knew him quickly impressed on him that he had to find a body of water well away from where anyone knew him on sight.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The indisputable fact remains that something on that hard drive was so sensitive (at least in RG's mind) that it had to be destroyed in a manner that even Kroll could not recover it. Offshore funds "might" rise to that level. Murder and other horrible crime do. I am of the opinion that the earlier visit to another lake was a first attempt to destroy the data, or at least a trip to see if it were possible. Running into someone who knew him quickly impressed on him that he had to find a body of water well away from where anyone knew him on sight.

If it was case related, why would he keep it on a computer he used as a home computer and was planning to destroy the data? Why would there not be copies in the office?

 

[Trackergd]

If it was case related, why would he keep it on a computer he used as a home computer and was planning to destroy the data? Why would there not be copies in the office?

Hope that it could be used later, involvement in one way or another including financial, potential leverage, research about his brothers death, something we have not thought of yet including the chain of emails that were floating around the state within law enforcement that contained inappropriate subject material, or even early drafts of suicide letters. And while it is alleged "his home computer", it was stored in a closet. Not exactly what the majority of people do with their home computer.

All of us have owned multiple home computers. I seriously doubt that any of us here have removed the hard drive and thrown it into a river or lake.

With regard to the Fenton sighting, I am somewhat curious as to what would motivate RG to go back to Bellefonte, an area where he is well known on sight, even in another vehicle and risk the possibility of being spotted. I give a fair amount of credit to Fenton. Just wish we could nail down the day.

This is one part of the case I am not budging on as I am convinced it is somehow related to his disappearance. That and clear deception on his part to Patty on what he was up to that day as well as his demeanor in the days prior to his disappearance.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped

And while it is alleged "his home computer", it was stored in a closet. Not exactly what the majority of people do with their home computer.

RFG only got his home desk top in December 2004 or January 2005; before that, he used the laptop as his home computer.

All of us have owned multiple home computers. I seriously doubt that any of us here have removed the hard drive and thrown it into a river or lake.

There was a desire on RFG's part to get rid of the data on that laptop. I have wondered, however, if he was aware of computer crime and just wanted to be extra safe. It is possible, at least, that it doesn't have anything to do with his disappearance.

With regard to the Fenton sighting, I am somewhat curious as to what would motivate RG to go back to Bellefonte, an area where he is well known on sight, even in another vehicle and risk the possibility of being spotted. I give a fair amount of credit to Fenton. Just wish we could nail down the day.

For either day, he could have been bringing back the person who provided another car. If RFG wanted to walk away, he could have had a helper, who bought or rented a car, and that then that helper turned it over to him. RFG could have been return that helper to his own car, or someplace where helper could go home.

That assumes that:

A. Fenton is correct, at least in seeing RFG around the courthouse on 4/15.

B. RFG walked away.

As for the different demeanor, yes, it was there form at least the second week of March, 2005. It seemed to be getting worse.

 

[Trackergd]

Let's go back to the Fenton sighting for a moment as something clicked in my mind last night while thinking about it. Regardless of the day (two possible days) that Fenton saw RG, she said he was in a different car. From what I could go back and see in the threads, it obviously was not the mini and does not appear to be PF's car. Seems odd he would be in any other car given events leading up to this time period. Could have been a meeting before he went missing or a confederate/courier bringing him back after leaving the mini. Both are curious scenario's. Coming back to Bellefonte where he is well known on sight after potentially planting the mini is a very risky move and would have required serious need to clean up something, pick up something etc...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Let's go back to the Fenton sighting for a moment as something clicked in my mind last night while thinking about it. Regardless of the day (two possible days) that Fenton saw RG, she said he was in a different car. From what I could go back and see in the threads, it obviously was not the mini and does not appear to be PF's car. Seems odd he would be in any other car given events leading up to this time period. Could have been a meeting before he went missing or a confederate/courier bringing him back after leaving the mini. Both are curious scenario's. Coming back to Bellefonte where he is well known on sight after potentially planting the mini is a very risky move and would have required serious need to clean up something, pick up something etc...

I have thought that it could have been possible for RFG to drop off the Mini in Lewisburg on 4/14. The problem is that there are least two witnesses in Centre Hall that saw him driving the Mini on 4/15, heading east, the general direction of Lewisburg. I abandoned that theory when that evidence came out.

The only thing that I could figure is that he was dropping off a helper in Bellefonte. It would be something like this:

1. Helper acquires a car (metallic colored).

2. RFG drives to Lewisburg. He calls PEF just east (northeast) of Centre Hall. One witness spots him, in the Mini, going toward Centre Hall, and another who sees him turning on to 192.

3. Helper leaves in the metallic colored car for Lewisburg.

4. RFG arrives in Lewisburg and makes sure he is seen; it would be around 12:00 PM, He moves the Mini back and fourth in parking spaces on Water Street.

5. Helper arrives, and both he and RFG park in a less conspicuous spot ( My guess would north, in the area round the hospital.

6. RFG gets into the helper's car, driving it back to Bellefonte, arriving around 3:00PM.

7. In Bellefonte, RFG leaves the helper out by the courthouse. He is seen by Fenton.

8. RFG drives back to Lewisburg in the helper's car.

9. He parks it and gets into the Mini.

10. He makes sure he is seen by moving the car around in the SoS's parking lot.

It is plausible and it looks like RFG would have the time to have done that. It lacks stronger evidence.