PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #16

[J. J. in Phila]

In that case, he would have faked his death. Left a fake note, car parked in the middle of a bridge with the door open...

That could move into fraud. RFG could have, very easily, made it look like suicide or foul play; he didn't.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks for replying! Sounds like my theory on the mini cooper choice may be a stretch, but your comment on hidden money leads me to another thought/question. I've read a good amount of the posts here but not all, so this may have been covered...RG's financials show no real capital gains for 2004 and 2005, but I believe it was correctly mentioned that money in a 401K would not need to be reported as income. A person is elligible for withdrawal of their 401K without penalty at the age of 59 and 1/2. If that person passes away prior to that age, their heir must wait until THEY are 59 and 1/2 to avoid the substantial early withdrawal penalty. RG was 59 and 1/2 on April 9, 2015. So if he did have a 401K, his heir could (as of 4/9/15) access the money immediately, which certainly seems like another well-planned piece of an exit strategy. Was any info was ever disclosed about RG's retirement plan?

His financial disclosure statements showed single sourced income above $1600 for 2004 and 2005, other than his salary; that would be inclusive of any capital gain, along with interest or other income. 401 K's are taxable, however, under the estate tax. As the estate was valued at less than $25 K, that would not be consistent with him having a 401 K.

We've heard that RFG didn't have anything along those lines.

There are some ways to avoid taxes, either income or estate. It is possible that this is what RFG did and that this would explain the lack of assets. However, if he did that, it would to RFG not planning to be around for retirement, i.e. walkaway or suicide.

 

[Valiant]

It is unlikely a government employee would have a 401k plan unless he had other income. He probably would have a public employee pension and maybe individual contributions to that plan.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It is unlikely a government employee would have a 401k plan unless he had other income. He probably would have a public employee pension and maybe individual contributions to that plan.

He did have a government pension, as noted. It would have bee the average of his last three years of salary.

My understanding is that, if he did die after retirement, some of the value would be lost.

 

[skoogmagoo]

That could move into fraud. RFG could have, very easily, made it look like suicide or foul play; he didn't.

That's why I think he was probably murdered.

 

[BlackTurboS]

What up ya'll. This is my first post so forgive me, but I've been following this case for years and while I am not a detective. I have my own theories around Gricar and the intertanglings in the Sandusky case. I am posting my latest thoughts that I recently shared on another board. But I have a high level of confidence given the evidence, surrounding information, and analysis of his personality.

I keep getting stuck on the internal turmoil or skeletons that Ray MAY have had in his closet. I re-read through the timeline of events when Ray had his hands on the Sandusky case; and it just doesn't add up no matter what angle you look at it. If you take Gricar's career, every aspect of it and view his handling of the Sandusky case through that lens - it doesn't work out. There is something there. We may never know, but its there. Gricar was a cold hard nosed prosecutor that didn't even make eye contact with his coworkers. Ok I get it. But yet he encounters the Sandusky situation and drops the case after HE HIMSELF catches Sandusky admitting his guilt. DA Ray Gricar, on his own, created the entrapment scenario of Sandusky where two police officers listened to Sandusky and the mother of a victim after the "shower incident" and the boy returned home with wet hair. Gricar caught Sandusky on tape saying he was guilty and wished he were dead. How can this bold DA not move forward and prosecute and save dozens of children from assault? Yes, there are more details like how the Department of Public Welfar and Children Services contradicted what Gricar was doing on the case. But then... " Sometime between May 27, 1998 and June 1, 1998, the local District Attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998 "

That leaves two scenarios as to why Ray Gricar would have dropped the Sandusky case in 1998.

1. DPW and CYS with assistance from then Governor Tom Corbett or the AG told Ray to drop the case, leave it alone, they will handle it and take care of it. While this is not documented anywhere, who else in the corrupt state of PA could call up a DA at PSU and have him drop a case on a former coach after that DA just trapped the pervert in his own words?
2. Ray had an understanding and a soft spot so to speak for pedophiles. While I do not think or wish this to be the case, there are a few factors that bother me like understanding he collected antique children's toys, was a loner, trashed his hard drive, etc. Some speculation there so forgive me but you get my drift. This theory doesn't really add up - while he did take the case from his assistance DA; there is no other evidence or anything to suggest anything of this sort. I am only theorizing based on behavior and some evidence like the toy collecting.

Those are the ONLY two possible reasons why Ray Gricar would drop the Sandusky case. That leads us to why or how he dissappeared right and the original post.

1. Did the weight of losing the Sandusky case/getting shut down to prosecute weigh so heavily on Ray that he couldn't take it anymore and either killed himself or disappeared?
2. Someone way up in the elite pedophile ring that people speak of on message boards decided it was time for Ray to go. Did Ray continue to bring up the Sandusky case to someone and want to prosecute him? We need TGricar's perspective on how Ray was with kids since he didn't have his own. However, in order to do this they would have needed to commit the perfect crime against a DA in a nosey town where everyone watches everyone. This point us back to Option 1.

Keeping the thread alive folks. If you want to read more on how Ray was intertwined in the Sandusky case check out this link. While I believe it is overly critical of Ray Gricar, it is mostly accurate and paints a good picture. Which leads to asking more questions. Why in the F did Ray drop this case.

See no evil: DA Ray Gricar drops the ball


I believe that saying RFG's disappearance and the Sandusky case aren't related is statistically impossible and irresponsible. You can't take a DA with a career of slamming cases on people and overlook the fact that he decided to drop what would have been the biggest case of his career and all the while saving dozens of boys from abuse. This just doesn't add up folks. It is there but its like no one in LE actually wants to sit down and tie it all together. RFG was a talented brilliant man; and the parallels to the 20/20 vision book are odd to say the least. Trying to keep the thread alive; apologies for any inaccurate information.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Welcome BlackTurboS!

Corbett was neither the AG nor the governor in 1998. DPW could not order any DA or any police officer around.

The toys (he also collected cameras) were from his childhood. He was apparently nostalgic for his Cleveland and his childhood.

I have not seen any great push on RFG's part to prosecute CSA cases, but not great reluctance either. This is difficult to determine because cases not prosecuted are usually unknown.

RFG could have prosecuted Sandusky at any point after 6/1/98, including after he won re-election for the last time. There was no file on the Sandusky case in the DA's Office; since the reports were faxed it would have been a paper copy. There were no digital records on Sandusky, or that he had been doing any Internet searches on Sandusky. That doesn't sound like he was obsessed with it.

As for RFG being eliminated because of Sandusky, nobody else was. None of the other people involved in the 1998 incident, the 2 victims, Victim 6's mother, the two police officers, JKA, DHS personnel, or Lauro from DPW, were injured or even threatened. Nobody could have known that Sandusky could have been discovered 13 years later and there was not any new thing about Sandusky known around the time he disappeared.

We do have a full thread on the 1998 investigation specifically: The 1998 Investigation

 

[BlackTurboS]

Great points and thank you for the clarifications. For some reason I always attributed Corbett to Governor at the time. Sorry about that. I agree with your point about RFG was not eliminated by Sandusky or the like because no one else was injured or threatened. That leads me back to option 1 I posted above. I now, more than ever, believe he had had enough of the small town politics and said F this I'm outta here. Good luck finding me.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Great points and thank you for the clarifications. For some reason I always attributed Corbett to Governor at the time. Sorry about that. I agree with your point about RFG was not eliminated by Sandusky or the like because no one else was injured or threatened. That leads me back to option 1 I posted above. I now, more than ever, believe he had had enough of the small town politics and said F this I'm outta here. Good luck finding me.

He could have, for any number of reasons.

There would have to evidence that RFG did.

 

[Trackergd]

Searches for information on Sandusky and other related investigative data could have been what was on the wiped and disposed hard drive. It was after all, his County issued computer which he kept in a closet after he purchased his home computer. Why keep it in a closet and not return it to the County IT department if it was no longer needed? Because it contained something that RFG wanted to keep within arms reach, but out of prying eyes (out of sight, out of mind). I don't really think that regular and mundane case information rises to that level. Having the laptop at home precludes a routine or unannounced audit of the laptop by County IT, or at least it leave RFG a day or two to wipe it before submitting it for an audit should that scenario occur. RFG really went over the top in ensuring what ever was on that hard drive never saw the light of day. I think the only reason he did not set it on fire and melt it down before it was tossed in the river is that it would have removed the plausible denial that it had been stolen, should he be asked about it later were he to return home. I am 100% sure there was something damning on that hard drive. Something worth going to so much effort to destroy it and then going missing afterwards. It is possible that going missing was a last minute decision based on a discussion with an unknown party (possible the mystery woman) while in Lewisburg. RFG going missing was premeditated, either by RFG himself or by others. The pre-planning is just too darn good to be otherwise.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I wouldn't say that it was no longer needed, or no longer used. RFG did use it at conferences.

Had RFG claimed it was stolen, he would have had to file a police report. That would be chancy. If he said, **I accidentally dropped it in the river,** and it turns up, it would be impossible to prove that it wasn't an accident. Only if the police would get a warrant to search him home computer or someone saw him toss it into the river would there be any question. However the point that any damage to the drive would be suspicious is well taken.

My problem with any Sandusky connection is twofold.

First, the 1998 police report was sent via fax, indicating that there was a hard copy at the DA's office. If RFG was working on the case, why wouldn't the hard copy remain on file, along with any information. He would have had to scan that into a digital medium, then destroy the hard copy (copies). He would then have had to make sure that there was no digital copy in the office.

Second, why on earth do what would have been secret searches on Sandusky. For anyone to have found out what RFG had, they would have had to check his browser history. Unless he is basically under criminal investigation, nobody will check. It is the same with any hard copy. RFG would be trying to keep it secret that he was looking at Sandusky from LE, potentially.

It is the same problem with any Sandusky information on his computer. The only people he would be hiding it from are LE and possibly staff (quasi-LE).

 

[BlackTurboS]

Searches for information on Sandusky and other related investigative data could have been what was on the wiped and disposed hard drive. It was after all, his County issued computer which he kept in a closet after he purchased his home computer. Why keep it in a closet and not return it to the County IT department if it was no longer needed? Because it contained something that RFG wanted to keep within arms reach, but out of prying eyes (out of sight, out of mind). I don't really think that regular and mundane case information rises to that level. Having the laptop at home precludes a routine or unannounced audit of the laptop by County IT, or at least it leave RFG a day or two to wipe it before submitting it for an audit should that scenario occur. RFG really went over the top in ensuring what ever was on that hard drive never saw the light of day. I think the only reason he did not set it on fire and melt it down before it was tossed in the river is that it would have removed the plausible denial that it had been stolen, should he be asked about it later were he to return home. I am 100% sure there was something damning on that hard drive. Something worth going to so much effort to destroy it and then going missing afterwards. It is possible that going missing was a last minute decision based on a discussion with an unknown party (possible the mystery woman) while in Lewisburg. RFG going missing was premeditated, either by RFG himself or by others. The pre-planning is just too darn good to be otherwise.

I love how sites like this, and thus responses like yours, can open our minds up to more ideas of what could have happened. Love it. I think you are right. There was something on that drive. It was too intentional to bring it with him that day. Too intentional to tell PF "Heading toward Lewisburg" instead of where he was actually headed. Too intentional to leave the cig ash on the car just like in the 20/20 vision book he consulted for.

What I also find interesting as I ponder this morning is that I don't believe there was a single email from RFG discovered in the PSU scandal, was there? Smart guy to not exchange a SINGLE email with anyone from PSU between 1998 and 2005 and instead do all meetings and communications in person. Maybe RFG didn't do email? This dude really covered his tracks.

 

[BlackTurboS]

I wouldn't say that it was no longer needed, or no longer used. RFG did use it at conferences.

Had RFG claimed it was stolen, he would have had to file a police report. That would be chancy. If he said, **I accidentally dropped it in the river,** and it turns up, it would be impossible to prove that it wasn't an accident. Only if the police would get a warrant to search him home computer or someone saw him toss it into the river would there be any question. However the point that any damage to the drive would be suspicious is well taken.

My problem with any Sandusky connection is twofold.

First, the 1998 police report was sent via fax, indicating that there was a hard copy at the DA's office. If RFG was working on the case, why wouldn't the hard copy remain on file, along with any information. He would have had to scan that into a digital medium, then destroy the hard copy (copies). He would then have had to make sure that there was no digital copy in the office.

Second, why on earth do what would have been secret searches on Sandusky. For anyone to have found out what RFG had, they would have had to check his browser history. Unless he is basically under criminal investigation, nobody will check. It is the same with any hard copy. RFG would be trying to keep it secret that he was looking at Sandusky from LE, potentially.

It is the same problem with any Sandusky information on his computer. The only people he would be hiding it from are LE and possibly staff (quasi-LE).

Your first point would make me think there is a Sandusky connection; are you stating the opposite - the fact that there is no record in his office makes you think no connection? He took the case away from his ADA; there should be an office record of it. Why on earth is there NOTHING in his records of his work on the case. Bizarre to say the least. At the same time; not all that hard to scan and shred back then. but why? I assume back in 2005 the Bellefonte police weren't wise enough to try to ask his ISP provider at the office and at home to see if they could pick up any of his email traffic through their gateways. I highly doubt Bellefonte police knew what that was let alone ask about it. RFG knew how weak LE was.

I'm indifferent on the whole searching or storing stuff related to Sandusky on his computer and then trashing it. I mean this was 1998-2004 so Google and the archives of social information and news articles wasn't what it is today. So I don't think there was much to "search" on Sandusky per se. Knowing Gricar's behavior - he is more of a hands on guy he would have hit the street and got feedback from people on his subject. THE GUY EVEN SETUP A TRAP ON HIM! So I don't think he was searching Sandusky. He had everything he needed for a huge case - and he drops it. Just not sure about the searching thing; but at the same time not many other logical answers to what he would be hiding/trashing on that drive. Why did he bury this case; that part will bother me because we will never know that answer. Maybe RFG just knew it was a house of cards and didn't want to stick around to take any of the heat. Sure there is mystery around why and how - but this dude walked away.

I know this is a random connection but I had an uncle in law that was a former DA of a small town in Vermont and he was just as quiet as Gricar. They are/were earily similar. Lives with his long time girlfriend (to this day), everything is in her name, and just odd, but highly intelligent. Something about that role and line of work... I kid you not. If you knew my uncle in law who is a former DA it would creep you out with some of the similarities. Interestingly, he just left his girlfriend and bounced. No joke. They have an ability to just sever connections and not operate on the same social spectrum as the rest of us. I'm creeped out typing about it.

In posting over the past day and another board I feel some sense of closure on this case. After seeing the connection to the book he consulted for, making sure people saw him at SoS, setting everything up in his daughters/gfs name, leaving his phone off so it doesn't ping; the accounts shared with his daughter (Who does that?!?!), even the lie detector with the doctor is suspicious... why not ask her "Is your father alive" instead of "do you know the whereabouts of your father". No I don't know if he's at Walmart or eating dinner at Chick Fil A - pass; and the other signs of walking away after taking in the big picture again. I feel a sense of peace after reading some of your thoughts and feedback. Bizarre, I know. But thanks!

 

[Trackergd]

I wouldn't say that it was no longer needed, or no longer used. RFG did use it at conferences.

What type of conferences? Private meetings with witnesses?

Had RFG claimed it was stolen, he would have had to file a police report. That would be chancy. If he said, **I accidentally dropped it in the river,** and it turns up, it would be impossible to prove that it wasn't an accident. Only if the police would get a warrant to search him home computer or someone saw him toss it into the river would there be any question. However the point that any damage to the drive would be suspicious is well taken.

Point taken, "dropped in the river with the hard drive physically removed'' is only slightly better than claiming theft.

My problem with any Sandusky connection is twofold.

First, the 1998 police report was sent via fax, indicating that there was a hard copy at the DA's office. If RFG was working on the case, why wouldn't the hard copy remain on file, along with any information. He would have had to scan that into a digital medium, then destroy the hard copy (copies). He would then have had to make sure that there was no digital copy in the office.

Second, why on earth do what would have been secret searches on Sandusky. For anyone to have found out what RFG had, they would have had to check his browser history. Unless he is basically under criminal investigation, nobody will check. It is the same with any hard copy. RFG would be trying to keep it secret that he was looking at Sandusky from LE, potentially.

It is the same problem with any Sandusky information on his computer. The only people he would be hiding it from are LE and possibly staff (quasi-LE).

What was on the laptop my have been his personal notes regarding one or more cases, sort of an "electronic journal". Just as admissible in court records as a hard copy of the fax considering who was keeping the notes. I am leaning more and more towards this scenario. An electronic journal could contain some interesting information and all the more reason to keep it out of sight, more so if it involved information about a staff member, or a high profile individual. I asked a number of people I work with if they store their laptop in a closet. I got almost the same response from all of them "no, I keep it in my laptop bag or on my desk, unless I don't use it any more and just keep it as a backup for my new computer".

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What type of conferences? Private meetings with witnesses?

Point taken, "dropped in the river with the hard drive physically removed'' is only slightly better than claiming theft.

What was on the laptop my have been his personal notes regarding one or more cases, sort of an "electronic journal". Just as admissible in court records as a hard copy of the fax considering who was keeping the notes. I am leaning more and more towards this scenario. An electronic journal could contain some interesting information and all the more reason to keep it out of sight, more so if it involved information about a staff member, or a high profile individual. I asked a number of people I work with if they store their laptop in a closet. I got almost the same response from all of them "no, I keep it in my laptop bag or on my desk, unless I don't use it any more and just keep it as a backup for my new computer".

District attorney conferences; it wasn't related to a trial. He was at one in February, 2005.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Your first point would make me think there is a Sandusky connection; are you stating the opposite - the fact that there is no record in his office makes you think no connection? He took the case away from his ADA; there should be an office record of it. Why on earth is there NOTHING in his records of his work on the case. Bizarre to say the least. At the same time; not all that hard to scan and shred back then. but why? I assume back in 2005 the Bellefonte police weren't wise enough to try to ask his ISP provider at the office and at home to see if they could pick up any of his email traffic through their gateways. I highly doubt Bellefonte police knew what that was let alone ask about it. RFG knew how weak LE was.

Madeira, his successor said that it wasn't unusual, if there were no charges filed.

I'm indifferent on the whole searching or storing stuff related to Sandusky on his computer and then trashing it. I mean this was 1998-2004 so Google and the archives of social information and news articles wasn't what it is today. So I don't think there was much to "search" on Sandusky per se. Knowing Gricar's behavior - he is more of a hands on guy he would have hit the street and got feedback from people on his subject. THE GUY EVEN SETUP A TRAP ON HIM! So I don't think he was searching Sandusky. He had everything he needed for a huge case - and he drops it. Just not sure about the searching thing; but at the same time not many other logical answers to what he would be hiding/trashing on that drive. Why did he bury this case; that part will bother me because we will never know that answer. Maybe RFG just knew it was a house of cards and didn't want to stick around to take any of the heat. Sure there is mystery around why and how - but this dude walked away.

The PSP reviewed the computer stuff in 2006.

I know this is a random connection but I had an uncle in law that was a former DA of a small town in Vermont and he was just as quiet as Gricar. They are/were earily similar. Lives with his long time girlfriend (to this day), everything is in her name, and just odd, but highly intelligent. Something about that role and line of work... I kid you not. If you knew my uncle in law who is a former DA it would creep you out with some of the similarities. Interestingly, he just left his girlfriend and bounced. No joke. They have an ability to just sever connections and not operate on the same social spectrum as the rest of us. I'm creeped out typing about it.

In posting over the past day and another board I feel some sense of closure on this case. After seeing the connection to the book he consulted for, making sure people saw him at SoS, setting everything up in his daughters/gfs name, leaving his phone off so it doesn't ping; the accounts shared with his daughter (Who does that?!?!), even the lie detector with the doctor is suspicious... why not ask her "Is your father alive" instead of "do you know the whereabouts of your father". No I don't know if he's at Walmart or eating dinner at Chick Fil A - pass; and the other signs of walking away after taking in the big picture again. I feel a sense of peace after reading some of your thoughts and feedback. Bizarre, I know. But thanks!

The similarities in the book are basically the date, phone call, and that the main character, a detective, was heading toward retirement (which is a common plot device). The ash in the book was supposedly cremated remains.

Further RFG did not "consult" on the book, 20/20 Vision. West, the author, had asked RFG for information on the 1969 Betsy Aardsma murder. He encouraged her to write a non-fiction book about the case, but declined to make any of the records available. West wrote a fiction book involving a murder similar to Aardsma's. He read the book, after it was published, as did the PSP trooper.

As for both names on an account, my father did that since I was about 16. He was a widower; I was an only child. He did it, primarily, so I could sign checks if something happened to him. If he died, had a stroke, or broke is arm, I could sign checks and pay the bills. RFG was in a similar situation. If RFG did die, it had some very good inheritance tax implications, that I have alluded to previously.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I got this photo off of Google Earth. It is from the edge of the bridge on the east bank of the Susquehanna, looking west toward Lewisburg. I'm posting it to give some examples of the height and clarity.

The height of the water might be as much as 2.5 feet higher in this photo, but probably much closer. The water clarity is about the same.

The reason I'm showing this is to show the difficulty on finding a body, and more so, the laptop and drive, at the time of the disappearance.

 

[Trackergd]

I wonder if RFG was keeping an eye on the reported river water level and the opportune time to toss the laptop in the river presented itself?

 

[Trackergd]

That's why I think he was probably murdered.

Curious how you think RFG was murdered. Shooting - Nope, everyone in the SOS would have known. Stabbing - No blood in the Mini or on the ground anywhere in the area. Tossed in the river - Doubtful as no body was recovered and it's a bit too open an area to knock someone on the head and toss them in the river...and not from the bank. I've been on both the bank and the bridge as well as that entire end of town and extended area on the other side of the bridge. Way too many people wandering about, even on a cold and dreary day.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I wonder if RFG was keeping an eye on the reported river water level and the opportune time to toss the laptop in the river presented itself?

I can pretty much say no, for two reasons.

1. There was minor flooding on 4/3/05, so the river was higher on the weekend of 4/8/05.https://www.weather.gov/media/marfc/FloodClimo/WBS/Lewisburg.pdf

2. The trip to Raystown Lake the day before (4/14). My understanding is that the board renting season would start that weekend, so there would be a chance that the trip was for the disposal of the computer.