CJMAJORGIRL24
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,325
- Reaction score
- 2
perhaps we all KNOW less than we think we know.
You could be right. What we don't know is the truth. And I'm convinced the truth doesn't live in Happy Valley. jmo
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
perhaps we all KNOW less than we think we know.
Yes. We've discussed voluntary walkaway for years with no clear- cut motive known to us. Unless Ray Gricar was in a very rare fugue state mentally, HE knew why he left, if he left, but we don't know.
I think it is extremely short- sighted and vengeful to say that Ray Gricar's legacy in office will be his failure to prosecute Sandusky. I will never hold the opinion of him held by one of the newer posters in Mr. Gricar's case ( probably brought here by the Sandusky cases).
First, there was more evidence in 1998, and additional victim, B. K, who couldn't testify before the grand jury, because he was in the military.
Even a failed prosecution, or a plea bargain, would have probably protected several of the victims, but not all of them. Some of them predate the incident.
It was a mistake[/i], a horrible, and colossal mistake. It may be related to his disappearance or something random. Maybe we'll find out it was more than a mistake, or a colossal collapse of judgment, but the evidence is there at this point.
This is part of the legacy of Ray Gricar, but to be balanced, it is not the entire legacy. I've looked at his cases, both before and after 11/5/11. Every time I look, I see him, often personally, trying difficult cases, sometimes high profile case, that he'd lose. Same with high profile Penn State cases. Sometimes he'd bring charges only to have a judge say that he didn't have enough and toss it prior to a jury hearing it.
Ray Gricar was a had hitting prosecutor, that would take tough cases, but not with Sandusky in 1998. That is his legacy. Why that "but" is in there is questionable; him backing off politically doesn't make a great deal of sense. Neither does not enough evidence.
The problem that I have is that Victim 6 (and B. K.) are just so atypical of his record. How he handled it, internally in the office, seems to be atypical as well. Honestly, there is no love lost between Arnold and myself, but she certainly seems to have been in favor of handling it differently and probably better. She wasn't called to rebut Schreffler and she praised Schreffler. Heck, Schreffler praised Gricar apart from this.
The question that I have, primarily is if this is related to his disappearance. Obviously, if walkaway, it could, on many levels.
perhaps we all KNOW less than we think we know.
It is also hard to swallow that Mr. Gricar went to the extent of setting up a sting to get Sandusky to confess, and then NOT pursue the case, when Sandusky more than confesses to his actions with the victim. And where is the case file?
And who else besides Mike Mediera that worked in Mr. Gricar's office had ties to the monster? And what about Corbett and his ties to all of this? And lets not forget the msising records from Second Mile-where are they?
They say it is not unusual for there to be no case file.
Madeira was not with the DA's Office until elected in 2005. Corbett left the AG's Office in 1996; he'd been appointed to fill a vacancy in 1995. He was not elected until 2004.
Seems unusual that KA was shown only one paragraph and not a file.
Madiera was Mr. Gricar's mentor and friend.
Corbett was AG in 2005 when the investigation continued-.
As crazy as the Sandusky cover up has been, it makes Ms. Baron look sane.
Michael Madiera while maybe was not Gricar's mentor was his friend. Michael Madiera's conflict is that Madiera's brother in law is Jerry Sanduskys adopted son. And yes I realize that the AG's office is the state. It has been reported that Corbett has profited greatly from Sandusky and Second Mile.
I believe that Mr. Gricar was a great man. But even great men make mistakes. I also am familiar with some of his hard fought cases, and his generosities. While I would hope that is what he is remembered for, his actions in 1998 will cloud HIS legacy.
It is also hard to swallow that Mr. Gricar went to the extent of setting up a sting to get Sandusky to confess, and then NOT pursue the case, when Sandusky more than confesses to his actions with the victim. And where is the case file? And who else besides Mike Mediera that worked in Mr. Gricar's office had ties to the monster? And what about Corbett and his ties to all of this? And lets not forget the msising records from Second Mile-where are they? And maybe just maybe the "mystery woman" could be someone involved in all of this? If there is any truth that the monster used Second Mile to "pimp out" young boys to men with money--and Mr. Gricar found out about it, it could be the VERY reason he is no longer with us. jmo
I'm never seen a situation that better proves Edmund Burke's maxim that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
In the case of RFG, the simplest hypothesis possible is he did nothing, he was ashamed, he walked away.
Edit to add: Here's my challange to everyone posting in this thread, apply Occam's razor and give me a simpler explanation than the hypothesis I suggested.
http://triblive.com/news/2080228-74...-schreffler-1998-president-coach-2001-abusing
Speak of the Devil.
Ironically, someone commenting on my latest blog called 1998 a "wise decision." I asked if it was really Dottie.
Is there a blog or something that gives a total look at the evidence from the date he went missing to now-without reading through all the threads-lol
JJ-Are you a lawyer or friend of RG?
I don't see any comments from the above story
It was in my current blog. Here:
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/06/23/3239462/trying-the-soul.html
I'll let the folks that call 1998 "a wise decision" speak for themselves.
There was all kinds of crazy speculation when this story first broke about Sandusky engaging in child *advertiser censored* and pimping children out to rich donors. But there is no evidence of anything beyond one perverted old man molesting boys entrusted to his care. The shame is he could have been been stopped. I'm never seen a situation that better proves Edmund Burke's maxim that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
In the case of RFG, the simplest hypothesis possible is he did nothing, he was ashamed, he walked away.
Edit to add: Here's my challange to everyone posting in this thread, apply Occam's razor and give me a simpler explanation than the hypothesis I suggested.
Corbett ran for Governor and took campaign contribution from people associated with Second Mile, but not Sandusky. He didn't personally profit from it.