PA PA - District Attorney Ray Gricar Mysteriously Disappeared - Bellefonte 15 April 2005 #18

JJ, would love to rule 100% in or out, could this possibly been payoff from a college to derail any investigation into an individual and his behavior?
I said this a long time ago. ANY District Attorney is in a position where he can blackmail people or be bribed. It is just in the nature of being able to prosecute.

That said, I know of no specific evidence of either in RFG's case, though the untraceable bank account makes either more likely. In the well known case, I have not of a hint of any type of a payoff. RFG not wanting to prosecute a then popular figure with a connection to an institution with direct a connection to half the electorate would be enough.
 
JJ, would love to rule 100% in or out, could this possibly been payoff from a college to derail any investigation into an individual and his behavior?
I said this a long time ago. ANY District Attorney is in a position where he can blackmail people or be bribed. It is just in the nature of being able to prosecute.

That said, I know of no specific evidence of either in RFG's case, though the untraceable bank account makes either more likely. In the well known case, I have not of a hint of any type of a payoff. RFG not wanting to prosecute a then popular figure with a connection to an institution with direct a connection to half the electorate would be enough.
 
I believe it was a walkaway. Too many things point in that direction in combination with the timing of these things. Just my thoughts.
I think walkaway is much more likely.

That said, all of the evidence can point to walkaway. Much of the evidence could also point to foul play. Further the evidence that could point to voluntary departure does not exclude foul play.

Take the unknown bank account. It could be an indication that RFG was hiding assets from his ex-wife, or from the IRS, or bribe money, or all three, hypothetically. It is entirely possible to hide money and still be murdered.
 
I just want to add something. I feel bad about what I wrote.

People (not you) have this view of a walkaway as being incredibly selfish. It can be. It can also be selfless. Not all who walk choose to move their feet. Some people have this idealistic view of someone lolling on a beach in the South of France. They don't really envisage the reality. Imagine not being able to contact those you love? Imagine looking over your shoulder every day of your life. Imagine the knowledge that one thoughtless slip could unravel the entire thing? Imagine not being able to let anyone get close to you. Imagine the suspicion of anyone new who walks into your life. Imagine having to live with a plan, knowing nothing could ever be permanent again? No permanency, no way to relax, fear and lets add in the paranoia - does it sound like something people actively walk towards?

We simply don't know. Maybe he was threatened. Maybe someone close to him was threatened. Maybe he was worried that he was in a position where once his utility ran out it could create an issue. Maybe none of these apply.

I remember a long time ago when someone disappeared and the people looking for him used a kind of kompromat on the nearest and dearest to convince them that he wasn't who he said he was, he didn't in fact even have a son, he had severe alcohol and drug problems (none of this was true by the way) and other 'interesting' investigative techniques. This led to one of them confessing that they knew the route he took (to a boat I think it was) and all hell descended on the marina. They turned up and he wasn't there. I guess the relative had the last laugh. Anyway, my point is that often we think we are privy to the truth about things and we're simply not.

I just want to explain that I don't simply think he chose to throw his life down the crapper and just loll on a beach somewhere. And like you say anyway, foul play can easily be tied into scenarios like this or other scenarios. Who knows? There are many possibilities and we can only guess at the truth.
 
Last edited:
I think walkaway is much more likely.

That said, all of the evidence can point to walkaway. Much of the evidence could also point to foul play. Further the evidence that could point to voluntary departure does not exclude foul play.

Take the unknown bank account. It could be an indication that RFG was hiding assets from his ex-wife, or from the IRS, or bribe money, or all three, hypothetically. It is entirely possible to hide money and still be murdered.

Not an expert, but it seems highly unusual a person would change their identity, disappear, not have communication with their child and leave all their money behind just to avoid making alimony payments to an ex-spouse. Especially so if that person wasn't wealthy to begin with, didn't have many assets aside from clothes, car, a modest retirement account, etc. that a former spouse could take.
 
Not an expert, but it seems highly unusual a person would change their identity, disappear, not have communication with their child and leave all their money behind just to avoid making alimony payments to an ex-spouse. Especially so if that person wasn't wealthy to begin with, didn't have many assets aside from clothes, car, a modest retirement account, etc. that a former spouse could take.

He would be the first.

The pension is another issue. My understanding is that, if RFG died or was declared dead, prior to claiming the pension, it would be worth a lot more to his heirs.

There are several factors:

1. After 9/11, it would be much more difficult to get money back into the US. RFG could have walked away to the money. The timing would be right.

2. As noted, if RFG does not claim his pension, his heirs get it, and would probably get a lot more than if he died soon after retiring.

3. Even in the early 2000's, a public official could keep his pension if convicted of some wrongdoing, if that wrongdoing was not associated with his official duties. In other words, if I rob a bank, I can still keep my state pension upon conviction. That is why Sandusky still has his state pension (though they changed it after that). If there was something like in RFG's case, that would be a good reason to vanish; he would eventually be declared dead and could not be charged. (I hope this is not the case, but cannot ignore the possibility.)

4. RFG might not have wanted to be "the ex-DA," and have answer questions about what he did decades ago. With a lot of the CSA scandals in the Catholic Church, we were seeing lawyers called on the carpet for things they did in the 1960's.

5. As previously mentioned, there could have been safety concerns. It is rare, but there are people that hold grudges.

6. RFG was from a generation where being "on the road," had a lot of romance associated with it. I did a blog detailing it that I could post.

7. He wanted to show up everyone and gloat. He could have been bitter about the decade he had been part time and decided to show his absolute superiority by pulling off a near perfect disappearance. (I have often wondered if RFG is out there reading these posts.)

It could be multiple reasons, or some that are not mentioned.
 
This is the text of a blog I wrote called King of the Road:

"I remember a song from extreme youth; I literally was under five when I first heard it in the early 1960’s. It had a catchy first verse, with the singer, Roger Miller, snapping his fingers in rhythm to the music. I’ll lay odds that you have heard it. The first verse ended with line: I’m a man of means, by no means. King of the Road.

"“King of the Road,” was a major hit in 1965. Miller, a country artist, took it to number one on the county charts in April of that year, but as sometimes happens, it became a crossover hit in March 20, in the top five behind The Beatles “Eight Days a Week,” (the group Sir Paul McCartney was in before Wings) and The Supremes “Stop in the Name of Love.” The song was covered by diverse performers like Dean Martin, the disco group Boney M, and R.E.M. There would even be a “response song” called “Queen of the House,” by country artist Jody Miller (no, hip hop did not invent response songs).

"The narrative of “King of the Road” was about how great it was traveling across county, to travel without roots, to be a vagabond. The narrator would stay in cheap rooms, hop freights, panhandling, work odd jobs, and sing about what a good lifestyle it would be. The song glamorized it, indicating he didn’t have any responsibilities. I think I remember it because of the line referring to “ain’t got no cigarettes.” My father was a smoker (at least until his myocardial infarction in our living room) and I associated that lyric with him. While I was little more than a toddler at the time, the future District Attorney of Centre County was a 19 year old sophomore in college.

"In the time period that Ray Gricar came of age, his high school and college years, there was a theme in American society, sometimes referred to as “the wanderer” or the “man on the move” theme. It became a stock theme where one or two individuals would take off, going from place to place, traveling, with no set schedule, no real destination, leaving everything behind. There were two popular television shows that illustrated this theme, both iconic.

"The first was called Route 66. It first aired two days before Mr. Gricar’s 15th birthday and ended in March of 1964. It was about two men Tod Stiles and Buzz Murdock (played by Martin Milner and George Maharis, respectively), who traveled around the country, in a Covette, becoming involved in the lives of the people they met. Buzz was replaced in the in the last season by Lincoln Case (Glenn Corbett). It was a quality show, created by, and in some cases written by, Sterling Silliphant, who would win an Oscar for his screen play, In the Heat of the Night. Unlike most television shows, it was filmed on location, including six episodes in Cleveland (the same total for the entire state of Pennsylvania). One episode actually focused the Russian community there.

"Now, if I wanted to talk about a hot car, traveling, Cleveland, and a Slavic community there, who would likely be listening? Ironically, Mr. Gricar majored in Russian history in college.

"The second television show was even more iconic, The Fugitive. The eponymous character was Dr. Richard Kimble (David Janssen), a physician wrongfully convicted for killing his wife. He escapes and pursues the real killer, the infamous “one armed man (Bill Raisch).” Kimble is, in turn, pursued by Lt. Phillip Gerard (Barry Morse). The series began in September of 1963, when Mr. Gricar was about to turn 18, and the last episode aired on August 29, 1967. At the time it was the highest rated episode of any series on television, with 45.9% of all households in America tuning in to watch. It would take 15 years to break that record, by the finale of MASH. Even with that, The Fugitive remains second on the list.

"The Fugitive also has a fairly strong Cleveland connection. It was widely believed (though the creator denied it) to be inspired by a true event, the murder trial and eventual retrial of Dr. Sam Sheppard who, like the fictional Dr. Kimble, was convicted of murdering his wife. Dr. Sheppard claimed that it was “bushy haired” intruder, instead of a “one armed man” that murdered his wife. The murder was committed Dr. Sheppard’s home on Lake Erie, in a suburb of Cleveland. It was prosecuted by the Cuyahoga County District Attorney’s Office, the office that would eventually employ Mr. Gricar. Dr. Sheppard was tried and convicted in December of 1954, but continued to appeal. The case became a cause célèbre in Cleveland, and Dr. Sheppard’s conviction was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. He was retried, in Cleveland, and in November of 1966, he was acquitted. His attorney in the appeal and retrial was fairly new; this would be his first high profile case. That attorney’s name was F. Lee Bailey.

"In Mr. Gricar’s formative years, there was a trend in the culture that leaving, being a wanderer was adventurous, possibly even romantic. The heroes were the men of the move. The series finale of The Fugitive was within weeks, if not days, of his first class in law school. The socialization that it was a good thing to be “the wanderer” was certainly there.

"One of the reasons that Mr. Gricar could have left voluntarily was the sense that doing so was adventurous and romantic. If he did leave voluntarily, I would doubt it was the sole reason, but I would not doubt that in would be seen, especially by someone of the era, as an option. He is possibly quite happy with being king of the road."

(I removed the citations.)
 
This is the text of a blog I wrote called King of the Road:

"I remember a song from extreme youth; I literally was under five when I first heard it in the early 1960’s. It had a catchy first verse, with the singer, Roger Miller, snapping his fingers in rhythm to the music. I’ll lay odds that you have heard it. The first verse ended with line: I’m a man of means, by no means. King of the Road.

"“King of the Road,” was a major hit in 1965. Miller, a country artist, took it to number one on the county charts in April of that year, but as sometimes happens, it became a crossover hit in March 20, in the top five behind The Beatles “Eight Days a Week,” (the group Sir Paul McCartney was in before Wings) and The Supremes “Stop in the Name of Love.” The song was covered by diverse performers like Dean Martin, the disco group Boney M, and R.E.M. There would even be a “response song” called “Queen of the House,” by country artist Jody Miller (no, hip hop did not invent response songs).

"The narrative of “King of the Road” was about how great it was traveling across county, to travel without roots, to be a vagabond. The narrator would stay in cheap rooms, hop freights, panhandling, work odd jobs, and sing about what a good lifestyle it would be. The song glamorized it, indicating he didn’t have any responsibilities. I think I remember it because of the line referring to “ain’t got no cigarettes.” My father was a smoker (at least until his myocardial infarction in our living room) and I associated that lyric with him. While I was little more than a toddler at the time, the future District Attorney of Centre County was a 19 year old sophomore in college.

"In the time period that Ray Gricar came of age, his high school and college years, there was a theme in American society, sometimes referred to as “the wanderer” or the “man on the move” theme. It became a stock theme where one or two individuals would take off, going from place to place, traveling, with no set schedule, no real destination, leaving everything behind. There were two popular television shows that illustrated this theme, both iconic.

"The first was called Route 66. It first aired two days before Mr. Gricar’s 15th birthday and ended in March of 1964. It was about two men Tod Stiles and Buzz Murdock (played by Martin Milner and George Maharis, respectively), who traveled around the country, in a Covette, becoming involved in the lives of the people they met. Buzz was replaced in the in the last season by Lincoln Case (Glenn Corbett). It was a quality show, created by, and in some cases written by, Sterling Silliphant, who would win an Oscar for his screen play, In the Heat of the Night. Unlike most television shows, it was filmed on location, including six episodes in Cleveland (the same total for the entire state of Pennsylvania). One episode actually focused the Russian community there.

"Now, if I wanted to talk about a hot car, traveling, Cleveland, and a Slavic community there, who would likely be listening? Ironically, Mr. Gricar majored in Russian history in college.

"The second television show was even more iconic, The Fugitive. The eponymous character was Dr. Richard Kimble (David Janssen), a physician wrongfully convicted for killing his wife. He escapes and pursues the real killer, the infamous “one armed man (Bill Raisch).” Kimble is, in turn, pursued by Lt. Phillip Gerard (Barry Morse). The series began in September of 1963, when Mr. Gricar was about to turn 18, and the last episode aired on August 29, 1967. At the time it was the highest rated episode of any series on television, with 45.9% of all households in America tuning in to watch. It would take 15 years to break that record, by the finale of MASH. Even with that, The Fugitive remains second on the list.

"The Fugitive also has a fairly strong Cleveland connection. It was widely believed (though the creator denied it) to be inspired by a true event, the murder trial and eventual retrial of Dr. Sam Sheppard who, like the fictional Dr. Kimble, was convicted of murdering his wife. Dr. Sheppard claimed that it was “bushy haired” intruder, instead of a “one armed man” that murdered his wife. The murder was committed Dr. Sheppard’s home on Lake Erie, in a suburb of Cleveland. It was prosecuted by the Cuyahoga County District Attorney’s Office, the office that would eventually employ Mr. Gricar. Dr. Sheppard was tried and convicted in December of 1954, but continued to appeal. The case became a cause célèbre in Cleveland, and Dr. Sheppard’s conviction was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. He was retried, in Cleveland, and in November of 1966, he was acquitted. His attorney in the appeal and retrial was fairly new; this would be his first high profile case. That attorney’s name was F. Lee Bailey.

"In Mr. Gricar’s formative years, there was a trend in the culture that leaving, being a wanderer was adventurous, possibly even romantic. The heroes were the men of the move. The series finale of The Fugitive was within weeks, if not days, of his first class in law school. The socialization that it was a good thing to be “the wanderer” was certainly there.

"One of the reasons that Mr. Gricar could have left voluntarily was the sense that doing so was adventurous and romantic. If he did leave voluntarily, I would doubt it was the sole reason, but I would not doubt that in would be seen, especially by someone of the era, as an option. He is possibly quite happy with being king of the road."

(I removed the citations.)

I'd like to think he did that and is out having a good time, but I think the odds are very much against it. He would have run out of money by now, in fact, its unlikely his money would have lasted very long.
 
RFG not wanting to prosecute a then popular figure with a connection to an institution with direct a connection to half the electorate would be enough.
Respectfully snipped. I cant help but give serious weight to this particular point. I even consider the possibility of "if you prosecute this individual, we will slip the media career ending dirt (real or fabricated) on you". It fits with RFG's demeanor prior to going missing, destruction of the laptop and exit by his own hand or by others. When given the option to bow out as a respected DA or to be forced to vacate the office in shame can be a powerful motivator. It is also possible that the mentioned "direct connection to half the electorate" can exert considerable pressure on LE at various levels and prevent later elected officials from digging into the case.
 
Respectfully snipped. I cant help but give serious weight to this particular point. I even consider the possibility of "if you prosecute this individual, we will slip the media career ending dirt (real or fabricated) on you". It fits with RFG's demeanor prior to going missing, destruction of the laptop and exit by his own hand or by others. When given the option to bow out as a respected DA or to be forced to vacate the office in shame can be a powerful motivator. It is also possible that the mentioned "direct connection to half the electorate" can exert considerable pressure on LE at various levels and prevent later elected officials from digging into the case.
Except that there was no pressure from LE in 1998; there may have been from PSU.

I have talked to a number of prosecutors over the years. Once, one of them referred to a major institution in the county and said, "They like having a friend in the DA's Office." I won't tell you the county, institution, or the prosecutor. However, as a result of the CSA scandals in the Catholic Church across PA, we have seen this play out time and again. Career ending dirt was never a requirement. It was, implicitly, we can mobilize a mass of voters (no pun intended) to vote you out.

As for pressure, let's look at situation on 4/14/05. RFG was not seeking re-election; he was not planning to practice law (and had never been in private practice). There would have been a law school opening about 7 months after his retirement about 11 miles down the road and I'm sure that they would have loved to have a 20 year DA as an adjunct professor, at least. RFG was not interested. If PSU wanted to pay him off, that was an ideal method; it would have benefited both the school and RFG.

What if there is something embarrassing that comes out? Other than PEF, potentially, who cares? Something that would get him disbarred (which would be something above embarrassing)? It would take longer than 8 1/2 months to process. Only if whatever this something is is criminal would there be a problem. We don't have a hint of anything criminal.

Nothing that RFG did in the 1998 Sandusky case was criminal or even an abuse of discretion. Further, we have seen prosecutors refuse to prosecute stronger cases and not face either criminal or ethical sanctions.
 
This thread is being reopened. Quite a few posts have been removed.

The Rebecca Knight podcast is approved for discussion. Discuss the case instead of disparaging the host of the podcast. If you don't like the podcast, you don't have to listen to it.

Any more rants or bickering in this thread may result in permanent bans from the discussion.
I'd just like to add, as far as I can tell, neither the podcast nor the host has posted anything anything since May of last year. I don't want to be paranoid, but I wonder if she is OK?
 
I'd just like to add, as far as I can tell, neither the podcast nor the host has posted anything anything since May of last year. I don't want to be paranoid, but I wonder if she is OK?
Sorry snowleopard, I really don't know. Did a quick Google and didn't find anything. Perhaps she has just moved on to other endeavors.
 
I'd just like to add, as far as I can tell, neither the podcast nor the host has posted anything anything since May of last year. I don't want to be paranoid, but I wonder if she is OK?
She announced yesterday that she had been recovering from surgery and hoped to do a final podcast. She said she will provide evidence of RFG's murder.
 
I am not thrilled about the possibility, but it exists.

Hiding assets from his ex-wife would possibly be the most innocuous possibility. There might be a hint in something he told PEF.

When RFG put the Mini Cooper in PEF's name, he told her that it was in case he got sued. Well, he was covered under the county's liability policy anything he did professionally. He didn't have to worry about someone doing a slip and fall on his property, because he had no property. He possibly could be sued for hiding money from his divorce settlement (or for taxes).

The obvious reason to put the Mini-Cooper in her name would be to ensure she got it if he died. If he hadn't the daughter would've received it. It seems like a planned future gift in a way.

What puzzles me is how he expected to retire with minimal assets. He would've articulated a plan to others-- eg, a plan to do consulting work, etc. I've never heard any evidence of that. Has anyone ever estimated what his annual pension would've been?
 
The obvious reason to put the Mini-Cooper in her name would be to ensure she got it if he died. If he hadn't the daughter would've received it. It seems like a planned future gift in a way.

What puzzles me is how he expected to retire with minimal assets. He would've articulated a plan to others-- eg, a plan to do consulting work, etc. I've never heard any evidence of that. Has anyone ever estimated what his annual pension would've been?
We do know that there was another bank account out there, possibly in the British Virgin Islands.

His pension would have been based on his 3 highest yearly salary, and I think the full amount.
 
We do know that there was another bank account out there, possibly in the British Virgin Islands.

His pension would have been based on his 3 highest yearly salary, and I think the full amount.

I took the example below from the PA SERS system. If he was making just north of $100k and had worked 25 years in the system (this is a big "if" since he was not a full time employee until much later). If you use the framework below, the most he would've received is a little over $60k and likely less. I think that $60k would be a reasonable retirement pay for him to maintain his known lifestyle. However, he did not seem to accumulate much money on $100k per year. While people are often bad at retirement planning, but it would see to be suspicious to me that he would not have articulated a plan to make some money post-retirement if this was his actual financial situation.


Basic Example​

Let's say...
  • You are a SERS "AA" member, so your class of service multiplier is 1.25
  • You have earned 25 years of credited service
  • Your final average salary is $50,000
  • You are retiring at age 60, so there is no early retirement reduction
  • You contributed 6.25% of every paycheck to SERS, which has been credited with 4% annually
The pension formula would be...

2% x 1.25 x 25 x 50,000

Your maximum annual retirement allowance would be...

$31,250
 
I took the example below from the PA SERS system. If he was making just north of $100k and had worked 25 years in the system (this is a big "if" since he was not a full time employee until much later). If you use the framework below, the most he would've received is a little over $60k and likely less. I think that $60k would be a reasonable retirement pay for him to maintain his known lifestyle. However, he did not seem to accumulate much money on $100k per year. While people are often bad at retirement planning, but it would see to be suspicious to me that he would not have articulated a plan to make some money post-retirement if this was his actual financial situation.


Basic Example​

Let's say...
  • You are a SERS "AA" member, so your class of service multiplier is 1.25
  • You have earned 25 years of credited service
  • Your final average salary is $50,000
  • You are retiring at age 60, so there is no early retirement reduction
  • You contributed 6.25% of every paycheck to SERS, which has been credited with 4% annually
The pension formula would be...

2% x 1.25 x 25 x 50,000

Your maximum annual retirement allowance would be...

$31,250

I have been told that it is different and based on his three years of highest earnings. Tat would have been in excess of $120 K per year, including his last year.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
2,702
Total visitors
2,782

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,986
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top