PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #13

[SeekingJana]

I don't have any answers as to the 1998 allegations, but it is baffling to me why there isn't any file on the case in the CC DA's office. I can understand archiving files after a period of time, but destroying them? In the medical profession, it's not done. I would have thought the legal process in the prosecutor's office would be the same- archive your work, but don't destroy the files which document your work.

I have wondered if a file did exist but " disappeared" through means other than usual shredding/ destruction. If so, I think that both Karen Arnold and Steve Sloane would have known there had been an investigative file. Maybe it would have been helpful now, maybe not, but the lack of any documentation strikes me as odd, as one engaged in a field where no files are ever destroyed, but are archived in various ways, depending upon the age of the file and the capabilities of the records department.

 

[SeekingJana]

Snipped



SS, RFG's closest friend, both personally and at work. In the 10/13/98 meeting. The plea deal. The AG has him right where they want him.

Now, if there was additional contact in 1998, what effect would that be on the PSU 3 case, assuming that one, or more, of the PSU 3 knew?

I'd think they would have gone after Sloane for any information he could provide and substantiate as part of a plea deal when they did have him charged with the drug offenses. Apparently, this was not the case, or he could not substantiate anything he might have been privy to regarding PSU and Sandusky wrt to the CC DA's office.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't have any answers as to the 1998 allegations, but it is baffling to me why there isn't any file on the case in the CC DA's office. I can understand archiving files after a period of time, but destroying them? In the medical profession, it's not done. I would have thought the legal process in the prosecutor's office would be the same- archive your work, but don't destroy the files which document your work.

I have wondered if a file did exist but " disappeared" through means other than usual shredding/ destruction. If so, I think that both Karen Arnold and Steve Sloane would have known there had been an investigative file. Maybe it would have been helpful now, maybe not, but the lack of any documentation strikes me as odd, as one engaged in a field where no files are ever destroyed, but are archived in various ways, depending upon the age of the file and the capabilities of the records department.

Arnold was out of the loop, so I'd doubt if she know. Her role was minimal, and not be her choice. This whole thing might have been different had JKA been kept on the case. It wasn't her call and she doesn't deserve any blame for that decision.

MTM did not think it was unusual for there to be no file. I'll take him at his word for that, at least until there is evidence to the contrary.

SS was not necessarily the lead prosecutor. JKA said RFG was going to handle it personally.

Okay, one post, and I'm saying nice things about MTM and JKA. Weird day.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'd think they would have gone after Sloane for any information he could provide and substantiate as part of a plea deal when they did have him charged with the drug offenses. Apparently, this was not the case, or he could not substantiate anything he might have been privy to regarding PSU and Sandusky wrt to the CC DA's office.

That might have been part of the plea deal. Speculation on my part. The AG doesn't confide in me.

 

[SeekingJana]

That might have been part of the plea deal. Speculation on my part. The AG doesn't confide in me.

When news of Sloane's arrest and charges broke, and it seemed to be one of those " caught red- handed" type of things, I wondered here if he would be able to plea anything out wrt Sandusky/ CC DA's office, or anything else related to Gricar disappearance.

IMO, Sloane mightknow things, IDK, but proving them via hard data is a whole other matter. That's my sticking point. If he was witness to well, whatever, he is no longer an impeachable source because of the very reason- a plea deal for a reduced sentence. There would almost have to be collateral evidence to collaborate any statement he might give.. Gricar's disappearance in and of itself, separate from PSU or Sandusky, might not fit the same standards... IDK for certain since Sloane's case was settled some time ago and still no word on Gricar's whereabouts.
Proof is in the pudding, eh?

 

[SeekingJana]

Arnold was out of the loop, so I'd doubt if she know. Her role was minimal, and not be her choice. This whole thing might have been different had JKA been kept on the case. It wasn't her call and she doesn't deserve any blame for that decision.

MTM did not think it was unusual for there to be no file. I'll take him at his word for that, at least until there is evidence to the contrary.

SS was not necessarily the lead prosecutor. JKA said RFG was going to handle it personally.

Okay, one post, and I'm saying nice things about MTM and JKA. Weird day.

I wasn't sure what Karen knew at the start of the investigation into Victim 6. Thanks for clarifying. It's 9/11- always will be a weird day for the rest of our lives, I expect. But I understand what you meant.

 

[shadow of my mind]

Hoffa was a himself. It would be expected that his " friends" would be mafia thugs as well.

Ray Gricar was a man of principle and the law. He had to decide whether or not to try case after case in Centre County, which meant he had danmed well better be a very good judge of character and the truth ( some cases are circumstantial whether we want to admit it or not- " He sad, she said" type of witnesses or perps to a crime.)

I see NO correlation between what Jimmy Hoffa would have done and his known associates and Ray Gricar's known behavior and who he was known to associate with outside the courtroom. He was, by all accounts, a very private and reticent man. I do not think he would strike up a friendship with a fly by night type of squirrel who would them kill him.

AND- going back to Occam's Razor- if the motive was murder, why would a " friend" as you describe have to lure him out of town? Just kill him in his home or in a dark parking lot while out socializing together somewhere. ( Patty might be collateral damage, but I don't think she was very important to most people).

this made me think of something……staying with the foul play scenario….

Could PF have had a secrete lover. One so secrete she herself did not even know it and this person (obviously unbalanced) wanted RFG out of the way, but did it in such a manner that would keep PF from becoming LE’s prime target.

I know that is sort of a weird idea and I have not thought too long or hard about it to see how many holes could be shot through it either. It would not be the first time that someone has been become obsessed and gone to unbelievable lengths to get what they want. I believe there is a clinical name for that type of behavior, but I have no idea what it is. I am familiar with Borderline Personality Disorder (learned the hard way with a family member) and from my experience dealing with BPD, I could see how someone who is mentally ill could create a complete fantasy and then manipulate everyone and everything around them; end result .....someone disappearing.
It was downright scary what lengths my family member went to…. and to most people, even other family members, she appeared to be perfectly normal.

 

[shadow of my mind]

One of his best friends, Steve Sloane, is a convicted felon.

Graham Spanier, who has a Ph D from Northwestern and is the former President of PSU, is facing felony charges.

I don't believe RFG was murdered, so I don't believe these men harmed him. My point is that we can't assume we know who is and isn't a criminal. I imagine RFG would never have suspected that Sloane and Spanier would engage in felonious behavior.

A possible murder scenario is one in which RFG agreed to meet someone whom he had no idea was involved in criminal behavior. For example, the Sandusky Scandal was just a gray area for RFG -- he did nothing illegal or unethical that we know of -- however that's not the case for everyone involved. RFG could have walked into such a meeting completely blind, or at least with imperfect vision. He didn't realize what was at stake for the person he was meeting.
Like any foul play scenario, it's unlikely. However, I can't rule it out.

JMO

BBM
Again, staying with foul play. Maybe he did have a little tickle in the back of his mind. What I have found odd is these things.
#1. Why do a search for directions to a place you already know how to get to -- Lewisburg? RFG would know that LE would check his office computer if something happen so if you were going to walk away, why give LE that location to start looking for you from.
#2. Why leave a law book out that was open to a page about "what to do if the DA can't fulfill his duty"? It's not like someone else in that office would not be able to look that information up. They were all attorneys. Heck one phone call to AGA's office and you have your answer.
#3. Why take an old office laptop that everyone in the office, including your girlfriend, knew you didn't use anymore. It did nothing but draw attention to fact that it may pay LE to see what you may have been looking at from home sooner rather than later, leading to information about wiping/destroying the hard drive. He also had to know that someone would remember him talking about it. So why draw attention to that fact?
#4. Why draw attention to yourself in Lewisburg at all if you are going to disappear. Leave the mini anywhere. LE would eventually find it. He parked the mini in an spot that could be readily viewed from more than one direction. Why stand around outside the SOS for anyone coming in or out to see him, making it obvious that he had been there if he was going to walk away. Why not stick to a back street or someplace that did not get that kind of foot traffic?
You could even add the fact that no file was found from the 1998 investigation in the office. How many other cases that never ended up being prosecuted where there still files on in his office and does that fact actually point to something despite what the other DA said.

When you look at this from this point of view maybe RFG was leaving clues for others to find in case something went wrong. He just may have been too smart and didn't realize what he left wasn't clear enough.
jmo

 

[JaimeSommers]

BBM
Again, staying with foul play. Maybe he did have a little tickle in the back of his mind. What I have found odd is these things.
#1. Why do a search for directions to a place you already know how to get to -- Lewisburg? RFG would know that LE would check his office computer if something happen so if you were going to walk away, why give LE that location to start looking for you from.
#2. Why leave a law book out that was open to a page about "what to do if the DA can't fulfill his duty"? It's not like someone else in that office would not be able to look that information up. They were all attorneys. Heck one phone call to AGA's office and you have your answer.
#3. Why take an old office laptop that everyone in the office, including your girlfriend, knew you didn't use anymore. It did nothing but draw attention to fact that it may pay LE to see what you may have been looking at from home sooner rather than later, leading to information about wiping/destroying the hard drive. He also had to know that someone would remember him talking about it. So why draw attention to that fact?
#4. Why draw attention to yourself in Lewisburg at all if you are going to disappear. Leave the mini anywhere. LE would eventually find it. He parked the mini in an spot that could be readily viewed from more than one direction. Why stand around outside the SOS for anyone coming in or out to see him, making it obvious that he had been there if he was going to walk away. Why not stick to a back street or someplace that did not get that kind of foot traffic?
You could even add the fact that no file was found from the 1998 investigation in the office. How many other cases that never ended up being prosecuted where there still files on in his office and does that fact actually point to something despite what the other DA said.

When you look at this from this point of view maybe RFG was leaving clues for others to find in case something went wrong. He just may have been too smart and didn't realize what he left wasn't clear enough.
jmo

Great post! The BBM on #1 has always bothered me, too.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipping a biT.

BBM
Again, staying with foul play. Maybe he did have a little tickle in the back of his mind. What I have found odd is these things.
#1. Why do a search for directions to a place you already know how to get to -- Lewisburg? RFG would know that LE would check his office computer if something happen so if you were going to walk away, why give LE that location to start looking for you from.

To check the drive time. RFG, it this was a meeting, out have wanted to tell the person who he would be meeting whet to leave. For example, He wants to meet X in Lewisburg at 3:00 PM; he checks the drive time and says, **Okay, driving just below the limit, it should take you an hour and 15 minutes. Leave no later than 1:45.**

#2. Why leave a law book out that was open to a page about "what to do if the DA can't fulfill his duty"? It's not like someone else in that office would not be able to look that information up. They were all attorneys. Heck one phone call to AGA's office and you have your answer.

Short answer: It wasn't. The book opened to that page. A description is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/04/01/2396725_the-code-book.html?rh=1

#3. Why take an old office laptop that everyone in the office, including your girlfriend, knew you didn't use anymore. It did nothing but draw attention to fact that it may pay LE to see what you may have been looking at from home sooner rather than later, leading to information about wiping/destroying the hard drive. He also had to know that someone would remember him talking about it. So why draw attention to that fact?

To get rid of the data on it. Nobody was going to say, as the first thing, **Ray's missing, check to see it his laptop is there.**

#4. Why draw attention to yourself in Lewisburg at all if you are going to disappear. Leave the mini anywhere. LE would eventually find it. He parked the mini in an spot that could be readily viewed from more than one direction. Why stand around outside the SOS for anyone coming in or out to see him, making it obvious that he had been there if he was going to walk away. Why not stick to a back street or someplace that did not get that kind of foot traffic?
You could even add the fact that no file was found from the 1998 investigation in the office. How many other cases that never ended up being prosecuted where there still files on in his office and does that fact actually point to something despite what the other DA said.

Lewisburg is "anywhere." He could have been meeting someone. Once recently discussed scenario is that someone may have picked him up, and he spent the night in Centre County. Being seen there in the late afternoon and again in the morning of the next day gives everyone the impression he spent the night in Lewisburg. Assuming he left voluntarily, the search for him would begin at the last point of contact, outside of Centre Hall and along 192. There were basically looking for an accident at first.

There were also jurisdictional issues. RFG was reported missing in Centre County, the Mini was found in Union County, the laptop was found in Northumberland County, in the river, which was under the jurisdiction of the PSP. If RFG wanted to create confusion in the investigation, guess what is one of the best ways to do it.

As for the lack of a Sandusky file, according to MTM, that was normal. There may not have been any never prosecuted cases from seven years ago files sitting in the office.

On the someone who wanted to get close to PEF, it could be a motive. The problem is, how did he lure RFG to Lewisburg?

 

[SeekingJana]

IF Mr. Gricar felt he was in some sort of nameless danger, then I guess one of my sticking points would be:
WHY would he leave his cell phone in his car locked up?

The times in my life when I have been followed by one person who picked me out and stalked me and would have killed me if he could have ( he was a state official in my former place of residence), I made sure that I had my cell phone with me at all times. And that happened in the mid 90's. I spent a great deal on personal protection because of my very real fear. I would think that in 2005, Ray would have had a cell phone that would have dialed 911 a whole lot faster than mine did almost a decade before.
Even if he was meeting a somewhat " iffy" person, wouldnt he have kept his cell phone on him?

The fact that he didn't want to talk to anyone or perhaps be tracked by cell towers or GPS suggests walkaway to me, not foul play. So does the apparent cleanliness of the exterior of his car, and the LACK of one piece of evidence pointing to foul play leads me back to walkaway every time.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

Snipping a biT.



To check the drive time. RFG, it this was a meeting, out have wanted to tell the person who he would be meeting whet to leave. For example, He wants to meet X in Lewisburg at 3:00 PM; he checks the drive time and says, **Okay, driving just below the limit, it should take you an hour and 15 minutes. Leave no later than 1:45.**



Short answer: It wasn't. The book opened to that page. A description is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2009/04/01/2396725_the-code-book.html?rh=1



To get rid of the data on it. Nobody was going to say, as the first thing, **Ray's missing, check to see it his laptop is there.**



Lewisburg is "anywhere." He could have been meeting someone. Once recently discussed scenario is that someone may have picked him up, and he spent the night in Centre County. Being seen there in the late afternoon and again in the morning of the next day gives everyone the impression he spent the night in Lewisburg. Assuming he left voluntarily, the search for him would begin at the last point of contact, outside of Centre Hall and along 192. There were basically looking for an accident at first.

There were also jurisdictional issues. RFG was reported missing in Centre County, the Mini was found in Union County, the laptop was found in Northumberland County, in the river, which was under the jurisdiction of the PSP. If RFG wanted to create confusion in the investigation, guess what is one of the best ways to do it.

As for the lack of a Sandusky file, according to MTM, that was normal. There may not have been any never prosecuted cases from seven years ago files sitting in the office.

On the someone who wanted to get close to PEF, it could be a motive. The problem is, how did he lure RFG to Lewisburg?

with another female which then travel on RT-45 in the morning which would be friday morning it could happen either way

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped a bit:

IF Mr. Gricar felt he was in some sort of nameless danger, then I guess one of my sticking points would be:
WHY would he leave his cell phone in his car locked up?

RFG would not. logically. He also would not, logically, drive into sparsely populated areas without cell coverage, which he did on 4/14 and 4/15.

If I'm traveling or going into a situation where I'm having a safety concern, I either arrange to call someone at regular intervals, or call my own number, so someone checking my phone will be able to tell where it was when I make the call. RFG could, and seemed to habitually, check his messages. He didn't do that.

The fact that he didn't want to talk to anyone or perhaps be tracked by cell towers or GPS suggests walkaway to me, not foul play.

I don't agree that it does necessarily point to walkaway.

We have multiple witnesses that say RFG was acting oddly in the 4-5 weeks prior to his disappearance. They are not hostile to RFG and I don't think they are lying.

One theory to why he was worried was that he was worried about his personal safety. Okay, if he was, why would RFG go into sparsely populated without cell coverage and when he went into an are with coverage, not check his messages, and not even take his phone with him or check his messages.

The evidence is strongly against that theory.

That does not mean the RFG was a foul play victim, only that whatever was bothering him was not that he was worried about being a foul play victim.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

with another female which then travel on RT-45 in the morning which would be friday morning it could happen either way

It is possible, but even if accurate, it is consistent with either foul play or walkaway. There is no evidence it happened.

 

[JaimeSommers]

Snipping a biT.



To check the drive time. RFG, it this was a meeting, out have wanted to tell the person who he would be meeting whet to leave. For example, He wants to meet X in Lewisburg at 3:00 PM; he checks the drive time and says, **Okay, driving just below the limit, it should take you an hour and 15 minutes. Leave no later than 1:45.**

RSBM ... I respectfully disagree. Anyone who lived in Centre County for as long as RFG lived in Centre County would know how long it takes to get to Lewisburg without having to look it up.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RSBM ... I respectfully disagree. Anyone who lived in Centre County for as long as RFG lived in Centre County would know how long it takes to get to Lewisburg without having to look it up.

RFG would know how long it would take him to drive to Lewisburg. He would not necessarily know how long it would take someone else to drive to Lewisburg.

RFG has been called "an adventurous driver." He was known to drive fast and was once pulled over driving 80 on the Benner Pike; he was celebrating a win in court.

If RFG was talking to another driver, someone he was meeting, he could have checked the mileage to come up with the time it would take the other person to get to Lewisburg.

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

RSBM ... I respectfully disagree. Anyone who lived in Centre County for as long as RFG lived in Centre County would know how long it takes to get to Lewisburg without having to look it up.

Not to get sidetracked here off the subject I read on the net a few days ago about a father and what he did to his 5 kids which ages were it said 1 year up to 10 years old what he done was sick killed all 5 put them in bags and then drove around with them in his car for may be a week and then burried them along side of the road not sure if he put them all togehter or in different places this is very sad and yes it happened's a lot now and before the human thought prosess on why stuff like this happened's sick also after reading stuff- it looks like people from centre county did not like RG do they care may be he took his tent and he is now walking in the mountains all over this earth I am sure he would look like a real mountain man now also driving down to lewisburg the day before fishing season like on friday if you dont leave early up this way the traffic gets bad as the day goes on it would take more time to where you want to go

 

[Fromthedeepestjungle]

I think there would only be 3 thing's that would make him go to lewisburg - for may be what was on his mind at that time with everything that was going on and some may be he did not know about or may be he did someone was the contact it could be one of those things that the right oppertountny sorry I still can understand english and I dont have spell check which would not pertain to anything that was going on even the JS case

 

[MissJ]

IF Mr. Gricar felt he was in some sort of nameless danger, then I guess one of my sticking points would be:
WHY would he leave his cell phone in his car locked up?

The times in my life when I have been followed by one person who picked me out and stalked me and would have killed me if he could have ( he was a state official in my former place of residence), I made sure that I had my cell phone with me at all times. And that happened in the mid 90's. I spent a great deal on personal protection because of my very real fear. I would think that in 2005, Ray would have had a cell phone that would have dialed 911 a whole lot faster than mine did almost a decade before.
Even if he was meeting a somewhat " iffy" person, wouldnt he have kept his cell phone on him?

The fact that he didn't want to talk to anyone or perhaps be tracked by cell towers or GPS suggests walkaway to me, not foul play. So does the apparent cleanliness of the exterior of his car, and the LACK of one piece of evidence pointing to foul play leads me back to walkaway every time.

I'm not disagreeing with you..but, what if (like me) RFG got so many threats that he stopped taking them seriously at all? He was around criminals all the time and you can bet that he made plenty of them mad. The threats I received were almost weekly. I got to the point I didn't watch to see if I was followed.
I rarely mentioned it to persons I worked with if at all. Any way I did get attacked seriously. That could have happened to RFG. Now I don't think that is what happened but it could have. JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not disagreeing with you..but, what if (like me) RFG got so many threats that he stopped taking them seriously at all? He was around criminals all the time and you can bet that he made plenty of them mad. The threats I received were almost weekly. I got to the point I didn't watch to see if I was followed.
I rarely mentioned it to persons I worked with if at all. Any way I did get attacked seriously. That could have happened to RFG. Now I don't think that is what happened but it could have. JMO

Well, there would two different premises.

1. RFG was acting unusually, because he was worried about a threat to his personal security.

2. RFG had so many threats to his personal security that he wasn't worried about it.

I find those two premises mutually exclusive.

Now, that said, I have no doubt that something was bothering RFG.

I also have no doubt, as with the current DA, RFG did get threats over his long career. However, I would suspect that most were frivolous.

Whatever was bothering RFG, however, was not a threat to his personal security. We can conclude this because RFG did things like:

1. Go into sparsely populated areas without cell coverage and a minimal LE presence on both 4/14 and 4/15.

2. Not take his cell phone with him when exiting the vehicle.

3. Not turn on his cell phone in Lewisburg.