District Attorney Who Didn't Charge Sanduskey Missing

How deep is this?

DA Who Never Charged Sandusky Has Been Missing Since 2005 | NBC Philadelphia


It is strange that Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar never prosecuted Jerry Sandusky on child-rape charges 13 years ago, some speculate, because Gricar was known for being fiercely independent and hard on crime.

But it is even stranger that we cannot ask Gricar why Sandusky was not put behind bars, because the tough-as-nails district attorney disappeared in 2005. And though he was declared dead July of this year, his body has never been found.

"People ask why Ray did not prosecute, and I have no problem saying, because he clearly felt he didn't have a case for a 'successful' prosecution," Tony Gricar, Ray Gricar?s nephew , told The Patriot-News.

"... One thing I can say is that Ray was beholden to no one, was not a politician."

This district attorney had ?a bitter taste in his mouth for the [Penn State] program, and its coach,? according to his nephew, and never prosecuted Sandusky. He disappeared on April 15, 2005 after telling his girlfriend that he was going on a drive.

Ray Gricar?s car was found the next day in a Lewisburg parking lot and his laptop, sans hard drive, was found in the Susquehanna River, according to the Patriot-News.

Ray Gricar?s friend, Montour County District Attorney Robert Buehner Jr., told the New York Times that if the ardent district attorney had committed suicide, he would have wanted his body found. But in the case of possible foul play, no suspects have emerged from investigations.

When it comes to the Sandusky case, friends and former co-workers are all of the opinion that Ray Gricar would never back down from a righteous prosecution.

?No one got a bye with Ray,? Anthony De Boef, who was an assistant district attorney under Gricar for five years told the NY Times. ?He didn?t care who you were; he had a job to do.?

And, despite the fact that Ray Gricar had the mother of one of the alleged victims confront Sandusky while police listened, the 1998 report on Sandusky was labeled ?unfounded? by the District Attorney?s Office, reports the Patriot-News.

?I would say this about Ray: He would be extremely cautious in proceeding because he wanted to make sure that there would be a reasonable likelihood of conviction,? Buehner told the Patriot News. ?You don?t want to go after someone high profile unless you have a compelling case.?

As for the 2002 incident, in which a graduate assistant told Penn State coach Joe Paterno that he witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the PSU locker rooms, there is no indication that Ray Gricar was notified, reports the Patriot-Times.

What do you think of Sandusky's choice of an attorney? A guy who in his 40s got a 16 year old pregnant. Not exactly the best history to use in your representation at this point. That interview last night was just terrible in his responses.

Sandusky is an idiot for taking a shower with those kids weather sexual or not (IMO it was sexual in his mind) and has brought down the face of NCAA in Joe Paterno. Nobody knows the whole truth of what Joe knew or seen except him, but he has now a huge black scar on what was a perfect career due to another man's actions. I hope if it is proven that Sandusky ment sexually with his actions and not harmlessly ( not my opinion at all) that he is brought to justice. That being said, it is kind of strange that a man of the district atty's power go "missing". It may have nothing to do with this case at all. He may have prosecuted a person who is well conected (wink wink) and may be sleeping with the fishes somewhere off the Jersey Boardwalk for all we know. It is also possible that Sandusky may have made a "retirement" in the camens sound better than DA in PA. After all Penn State did do ALOT to keep this under the radar for a long time. Who knows?

There's really no dispute about Joe Pa not knowing, he did and didn't do anything. He got in trouble for his inaction, not Sanduskys actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

There's really no dispute about Joe Pa not knowing, he did and didn't do anything. He got in trouble for his inaction, not Sanduskys actions.

---

You are right. He knew something happened and should not have just stopped at telling his boss, but should have told the district attorney's office. I am sorry, I know he is a legend, but he was also an adult.

Nobody knows for sure who told who what, or who did what. There has only been a small portion of the grand jury testimony leaked to the media. 23 pages of 400+ is not much information to go on. Everybody also assumed in the beginning that Mcqueary did nothing to stop it and didn't report it to police. However, there are some reports out now that say he did both. I'm not defending anyone yet, just think it would be wise to hold off on the assumptions until more comes out.

I might be wrong, but those reports are of him SAYING he contacted the authorities, not that it's been confirmed.

Joe done what he was supposed to in all honesty. He told the Dean and Athletic Director. Think about it like this guys. If at your job someone accused you of a crime but had no proof, would you want your supperior to go strait to the police or up the chain of command? Better yet, If you had someone who works for you come and accuse another person of a crime would you run strait to the police no questions asked no matter what, or would you do something different? Dont take me wrong i am in no way taking up for Sandusky and his actions but its awful hard to run strait to the cops on the word of someone with no proof. Plus its hard to get the cops to do anything without physical evidence to back them up.

JoePa was the superior at PSU though. There is no denying that. They came to him in 04 asking him to step down and he told them to get out of his house. They didn't have the power to remove him. When JoePa said jump, State College said how high.

Thats the truth. Joe could have ran for Dictator of State College and won without any problems. I hate to see anyone get ruined because of another man's actions. If we can learn anything from this its this, doing what is right can cost alot but not doing everything you can costs more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnIoNfAn

Joe done what he was supposed to in all honesty. He told the Dean and Athletic Director. Think about it like this guys. If at your job someone accused you of a crime but had no proof, would you want your supperior to go strait to the police or up the chain of command? Better yet, If you had someone who works for you come and accuse another person of a crime would you run strait to the police no questions asked no matter what, or would you do something different? Dont take me wrong i am in no way taking up for Sandusky and his actions but its awful hard to run strait to the cops on the word of someone with no proof. Plus its hard to get the cops to do anything without physical evidence to back them up.

---

I don't think he did everything that needed to be done. When you have someone accuse another of such an act with children, you should go to the police and let them sort things out. If you value youth the way Joe says he did then he should not just stop with telling the president of the college, or whoever without going to the authorities. Remember, it is better to be investigated by the police than it is to let something like this "snowball" into something bigger.

I do believe the he knew there was at least some factual evidence in this and he wanted to try and cover this up any way he could. And, BTW, I don't think it is any coincidence with his retirement planning that he had ownership of his home transferred to his wife.

I feel it was alot of cover up as well. Im sure they knew more than what was said and yeah Joe should have went to the police. I would guess that looking back on it Joe would have but hiensight is 20/20 and nobody can go back in time to change things. I hope this will be used as a lesson to everyone in athoritative positions that you have to do what is right no matter the cost