When did Ray Gricar close his Sandusky investigation?

The timeline of the May 1998 investigation of Sandusky supports the theory that Tom Harmon informed Schultz that no charges would be filed -- but when did Ray Gricar arrive at that conclusion?

By

Ray Blehar

The police report and the timelines of the May 1998 investigation of Sandusky support the theory that the decision to close down the investigation was based on DPW's decision -- not Ray Gricar's.  Once Harmon heard from DPW, he e-mailed Schultz and told him no charges would be filed.

However, there is evidence, based on an April 15, 2012 Patriot News article, that indicates Ray Gricar may have continued to press on with the investigation.  The article states:

"Sloane told The Patriot-News he had thrown the tape and Dictaphone into a desk with other stuff and forgotten about it until he began to clean for a move.

The hour-long recording is mostly inaudible. However, Sloane’s own voice says this on the tape:

'Oct. 13, 1998. Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, Gricar. Investigation going to Penn State meeting. Ray. Fran Ganter. Ron Schreffler is taking us to the football building and I will finish this memo, Sue, and either Ray will type something, handwrite something or he’ll tell me to dictate this and I’ll give you the tape when we get back. Thanks.'

Schreffler was the lead investigator in the May 1998 Sandusky complaint. Ralston was a police officer who assisted in the case.

When contacted, Sloane said he could not remember or explain why Gricar would have a meeting at the football building in October...He also wasn’t sure if it was related to Sandusky or another case."

The PN report leads you to believe there was nothing on the tape that may have provided insights about what the investigation going to PSU was about, however, please remind yourself that the PN's coverage of the Sandusky scandal wasn't exactly stellar - and Sara Ganim has a Pulitzer Prize to prove it. 

Bottom line: a full review of the audio tape is required.

Sloane, who severely injured his back in a 2000 accident, got addicted to pain killers and has issues with his memory.  He is not exactly a reliable source of information (perfect for Sara Ganim's articles).  However, the article notes that two policemen were involved -- Ralston and Schreffer -- and they served two different police departments.

One thing we've not seen or heard about in the Sandusky scandal is what Ralston reported about his role in the investigation.

1998 Police Reports

In order to find out more about whether this visit to the football building in October 1998 was related to the Sandusky investigation, I reached out to a local news reporter for information -- and particularly if Ralph Ralston or the State College Police Department had a file on the case.

The reporter said that requests for this report were denied.

That puts us back at square one, which is the heavily redacted 1998 University Park police report.

In the fall of 2012, I left phone messages for Ron Schreffler inquiring about the suspected alternations to the 1998 police report, however those messages went un-returned. 

Readers of this blog know that the report has alterations on the page referencing the May 8, 1998 scheduling of the Seasock evaluation and on the page referencing the May 13, 1998 sting at the home of Victim 6.

The report is missing several pages that would have referenced the activities that occurred between the May 13, 1998 sting and the June 1, 1998 interview of Sandusky.  One of the items missing would be the May 19, 1998 sting which appears to be referenced in the Freeh Report as pages 15, 16, and 17.  Freeh references the closure of the investigation as page 18 of the report, however, I don't believe it is safe to assume that no other pages were appended (aside from the transcripts from the two boys and the reports from Seasock and Chambers).

Former ADA J. Karen Arnold

Other missing pages could have included records of conversations regarding next steps or the filing of charges with then-ADA J. Karen Arnold and DA Gricar.  These conversations were referenced in Schreffler's testimony at the Sandusky trial, however Schreffler did not state when these conversations took place - thus they may have occurred after 3 June 1998 (the date of the filing of the 1998 police report).

Whatever Schreffler may have spoken about to former ADA J. Karen Arnold is unknown, however, she has added very little information or insights to the 1998 case.  Arnold testified before the 33rd grand jury in the Sandusky case and she told Newslanc reporter Bill Keisling that she only had the 1998 Sandusky case for "two or three days" before DA Gricar, without explanation, took the case from her.  Here's Arnold:

"Ray was my boss and he said he would handle it.  I only had the Sandusky case for a few days. I don't know why Ray handled it the way he did. I can't read his mind. I'm not a mind reader."

Hazy Memories or Something Else?

Over 13 or 14 years, people's memories get a little hazy.  Perhaps Schreffler didn't consult Arnold after she was taken off the case.   His testimony about discussions with Gricar and the filing of charges may not be accurate either.   Schreffler's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette interview stated that he believed Harmon talked with Gricar about closing the case.  And much like Karen Arnold, Schreffler said no explanation was given for not filing charges.  But at the trial he stated he discussed the topic with Gricar.  Which one was it?

 Tom Harmon testified he never talked with Ray Gricar about the 1998 case.  Was Harmon being honest or was something or someone else causing him to remember things differently?

Seems we need some straight answers from Schreffler, as well as his boss, Harmon.

It seems that the norm for the Sandusky case is that things often defy explanation.

A psychology report sent to three agencies is only "seen" by one of the three.

A boy arrives home with dry hair, but the police report, the grand jury, and seemingly everyone else says otherwise.

And evidence that should have been introduced at trial - the Schultz file - to obtain a conviction for the indecent assault of Victim 6 was not used (which, I suppose pales in comparison to the fact that the prosecution and defense both chose not to call a Victim (2) to testify when they could have).

Schultz "Secret File" Not Introduced As Evidence At Trial

The absence of the Schultz file as a Commonwealth exhibit would appear to be another confounding fact of the case.

The Schultz e-mails - allegedly found by Freeh's team - were used to establish some of the charges in the Perjury Particulars that was released on 30 March 2012.  

Freeh's team allegedly also found the "secret file" of Schultz in May 2012 - ample time for the prosecution to utilize it as evidence of an indecent assault against Victim 6.   Multiple showers by the victim are evidence of the possible molestation and its hard to believe the state didn't press this point at that trial.   I know whenever I mention that fact, most parents visibly cringe at what that means to them.  And the words on Schultz's note couldn't be more clear.

Mother concerned something 

more - Kid took another 

shower last night & this a.m.

It is notable that the 1998 police report and Dr. Alycia Chambers' psychological report do not specifically note that Victim 6 took multiple showers after arriving home from working out and showering with Sandusky.  But if you tie the two reports together,  it's clear that's what happened.

Excerpt Dr. Chambers report:

Also, Dr. Chambers and I had a discussion of the incident last fall and she stated that the boy's hair was dry when he arrived home because he had a "buzz" cut.

The police report indicated that the mother noted the boy's wet hair when she put him to bed.

So, just to recap: hair didn't look wet when he arrived home, but was wet when she put him to bed.  It was May 4 - not a time when swimming pools are open in Pennsylvania.  Thus it's reasonable to conclude her son took another shower.

And then Dr. Chambers' report notes the shower the next morning.  

The reports above provide conclusive evidence that Victim 6 took multiple showers after showering with Sandusky.  

The Grand Jury Presentment and the Freeh Report both ignored this evidence and instead perpetuated the myth that the mother got upset because her son arrived home with wet hair.  

The failures of the former-OAG and Freeh to mention multiple showers was not an odd coincidence, but as the Bagwell e-mails revealed, it was a coordinated effort.  However, this omission of evidence was not in an effort to convict Sandusky, but  to ensure that DPW and CYS were not saddled with any responsibility for enabling Sandusky's abuse.

And, not so ironically, both the OAG and Louis Freeh stated that Ray Gricar closed the 1998 case on June 1, 1998. 

Is this a matter of the parties making an erroneous assumption, or is it incompetency (for Freeh, perhaps), or is it something more? 

At this point, no one knows when Ray Gricar decided not to charge Sandusky for the 1998 cases.  There are no records of a decision not to prosecute.  And much like the failure to report charges against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier -- it's impossible to prove a negative.

However, I am quite certain that additional evidence will surface that indicates Ray Gricar pressed forward with his investigation of Sandusky beyond 1 June 1998.

Developing...