Nittany Nightmare Continues Past Sandusky: Former President Spanier Charged- NEW Charges for Curley and Schultz Filed
Happy Valley- PA On the heels of convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky’s transfer to his new home, what most predicted would follow- has.
Former Penn State President Graham Spanier, fired by the Penn State Board of Trust the same day as legendary late-Nittany Lions Coach Joe Paterno, is facing serious charges today filed by Sandusky’s prosecutors.
Spanier is facing counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy, endangering the welfare of children and failure to report allegations of child abuse.
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, who were facing perjury and charges based on “non-reporting”, are now facing all five similar charges as Spanier- additional filings occurred simultaneously.
Linda L. Kelly stated the men “used their positions to conceal and cover up for years the activities of a known child predator,” on Thursday following the announcement.
Please check back to www.blinkoncrime for this developing story.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
318 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The reason that the second scenario is less likely because there is no evidence of a case he was working on, notes, nor did he tell anyone on staff about it.
As for the laptop, he might have wanted to destroy private data, like his credit card numbers.
Even in 2005 that info was encrypted. He purchased software to erase the hard drive ( he thought) that was found with the computer bag but not the computer.
I personally believe his messages about deleting his hard drive was for ears that would care if he did not.
B
Mr. Gricar had been asking about getting rid of the data on the drive for about a year prior to his disappearance.
He asked some coworkers, including a defense attorney. I wish I was able to shed some light on which defense attorney, but I am unable to at the present time.
“Investigators previously had disclosed that they had, through interviews, heard that Gricar was talking about ways to erase a hard drive with friends and colleagues about 16 months before he disappeared. A box for such software was seen at his house around January 2004.”
http://www.centredaily.com/2009/04/15/1228995/foul-play-theory-weakened.html
If someone wanted the info, they were 16-months patient.
If a voluntary walk or suicide, if it were embarrassing info, I guess he’d have to
destroy it that day–but why wait 16 months from first idea of it, and why rush
to walk away with 8 months before retirement.
My understanding, and I got this from a retiring DA, is that if the date of death was prior to retirement, Mr. Gricar’s heir would get a larger benefit from his pension.
On the laptop, how would anybody, other than Mr. Gricar, know that he didn’t copy whatever was on the laptop onto either his office computer, his home computer, a removable source, or that he printed out any of this data.
In both walkaway or suicide, Mr. Gricar could have wanted to the data until the last minute.
Do you knew when the second offense occurred and when charges were filed? If Madeira handled the case, then the case would not have come up until after Mr. Gricar’s term of office expired, and after Ms. Arnold was no longer with the DA’s Office.
I am referring to the DPW child abuse listing, which is separate from any criminal prosecution. They have a separate process, but one that will come up on a background check.
I would that the charge, from what I can find, was misdemeanor, though it would put someone convicted of it on the DPW list.
What is a DPW child abuse listing? You are aware the charges were pled down, correct? This was against the wishes of the Mother of the boys.
B
I should modify my mast line. Conviction of it would put someone on the Megan’s Law list, which is separate from the DPW list.
I did want to return to why I would say meeting a woman was a more likely murder scenario.
1. At least two witnesses put Mr. Gricar in the Street of Shops (SoS) with a woman in the evening of 4/15. They were walking through the shops; he didn’t appear to be interviewing her. One of these was the first witness who reported seeing him.
2. Three witnesses, at least, put him in the SoS between 11:30 AM and Noon on 4/16. I could see any case related situation where Mr. Gricar would spend the night, and not phone home.
Now, both of these specific sightings could have problems. I only give the 4/16 sighting as being 50% accurate, due to the circumstances.
The 4/15 sighting might be accurate, but the woman might not have been with Mr. Gricar. It just might have been another shopper. It might have been a misidentification of the man, though I think that is unlikely.
Well I certainly don’t know much about the case but maybe RG met with a woman and was murdered by someone else the same night. If RG was somewhere without informing a lot of others, it would make it easier to murder him without getting caught.
DPW maintains a listing, a “Statewide Central Register,” that is checked anytime someone is hired, or volunteers, to be around children. The listing is purely a DPW designation; someone can be on it without ever being arrested or tried.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/chap3490toc.html
In Sandusky’s case, had be been on this list, he never could have continued on at TSM.
Steve, if there was a woman that Mr. Gricar was meeting on 4/15, she has never come forward. If she didn’t have anything to hide, why hasn’t she come forward?
I could understand if this Mystery Woman was just another shopper; she might not realize she is the “Mystery Woman.”
Then there is a problem of the 4/16 witnesses.
Ray appears to have been a cash cow for attached women–housing/car.
Any woman he’d walk with was better off keeping him employed rather than missing.
Unless she was sent to him as a specific sexual lure by someone intent on harm. If he wanted to walk, you’re
right, better for his heir if it was farther from retirement date & had no overt
markers for suicide.
Is it possible Sandusky was on the confidential registry.
There would be no reason to check it after his adoption & foster care days were over.
TSM likely didn’t have a policy of episodic re-checking.
Not something the State would want or need to disclose at trial.
Rose, after 2009, he was. He applied as a volunteer at Juniata College, I think. It came up on the background check and he was denied the position.
As for Mr. Gricar’s finances, since 1998-9, he was grossing over $100,000 per year. Both his ex-wife and girlfriend were working. He had about $100,000 in his accounts, which is low, considering his lifestyle. There is a money problem; he should have more money.
That points away from bribery, but it might point to hidden assets.
I am not seeing how that points away from bribery- he withdrew over $16K at ATM’s. If the information that he had a joint account with his daughter is correct, does it stand to reason he was offering her additional support?
B
If somebody were hand Mr. Gricar a lot of cash, we’d expect to see him have a lot more money.
The $16,000 was over 2 1/2 years and worked out to about $20-$30 a week.
Yes, he could have been offering his daughter support, however, her mother was making more money than Mr. Gricar. She is a department head at PSU, and does business consulting. The daughter wasn’t going to Harvard, or anything that was that expensive. There is also a high likelihood that Mr. Gricar had money left over after his divorce.
From an investigative perspective, you can’t distill the cash withdrawls by averaging them. They could form a pattern, they could coincide with meetings or a common person, etc, . Also, cash ATM transactions alone are only a snippet of his financial bio if you will. My point is without specific information that has not been made public we cannot really assess the relevance.
BB
Well, I tend to agree with the last line. The police, however, found no recent big withdrawal. Still $16 K in 2 1/2 years is not a lot of money.
Piecing together the assets is one of the more difficult aspects of the case.
Rose, just looking back at your comment, there was another possibility about why the disappearance would be so close to retirement. Nobody knew who the next DA would be.
On 4/15/05, there were three good candidates that had a good shot at being the next DA, Madeira, Bascom, both R, and Arnold, D; the fourth was weak. Smith, the acting DA, had no idea who it would win the primary or election and what their plans regarding the Gricar case would be. It would insure 8 months of uncertainty until a new DA was elected. It wouldn’t even be limited to Madeira/Arnold until more than a month later.
Had Gricar disappeared in 4/2004, Smith would have known that he would have been in charge of the case until 12/2005, at least. He would have had longer term control. Who knows, he might have actually run for the office under those circumstances.
http://www.dallasjustice (dot) com/dallascriminallawyerblog/suspicious-ray-gricar-actions-as-d-a-investigating-penn-state-child-abuse-makes-me-think-gricar-is-alive-and-well-and-the-fbi-does-too/
somehow the comment fell away from the url above
also, remove (dot) & insert a .
my comment expressed appreciation for both JJ-PA & Lowe’s
reasonings in the “comments” section.