• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Greg Schiano (HC Rutgers Scarlet Knights)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
But, again, I understand we are in the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...
And that's where Schiano is going to have to fight this.

Legal question: Is there a difference between evidence and proof? My understanding would be that testimony would be evidence, but would have to be weighed with other evidence to form proof. If so, then sworn testimony is evidence, but not proof, so wouldn't the PSU statement be technically correct? Not defending them, just asking.

My son was on a jury a couple months ago. The only evidence against the defendant was the testimony of a co-defendant, the co-defendant's brother, and the co-defendant's, girlfriend - all of whom claimed to be high on oxy and vodka the night in question. The defendant had kicked the co-defendant out of his trailer for beating up his girlfriend, and then the two allegedly got together a few hours later and committed grand theft auto. The case was crap and the jury didn't believe the sworn testimony. They came back with a not guilty verdict. That's what popped into my head when I read your post.
 
Upvote 0
OSUK said:
... this does put us in a pickle to some degree. If we say we believe John Doe #150, how can we say we don't believe McQuery?
Click to expand...

It's not just believing McQueary (or however you spell his name). It's believing McQueary's recollection of what Tom Bradley said, and believing Bradley's recollection of what Schiano said.

This is way too many layers of "who knows" for me to get too upset right now.
 
Upvote 0
OSUK said:
And that's where Schiano is going to have to fight this.

Legal question: Is there a difference between evidence and proof? My understanding would be that testimony would be evidence, but would have to be weighed with other evidence to form proof. If so, then sworn testimony is evidence, but not proof, so wouldn't the PSU statement be technically correct? Not defending them, just asking.

My son was on a jury a couple months ago. The only evidence against the defendant was the testimony of a co-defendant, the co-defendant's brother, and the co-defendant's, girlfriend - all of whom claimed to be high on oxy and vodka the night in question. The defendant had kicked the co-defendant out of his trailer for beating up his girlfriend, and then the two allegedly got together a few hours later and committed grand theft auto. The case was crap and the jury didn't believe the sworn testimony. They came back with a not guilty verdict. That's what popped into my head when I read your post.
Click to expand...
I'm probably just being overly technical because of my profession. Your evidence forms the basis for your (Better said, your evidence IS you) offer of proof. If I allege you saw Pedterno ruin a weekend, I would then offer evidence of it -such as the testimony of A, B, and C - and thereby hopefully prove my allegation via said evidence.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
What exactly did that accomplish that is different from the denial today? If Greg didn't see anything, nothing changes today . If Greg did see something but denied it before being hired , nothing changes today . It still looks awful for osu and urban asking him privately is fairly irrelevant and can't be proven.
Click to expand...

Again, in light of the magnitude of this situation, it will be smarter to ask than not, which I believe UM did. You are right, nothing changes if Schiano said to UM the same thing he said today in response to the media. And I believe that's what happened a year ago.
 
Upvote 0
This is a stupid conversation. We don't know what Urban asked Greg, and we don't know what Greg said, if asked. It's possible Urban asked, but it'd be monumentally stupid for Greg to admit he saw anything to Urban or anyone else. So, regardless of whether the question was asked, it wouldn't change anything today.

That being said, if there is any substantive evidence that Schiano saw something and didn't say anything, he's got to be gone. No questions asked.
 
Upvote 0
According to Deadspin, a representative of Tom Bradley made the following statement:

“At no time did Tom Bradley ever witness any inappropriate behavior. Nor did he have any knowledge of alleged incidents in the 80’s and 90’s. He has consistently testified as such. Any assertions to the contrary are false. When he became aware of the 2001 incident it had already been reported to the University administration years earlier.”

Hard to square that with what McQ said. Tom Bradley is pretty well thought of in coaching circles. That should be enough to make Schiano righteous.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
Well, for one, at the time of Schanio's hiring the only dates that were known about were 1998, 2001 and 2011. Schaino was long gone by then. For another, what in the hell does an accounting of what Schaino might have seen in locker rooms 20+ years ago have to do with his qualifications to be DC?

It continues to astonish me how people impute knowledge after the fact and then require an actor to have acted with that knowledge despite not having had it.
Click to expand...

According to the quote about Schiano, like McQueary later on, he WALKED IN ON AND SAW Sandusky abusing a boy. And, like McQueary, ran away like a scared rabbit rather than acting like the grown man he supposedly was and intervening, and then only told another staff member, not the cops.

Right, it's only an allegation right not and not proven. But, so were the accusations against Sandusky at one point. It needs to be looked at closely, not brushed aside as irrelevant because time has passed and did he know about any victims or whatever you want to call them.

But, if you still like him as a DC regardless of what the truth turns out to be, well, Beat Nebraska! I guess.
 
Upvote 0
LostLassie said:
According to the quote about Schiano, like McQueary later on, he WALKED IN ON AND SAW Sandusky abusing a boy. And, like McQueary, ran away like a scared rabbit rather than acting like the grown man he supposedly was and intervening, and then only told another staff member, not the cops.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty clear cut. You punch out Sandusky save the kid, call the cops and ride off into the sunset. But lets look at the reality of the situation. Joe Pa is not going to like you punching out his friend. He's going to believe his friend over you. JoePa isn't going to believe or act on anything that is going to tarnish his reputation. The AD and president are going to back Joe Pa. Joe Pa owns the cops. You aren't getting anywhere with them either. So you end up a young unemployed ex-assistant coach with no references and Sandusky is still there molesting children. Or you could be dead like the DA that was investigating the case.

I suspect the decision on what to do wasn't as easy as people make it out to be. Fighting against authority when the deck is stacked against you is great cinema but most of us will never know the horror of being put in this kind of situation. (And that horror pales in comparison to the actual victims) Just a tragic situation all-around. Hopefully, there is no hotter place in hell than under Jo Pa's a**.
 
Upvote 0
LostLassie said:
According to the quote about Schiano, like McQueary later on, he WALKED IN ON AND SAW Sandusky abusing a boy. And, like McQueary, ran away like a scared rabbit rather than acting like the grown man he supposedly was and intervening, and then only told another staff member, not the cops.

Right, it's only an allegation right not and not proven. But, so were the accusations against Sandusky at one point. It needs to be looked at closely, not brushed aside as irrelevant because time has passed and did he know about any victims or whatever you want to call them.

But, if you still like him as a DC regardless of what the truth turns out to be, well, Beat Nebraska! I guess.
Click to expand...

Please tell us how you want to look at it closely. Schiano has denied it. Bradley has denied it (multiple times and under oath). Further, the allegation McQueary made in his latest deposition never appeared in his earlier depositions (back in 2011). And never surfaced when McQueary testified (under oath) in initial hearings and during the Sandusky criminal trial. And no victim named Schiano as a witness to their molestation. How else do you want to investigate?

Why would McQueary mention Schiano in his latest deposition? Who knows? Maybe a mistake, since he was talking about a conversation with Bradley that occurred 15 years ago, about a conversation Bradley had 6 years before that. Or if you're into conspiracy theories, you might believe McQueary has some self-interest in all of this due to his $4 million whistleblower suit against Penn State. Maybe that needs to be looked at closely.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top