-
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!
- Thread starter ysubuck
- Start date
Short answer? I think we're as screwed as Jerry's kids. There is no evidents. So it's he said-he said. So we'll get to live with the uncertainty, and, along the way, plan to pack extra emotional body armor as everyone who already despises tOSU begins to lump us in with PedState.
To address a couple of your points...
Yeah, why on earth would anyone suspect that a person who'd cover up child rape would ever be so devoid of character as to lie about it?
I haven't read all the transcripts. It's possible McQueary never mentioned it before because no one asked the relevant question. Testimony isn't a monologue, is it? You don't get to just ramble on about anything you want.
As to a victim naming Schiano as a witness--it's just possible the kid was too preoccupied with being raped to notice someone poking his head into the room. There is not a detailed description of where Sandusky, the kid, and Schiano were supposed to be in relation to each other, i.e., how close, for how long. But long enough for the sight of it to turn Schiano "white as a ghost" according to McQueary.
You mention the years that have passed. Is this meant to say that their memories may be cloudy on specific details? I can't tell you what I ate for breakfast this time last week, but I sure as hell can describe in detail how I spent my morning fifteen years ago on September 11th, 2001. Traumatic events have a way of searing themselves into our memory with really finely etched outlines.
As to motivation driving McQueary to lie under oath--what's that line they like to use to courtroom dramas? Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Far as I know, he hasn't been charged with perjury over his previous testimony. So was that truthful and accurate? If not, then maybe the poor beleaguered Pedsters have been right all along: Jerry's innocent and JoePa was a god damn saint, martyred for the cause.
Sure, nothing precludes a person from lying about some things and not others. Or having an inaccurate memory. Or ulterior motives.
We're never going to know for certain. Which is why I'd like to think a few more questions would be asked of relevant individuals, rather than merely accepting a tweet as the ultimate resolution.
If it's a lie, Schiano is screwed because he can never prove it didn't happen. If it's all or partially true, the rest of us are, because that can never be proven either. It's not going to be forgotten, and it's not going to go away. We all get to live with it now. And I profoundly wish that we didn't.
Upvote
0
It's a pickle but Schiano was almost surely headed to another gig in a year or two. So while it is awful optically, I doubt it lingers for OSU.
Upvote
0
"But long enough for the sight of it to turn Schiano "white as a ghost" according to McQueary."
According to McQueary... according to Bradley. I hate to harp on this but it's a huge difference.
The problem is, it's not a few more questions. It's about 30 more that didn't get asked. There's not even all that great context for what similar experience, or what McQueary told Bradley to get the similar experience reference. Not to say we can't safely assume. But either Bradley or McQueary could have misunderstood the issue, too. And the follow up questions that didn't happen is how you sort that all out. Sound bad? Yeah. Prolly was. But McQueary is the guy to ask since the other two have denied all knowledge.
Upvote
0
billmac91
Head Coach
Just wanted to point out, today's unsealed testimony pertained to a civil case involving the insurance company not wanting to pay $98M in settlement fees to victims because they believe PSU failed to uphold their responsibility as the insured since upper-level employees knew of the crimes but didn't report them.
The McQueary testimony in regards to Bradley and Schiano would be inadmissible criminally because it's hearsay. I believe it was admissible in a civil trial. These are documents unsealed in regards to the civil case that is ongoing.
And I also believe it's dispicable PSU is trying to get their insurance company to pick up the tab on this situation when the handled it horribly and are absolutely culpable.
The McQueary testimony in regards to Bradley and Schiano would be inadmissible criminally because it's hearsay. I believe it was admissible in a civil trial. These are documents unsealed in regards to the civil case that is ongoing.
And I also believe it's dispicable PSU is trying to get their insurance company to pick up the tab on this situation when the handled it horribly and are absolutely culpable.
Upvote
0
That's a nice list of rationalizations about why no one in Happy Valley should ever have done anything to stop Sandusky. Or maybe, in a broader sense, why no one should ever do anything at any time to help anyone they see being harmed: might be consequences, might not work out for your own best interest.
It think there's a shorter term that summarizes willful inaction: cowardice.
Upvote
0
I have no clue how anything I've said could be understood that I think he should remain DC regardless. So, let me state it again.... If he witnessed a kid being raped and failed to do anything but talk to a colleague (Bradly was not DC at the time, after all) he's a shitbag and, in a much as he would have been a mandatory reporter, a criminal. If that is so, he will then need to be fired immediately.
Upvote
0
Right. I want to be clear in what Ive been saying regarding hearsay... to the extent that McQuery's testimony would be offered as proof that Shiano knew anything it is hearsay and inadmissible. However, as to whether any PSU officials knew or should have known that this was going on, it is admissible evidence.
Upvote
0
buddyguy
Junior
You really should read the transcripts before thinking the worst of Schiano. I've already told you that both Bradley and Schiano have said McQueary's comment in a deposition about a 15 year old second hand conversation wasn't true. Bradley has said it multiple times and under oath.
To show you how memories can fail, you need to read the just released 2014 deposition of one of Sandusky's victims. He said that he was molested in the locker room in 1988 and that PSU assistant Kevin O'Dea witnessed it. The only problem -- O'Dea didn't join PSU's staff until 1991 and had no contact with the program before then. Like Bradley and Schinao, he also had to issue a denial of any involvement yesterday. Do you want to ruin his career, too, just because anyone associated in any way with PSU and the allegations will be tainted for life?
Upvote
0
Buckeye1
Hall of Fame
If you are asking me to buckle under the pressure of a few internet posters regarding my stand on what I believe it is right and smart thing to do, then you are more ludicrous than you have inferred me to be. You and others can have different opinions and standards, and I am not asking you to change nor can I change your perspective. I did not have personal attacks but only asking questions and trying to understand the full situation since I did not read the transcripts. By the way, much of this was sealed, which is why people didn't know it referenced Schiano. And my stands had nothing to do with what has been revealed recently.
If I walk in to my office and see a co-worker wiping white powder from his face I would not say anything to him. But if I see him sorting the last line of white powder, then I would ask him what is he doing. If he responded that it was powder sugar, which is very abnormal, then I would be more suspicious of him.
Now if this same situation happened when I am a police officer, then I would inquire further and even take it to my supervisor because the magnitude of the situation has changed now since he can be impaired to do his job to protect citizens, especially he is carrying a firearm. Fast forward this incident twenty years from now, and that police officer has been convicted of heavy drug abuse and killed multiple people because he was impaired, do you think it is reasonable for the grand jury and investigators to question me about what I may have seen during those earlier years, especially if I worked closely with that officer? You better believe it.
Now those questions and answers may have been sealed, but if a potential new employer or new police commissioner is about to hire me knew that I worked closely with that convicted murderer, do you think the commissioner has the responsibility to ask me what I know or may have seen? I personally believe it is both a smart and a responsible thing to do as the commissioner represent the entire police force under his control. I sure would not hire someone who knew that office did snort cocaine and said nothing. Let say I never did see that other officer snort cocaine but thought he did something suspicious like that and reported to my chain of command, the commissioner should be fine with that answer unless he knew I lied to him.
To me, the Penn St. situation is of a high magnitude or even higher since young children and their family have been affected for a life time. If UM knew Schiano was working in that close proximity, having access to the same general locations and opportunities to witness something (whether the information has not been revealed until now has no bearing on this), I would expect UM to ask something. Now UM may have forgotten about the situation and therefore didn't ask, then that is different. I believe UM is of a higher integrity and smart individual and did ask and received an appropriate answer from Schiano; UM was fine with the answers as he indeed have no reason to doubt Schiano.
This situation is sensitive to many people and have national impact, especially for our beloved TOSU. To make light of it by using irrelevant examples such as butt grapping, office cooler jokes and Kentucky whatever to justify one's opinion is not appropriate. Noe that is ludicrous!
Upvote
0
cincibuck
You kids stay off my lawn!
1. IF he knew and did nothing, yes. To say otherwise is to repeat what the pedsters have been saying. Don't forget that the victims are punished for life through no fault of their own.
2. If O'dea is currently coaching at Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Clemson, FSU, or in the SEC; then yes, ruin him. Anyone seen the sarcasm font?
Upvote
0