• 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
OH10 said:
I think maybe you misunderstood. McQueary says Bradley told him that Schiano told Bradley he saw a boy in the shower with Sandusky. Now that's confusing. If, however, Bradley confirms that Schiano told him he saw a boy in the shower with Sandusky, that is actually NOT hearsay. So if, for example, Schiano were prosecuted for not reporting what he saw (would never happen), Bradley could testify to this statement much like a detective could testify about a criminal defendant giving a confession. The statement by the defendant is not hearsay.
Click to expand...
No, actually, it is still hearsay.
 
Upvote 0
cincibuck said:
Could the school suspend Schiano with pay until this matter is cleared up? Might not make him happy, especially if he's cleared, but this is a super CYA situation if ever I heard of one.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious how they'd go about "clearing it up" -- you got 3 people involved. 2 say they had no knowledge. What are you gonna do? Depose all 3? to what end, McQueary has no way of knowing who the boy was that Bradley said Schiano said he saw, so I'm not sure what the end game would be other than to tarnish reputations. I may be missing something. If there was value to someone by pursuing the Bradley/Schiano route, certainly they would have done so by now, and my understanding is that Bradley has already given sworn testimony to the contrary.
 
Upvote 0
billmac91 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only an institution as sick and morally bankrupt as Ped State could turn the insurance company into the good guy.
 
Upvote 0
cincibuck said:
Could the school suspend Schiano with pay until this matter is cleared up? Might not make him happy, especially if he's cleared, but this is a super CYA situation if ever I heard of one.
Click to expand...

Problem is, it's not going to be cleared up. The parties involved, except for McQueary, are denying it happened. Unless something like letters or emails or corroborating testimony shows up, there is no evidence. Again, he said-he said.

I hate that this filth from next door has splattered over our school. Never, ever wanted to have the tOSU program stained with this kind of corruption. But I didn't want to organize a lynch mob either. I said it should be looked into, questioned, investigated, stupidly somehow thinking that of course people would tell the truth. We have no assurance that has happened. But we can't prove it hasn't either. Other people know how to CYA, too.

If Schiano was being charged with something, then the same rules might apply that do with a team member who gets arrested--don't they suspend him until the trial is over and guilt or innocence is legally determined? But, he's not charged with anything, except in newspapers and websites, and right now it looks like that's as far as it's going to go.

Personally, I wish Urbs had steered clear of any Pedster alumni. Guess that sounds like discrimination, don't really care. Other qualified people exist who don't have a history of sharing a bench (and apparently, sometimes, a shower) with an infamous pedophile. It's too late now.
 
Upvote 0
BUCKYLE said:
This [Mark May] stinks.

Should never have hired anyone who coached under Paterno.
Click to expand...

I think it's going to be very hard for anyone who was on staff with Jerry to ever get another job. This might be a line that even the SEC pauses at.

With regards to Lassie's post above, it does suck. We're in this limbo where there's nothing concrete enough that we risk a nasty defamain suit if we shit can him, but there's enough out in the public to taint the University for doing nothing. Worst possible scenario.

As far as McQueary goes, I tend to believe him. Only reasonable reason for lying about it under oath would be an attempt to rehabilitate his own reputation by saying all the coaches knew about it too and did nothing.

I will say that Sciano does have the option of a slander lawsuit against McQ.
 
Upvote 0
OH10 said:
I think maybe you misunderstood. McQueary says Bradley told him that Schiano told Bradley he saw a boy in the shower with Sandusky. Now that's confusing. If, however, Bradley confirms that Schiano told him he saw a boy in the shower with Sandusky, that is actually NOT hearsay. So if, for example, Schiano were prosecuted for not reporting what he saw (would never happen), Bradley could testify to this statement much like a detective could testify about a criminal defendant giving a confession. The statement by the defendant is not hearsay.
Click to expand...

You are correct, that would not be hearsay. I must have read something incorrectly.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top