Sandusky: final twitches

LioninVa
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby LioninVa » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:46 am

I did not understand he was answering a question at a deposition; maybe I should have paid closer attention to that aspect. I know that the impetus to his involvement early on was crap he posted on a PSU football forum (just a little ironic, maybe) about the shower incident, but I don't know the specifics. I guess it is reasonable to assume that, at some point in the grand jury sequences or after, discussions took place between various coaches. I don't know if that is legal or ethical or not, but it is human nature.

sameoldlama
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby sameoldlama » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:06 am

Our resident lawyer can parse this out but.....

MM testifying what TB told him is not hearsay
MM testifying what GS told TB is hearsay

And believe I saw the fire started with a SEC beat writer bringing it up when the story of UT having deal in place broke. Based on what I have read UT was aware of it and it was a part of their vetting process and they were satisfied it was not an issue - until the mob showed up.

psu_dad
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:39 am

MM testifying what TB told him is not hearsay
MM testifying what GS told TB is hearsay


It's my understanding that the first is hearsay and the second is double hearsay. No, I'm not making that up, but I'm certainly no legal expert.

they were satisfied it was not an issue

It could be that they still feel that way, but they'd just rather not deal with the media and the mob. Not for a guy who no one believes is the next Urban Meyer or Nick Saban, anyways. I imagine they had visions of child molestation questions popping up at Schiano's introductory press conference and they sh!t their collective pants.

Blue&White
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:56 am

Dad is correct with the hearsay/double hearsay comment. Neither one of those statements would be admissible as evidence. Typically what happens in a deposition is a question will get asked, an objection will be raised, and both sides will agree to allow the question to be answered with the understanding that a judge may rule on the admissibility of it all later. That changes if a client is asked about something that will have a direct impact on him or her, but this was a question that posed no harm to McQueary. If anything, it helped boost his claim.

As for TN, who knows. I read more stuff last night and I continue to see comments about what a bad choice he was from a football perspective with a lot of commentary about what a control freak he was in Tampa. But I also saw that a few members of that state legislator weighed in with complaints about his alleged ties to Sandusky. Those people control funding and that may have had an impact on the administrations thinking. I suppose they figured that Schiano wasn't worth the headache. He's not that great a hire.

If Urban Meyer was being offered a contract and someone made some far-fetched, unsubstantiated claim about him knowing about Sandusky I suspect the reaction and outcome would have been different.

Tennessee better find someone who is completely squeaky clean because you can bet that national media is going to be all over the background of whomever they announce next. And, if they find something that raises questions, you can bet it will be another feeding frenzy.

psu_dad
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:49 am

Typically what happens in a deposition is a question will get asked, an objection will be raised, and both sides will agree to allow the question to be answered with the understanding that a judge may rule on the admissibility of it all later.

I have no major heartburn with depositions being made public, but I'm a little surprised they aren't redacted to eliminate hearsay testimony that puts a third party in an awkward position. Such testimony may not be admissible in a court of law, but it can still be harmful to someone's reputation in the court of public opinion.

Blue&White
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:03 am

Typically they are not made public. I'm not clear on why this one was.