Sandusky: final twitches

LioninVa
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby LioninVa » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:32 pm

And MM was in the midst of a very lucrative lawsuit. His words carry little weight to me.

Blue&White
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:46 pm

He was also under oath. I'm not ready to just jump to the conclusion he committed perjury. He can believe what he said and still be mistaken.

Who knows.

psu_dad
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:53 pm

About the only thing you can be sure of is that McQueary is not on Bradley's or Schiano's Christmas card list.

LioninVa
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby LioninVa » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:00 pm

I will take your word that the statement was made under oath. I would like to think that makes a difference, but I am not so sure. There are too many things that don’t make sense to me regarding his story and timeline. Not to mention the corruption in the state DA’s office. But I don’t want to go down that road again...

psu_dad
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:08 pm

I would like to think that makes a difference, but I am not so sure.

I'm not sure it makes a difference. Lying under oath about something that can possibly be proven to be a lie is dangerous. But lying about what someone said to you is another matter. There's absolutely no way to prove that Bradley didn't say what McQueary claims he said. McQueary risked nothing by throwing Bradley (and Schiano) under the bus.

Blue&White
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:40 pm

He also gained nothing. What was the upside to making that story up? It's not admissible as evidence. Why pick those two guys? I doubt he saw Schiano since he left PSU in 95. So why do it?

I have no idea what the answer is to that question, btw.

psu_dad
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:19 pm

I don't know the "upside" of that testimony. I was just arguing that the fact that it was "under oath" doesn't make it more believable.

Odd that this was never mentioned in McQueary's grand jury testimony, or during the Sandusky trial, or the trial of Spanier or during McQueary's civil suit against Penn State. Perhaps because it was inadmissible as evidence and would never makes its way into a court?

The Bradley/Schiano allegation that just (supposedly) caused Schiano the UT job was only made public when the depositions in the civil case between Penn State and their insurer were made public. McQueary gave a deposition for that civil case and someone (the attorney for the insurance company?) specifically asked him if Bradley had ever spoken to him about "Sandusky and children". And then McQueary threw Bradley and Schiano under the bus. Given the nature of that civil case, I guess he was also throwing Penn State under the bus.

Blue&White
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby Blue&White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:46 pm

His comments wouldn't have been admissible in the grand jury or the subsequent criminal trial. It's hearsay and can't be admitted. Mcquery may have shared that with the prosecution the first time but there would be no record of it. But, presumably the prosecution would have talked to at least Bradley. And it never came up.

I have no idea what to make of any of it. But, a 4th party account is not a fair thing to lay on Schiano. MM testified that someone told him that Schiano had said this year's earlier. That's ridiculous.

And, that whole story barely made a ripple when it was first reported but suddenly everyone at UT knows about it and is outraged? I call bullshit. Someone who didn't want him there put out into the ether for the purpose of bringing pressure to get rid of him. And, the majority of the comments I read focused on his performance in Tampa.

As for MM and what he said, I have no idea. Sandusky is just the gift that keeps on giving.

LioninVa
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby LioninVa » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:11 am

I don't know why MM would have said anything about either coach, as it is hearsay; maybe it is true or he really believes it. But when it was figured out that he was the graduate assistant in the initial reports, he pretty much became public enemy number 2. People blamed him for not really intervening in the shower incident and then not going to local police. Maybe it was as simple a misery loves company, I don't know.

As for the whole mess of this week, I agree that UT is using this as a cover to make up for a regrettable and/or unpopular decision.

psu_dad
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Sandusky: final twitches

Postby psu_dad » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:56 am

I don't know why MM would have said anything about either coach, as it is hearsay

He was ASKED to give hearsay testimony at a deposition. The attorney asking the questions asked him if Bradley ever told him anything about Sandusky's involvement with children. And he answered the question.

I gave a deposition once, for a wrongful termination lawsuit. It wasn't my job to say "I object!" to the questions being asked. I wasn't there to interpret the law. I waited a second or two after each question to give the attorneys in the room a chance to argue about the appropriateness of the question. Some times they argued. Some times they didn't.

PS - If you're ever deposed, it will be you and a gaggle of lawyers in a room for hours. Do what I did. Sneak in a small vial of holy water and a wooden stake, just in case one of them gets hungry.