OT: Schiano Knew Too

[NickKnight 1]

So now the way it is in this country, if you testify that
you saw something, the accused has to admit it, if
not, the accused remains innocent in most cases.
Then Someone should have put in hidden cameras.
Any way someone at Penn St. should have done
something or anything but close their eyes and hope
it went away. Or even worse covered it up.
That would include Gary and anyone else that suspected
something, The whole football program should have gotten
the death penalty. Also went higher than the football program.
All so called witnesses should have responded as if
it was their own child. They most definitely did not have
to worry about their jobs, who is going to fire the hero
who saved all these children?

 

[RURM85]

So now the way it is in this country, if you testify that
you saw something, the accused has to admit it, if
not, the accused remains innocent in most cases.
Then Someone should have put in hidden cameras.
Any way someone at Penn St. should have done
something or anything but close their eyes and hope
it went away. Or even worse covered it up.
That would include Gary and anyone else that suspected
something, The whole football program should have gotten
the death penalty. Also went higher than the football program.
All so called witnesses should have responded as if
it was their own child. They most definitely did not have
to worry about their jobs, who is going to fire the hero
who saved all these children?

No, the burden of proof is on the accuser. One is innocent until proven guilty. Proof can come from more than just self-admittance. Otherwise a system based on the potential of false accusations, where the accuse is presumed guilty can lead to terrible consequences including the conduct of good, old fashioned witch hunts (Who doesn't like a witch hunt).

However, it appears once the media drags one through the mud by twisting fact from claim, the accuse has the burden of proof in the court of public opinion. Most folks believe what is written without question or thought. For the most part, Media is very interested in generating revenue via sensationalism and/or high interest stories. They count on the public believing every word that is written.

 

[mildone]

So now the way it is in this country, if you testify that
you saw something, the accused has to admit it, if
not, the accused remains innocent in most cases.

You do realize that nobody has testified or otherwise stated that Schiano said, heard, or saw anything? You just seem to want to judge him because he happened to be there at the time.

 

[yesrutgers01]

Does anyone know how common it is for 12 y/o'ish kids to be showering in the locker room at these camps? My kids have gone to a number of youth camps at Rutgers, some were day camps and other overnight and I recall them ever showing in the locker rooms. If it were a day camp, we picked up their smelly dirty selves and they showered at home or if over night, they showered i n the dorm they stayed in.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Cleveland Plain Dealer
Urban Meyer stands by co-defensive coordinator Greg Schiano after Penn State claim

Columbus Dispatch
Meyer says he has no problem with Schiano over Penn State documents

Nice to have a leader with a set.

 

[MADHAT1]

McQueary has stated, correct me if I'm wrong, that he only told Paterno. Are you saying he's a liar and that he told other people besides Paterno? Or are you saying Paterno, having learned about it and intending to cover it up, started spreading rumors about it?

If McQueary had said he told a whole bunch of people, that would be different. But I'm pretty sure he says he only told Paterno. That is different from your analogy in your plant where everybody would know in ten minutes. Because your analogy is predicated on the fact that the one person who saw something told lots of people about what he just saw, and then those people each told lots more people.

I believe McQueary testified : he talked to Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz nine or ten days after he informed Paterno what he saw Sandusky doing
I'm sure part of the perjury charges Pennsylvania put on Curley & Schultz is because they denied, under oath, McQueary spoke to them about what he told Paterno.
For what it's worth
McQueary's father,testified in court about telling Schultz what his son told him in a meeting with Schultz after his son notified Paterno.

 

[RUonBrain]

McQueary's own teammates told reporters (see link above) he was a compulsive gambler , betting on College and Pro football including Penn St games (possibly the RU game where he threw a late TD), he also broke down in front of players after his original testiomony saying he himself was Sexually Abused as a child (nobody had ever heard that before or had he told anyone), his wife and daughter move far away from him, and his testimoney is also contradicted by many other (Dranov, the fathers doctor frind, the PSU admin). Yet Bradley and Schiano have had pretty pristine reputations for decades.
Something just doesn't add up.

I still think Paterno knew more , especially before 2001, but I am still hesitant to believe McQueary and his somewhat checkered past over the honesty of Bradley and Schiano.

Seriously?
"Checkered past?"

Someon who gambles on games and was possibly abused as a child is labeled as having a "checkered past?"

So a gambler and victim of abuse is not to be believed if he/she witnesses child molestation?

Okay

 

[mildone]

I believe McQueary testified : he talked to Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz nine or ten days after he informed Paterno what he saw Sandusky doing
I'm sure part of the perjury charges Pennsylvania put on Curley & Schultz is because they denied, under oath, McQueary spoke to them about what he told Paterno.
For what it's worth
McQueary's father,testified in court about telling Schultz what his son told him in a meeting with Schultz after his son notified Paterno.

But McQueary didn't tell any fellow coaches. He told the "president", "CEO" and "CIO" (or whatever). I thought Paterno told them.

In any event, my point still stands with respect to it's not being very likely that those he told were running around talking about it with everybody. Because all those folks apparently were looking to cover it up. And people engaged in a cover-up are far less likely to spread rumors than people on a factory floor who just saw something and started telling their coworkers.

It's entirely possible that other coaches witnessed things. But there's no evidence of it so far. I'm not naive to the possibility. But being aware of the possibility is one thing. Being convinced that Schiano must have known because he was there is quite another thing. I won't participate in trashing a person's reputation without more evidence than that.

The flip side is that if, at some point, evidence makes it clear turns out Schiano did know and participated in covering up for a serial child molester, then I will happily watch him be raped to death by raging psychopathic bull elephants with bad atttitudes.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Didn't see this mentioned but McQueary sued Ped for wrongful termination, so he has a definite ax to grind. He claimed he was a whistleblower so he'd have reason to dredge this up true or not.

The problem with that is that whistle-blowing got him a job and promotion. He has said that when he called Paterno to ask to come over to tell him what he saw, Paterno got on the phone and said, "Sorry kid, we don't have a job for you".. thinking McQueary, a graduate assistant, wanted a real assistants job. Then the whole "we don't have a spot for you" thing seemed to be incorrect.

I get it that this has ruined his career. But it was his own lack of follow-up and acceptance of allowing Paterno and company to handle this that ultimately resulted in McQueary's lack of job prospects in football. It was NOT-WHISTLE-BLOWING that did this to him. If he went to law enforcement with this all, even as a lone eyewitness with no evidence, he would still have a career.. as much as any assistant does.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Clearly there is nowhere close to enough evidence to convict Schiano in a courtroom. But this is an internet message board, and the burden of proof is lower and these boards are meant for discussion.

My view is that it is likely that McQueary wouldn't make up the conversation with Bradley and it seems unlikely that Bradley would make up a conversation with Schiano. Either Bradley and Schiano are lying or McQueary is lying. In this situation, I would think McQueary has much less to lose by being honest here than Schiano/Bradley and it seems logical that there would be whispers about Sandusky and that Bradley/Schiano would have had some clue.

I'm not saying throw Schiano in jail, but I do think he knew.

You ignore the idea that McQueary has a lot to GAIN from lying. He spreads the blame and advances points in his lawsuit against Penn State as a "whistle-blower".. he can show other coaches knew.. living coaches.. with this "story").

We know JoePA said that McQueary's description made it sound like "horseplay". And McQueary met with his father and a close family friend, an MD iirc, who has said he did not hear anything that made it sound like it was sex/child-rape that he saw (as he would be required by law to report that).

I think law enforcement and Penn State security and administration has really dropped the ball for decades thus making it possible for McQueary to be put in that position to witness something then wonder about reporting it, etc.

Clearly they got rid of Sandusky.. but allowed him access. And clearly they must have warned other programs off of interviewing the long time DCV of a very successful big time program. No penalty is too big for PSU imho.