NBC New York Mentions the Release of the Documents
- Thread starter bobroars
- Start date
Really, football is pretty trivial compared with the rest of this....
You know what, you're right, not the appropriate time to bring up recruits. I guess I meant to just say that I think it is negatively impacting the school and the football program that this stuff keeps leaking out and getting picked up nationally every 3 months. I mean, at some point it feels like piling on. I want the truth to come out, even it if puts Joe and the University in a bad light, I just feel its impossible to move forward with this stuff leaking out and elongating this process.
I know how you feel.
Currently my feelings run like this. If true, I want nothing to do with Penn State. If false, and the idiots causing this remain in charge, I want nothing to do with Penn State.
No matter what Barron says, this does affect the ability of this university to serve the community. If we don't have any honor, we have nothing.
Was O'Dea ever interviewed by authorities? Sarra, before his death?
Those who did know prefer to let Joe take all the blame since he is not here to defend himself. This way they can stay out of the limelight themselves. This most likely includes the 3 with a trial pending who will go to their graves in silence.
So Fran Ganter testified in a deposition that Bradley complained to him about Sandusky being permitted to bring children into the football facilities.
We know that in 1998, right in the middle of the first Sandusky investigation, a meeting took place at the football building between Schreffler and Ralston (the two officers investigating the 1998 case), Steve Sloane and Ray Gricar from the DA's office, and Fran Ganter. We don't know what that meeting was about or what was said at that meeting, but it raises more than a few questions if coaches had been complaining to Ganter (at the least) about Jerry's involvement with children at the football facilities.
We know that in 1998, right in the middle of the first Sandusky investigation, a meeting took place at the football building between Schreffler and Ralston (the two officers investigating the 1998 case), Steve Sloane and Ray Gricar from the DA's office, and Fran Ganter. We don't know what that meeting was about or what was said at that meeting, but it raises more than a few questions if coaches had been complaining to Ganter (at the least) about Jerry's involvement with children at the football facilities.
I'm still not sure why this is bad for Joe or any of the previous coaching staff. One false claim blows up and every other claim becomes increasingly scrutinized. Those that awarded the money go under the microscope and it'll blow up in their face. John Doe 150 is providing the ammo as there's now reason to dig deeper because of the outlandish testimony he provided. This could be the domino that sets everything in motion the other way. Yeah, it'll be a shitstorm, but the truth might actually start flowing from those shitclouds.
I remember before the the ohio state game in 2011 when bradley was interim head coach. Jay and tom were both being interviewed just before the game and both denied knowing anything about Jerry until news reports in 2011.
Strange how under under oath in a private deposition bradley's story isn't quite the same.
Schiano was "White as a ghost" lmao.....
Strange how under under oath in a private deposition bradley's story isn't quite the same.
Schiano was "White as a ghost" lmao.....
A alleged victim said coaches hush about sex abuse against a kid. That's a huge no no. The coaches named are in trouble.
I can't imagine much good coming out of this for anyone.
Yeah, most of the claims about the knowledge of former coaches - Bradley, Schiano, Ganter - come from McQueary's testimony. Not from a victim.
Then certainly Larry Johnson is next in line to feel the heat, whether named or not..... assumption will be that they all knew or heard about Sandusky.
That May 1998 meeting amongst Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, Gricar and Ganter has ALWAYS intrigued me.
(1) Gricar's dead/missing,
(2) Schreffler refuses to comment on it,
(3) Sloane is on record in a PennLive article as saying he can't remember what the meeting was about,
(4) I can't remember if Ralston has ever said anything about this, and
(5) Ganter --- I'm not sure if anyone has ever asked him about this.
I don't think LJ has ever been mentioned in any of this. But there is a reason we have moved away from hiring Penn Staters as coaches. Bradley, Schiano were both mentioned on here as possible HC and neither really came close after 2011 of getting the job.
We haven't heard anything from Ganter about anything. I doubt he is allowed to speak publically.
The whole 1998 incident is still a mystery. What everyone thinks they know about it is not correct, imo.
And that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this case. We saw it in the minor sports well before 2011. I think Curley realized that Athletics had become too ingrown. In hindsight, he was right.
Athletics were INGROWN, BECAUSE of Tim Curley. It was his damn fault in the first place that under his watch, in-family hiring and groupthink took over and permeated the entire athletic department.
Except the narrative already says Joe knew.. this alleged victim has a flawed story.. this is an opportunity to expose these false allegations and go a little deeper into why this alleged victim got his huge payout from Penn State
I'm honestly surprised the alleged victim didn't work a unicorn or the lost city of Atlantis in to the story.
You would have to be a fool to think that Tom Bradley and Greg Schiano, among others, have not been interviewed by prosecutors a long time ago. How could anyone think that especially Scrap, who has since been vetted for two jobs, is suddenly the witness to this nonsense. What is it about "prosecutors deem these allegations as unreliable" that people don't get? We really have some intellectually challenged people here.
1. How do you know that Bradley and Schiano weren't interviewed by prosecutors? This article from 2011 (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/bradley_was_among_those_who_te.html) references that Bradley was interviewed by prosecutors at some point in summer 2011. And if either or both were interviewed by prosecutors, how do you know that the information revealed today by McQueary wasn't already learned by prosecutors years ago?
2. Where are you getting that prosecutors have deemed the allegations as unreliable?
I don't want to speak for Marshall, but when we first heard about this a few months ago, it came out that the OAG thought these allegations were garbage (my words not theirs). You can read theirs here:
http://www.witf.org/news/2016/05/prosecutor-claim-that-coaches-saw-sandusky-abuse-unreliable.php
If I'm reading that correctly, that would be the Joe Sarra allegation from one of the victims deposed, as well as the unnamed other 80's allegation, correct? The article you linked mentions nothing about how the AG's office treated McQueary's account of what Bradley and Schiano knew.
And even so, the Solicitor General in that article dismisses the claims as "third or fourth hand". The victim deposition about Sarra walking in on Jerry with his hands down the victim's pants would be first-hand, wouldn't it?
