OT: Matt Patricia and his sexual assault allegation

[Slapstick]

or more likely he isn't suing because he doesn't want to get deposed and be put under oath

schiano was certainly damaged as it cost him the Tenn job and still no lawsuit for defamation

I wonder why

THAT is a good question...

[Eddie Spaghetti]

and the obvious answer is both schiano and bradley know mcQueary was telling the truth

[Slapstick]

I wonder if the fact that it was sworn testimony offered only because he was forced to answer questions by the law means it's protected, in the sense that it can't also be slander?

I looked it up and this seems to be the case. Testimony is considered “privileged” and immune to prosecution for slander or defamation...

That also explains why Schiano just had to take it when UT dumped him...

[Slapstick]

and the obvious answer is both schiano and bradley know mcQueary was telling the truth

OR, the fact that he was giving testimony protected him against such claims...

[feltdizz]

I’m all out of energy when it comes to this topic. Personally I wouldn’t hire anyone for PR purposes and I would prefer to stay as far away as possible from that incident.

I think anytime a school or company has a scandal anyone involved who may have known and didn’t act is definitely part of the problem.

[Steel Maniac]

they have mcquearys sworn testimony

looks like squid was right about you defending anybody the steelers hire

Boom......

[squidkid]

Between the two of us, you’re the one who makes stuff up...and everybody knows it.

didnt i just prove you lied and made up stuff the other day...............yup.
you must get taken advantage of your whole life as guilible and naive as you are.
you truly must be stupid.

[Slapstick]

didnt i just prove you lied and made up stuff the other day...............yup.
you must get taken advantage of your whole life as guilible and naive as you are.
you truly must be stupid.

And you are delusional...always talking about stuff that never happened...

[squidkid]

And you are delusional...always talking about stuff that never happened...

lol................just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true.

[Slapstick]

lol................just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true.

Just because you keep saying stuff it doesn’t make it real...

[Ghost]

Back to the original topic -

Grand juries are totally different than facing a trial by jury (and possible conviction). A grand jury does not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They only need a reasonable belief (probable cause). And only 9 out of 12 are needed for an indictment. Neither the defendant (Patricia in this case) nor his lawyer were even at the hearing (they couldn’t be). Being indicted by a grand jury does not prove guilt in any way.

Really, only Patricia, his buddy, and the girl know what actually happened that night. Maybe he’s telling the truth and the Grand Jury indictment was based on her statements which she later decided not to follow up on because she knew they were not true. At the time of the dismissal the accuser had the right to re-file at any time. She never did. She also never sued him and there’s no record of a financial settlement with her.

For me, there’s simply not enough evidence to declare him as some sort of sleazy guy who got away with something. For all we know, he’s proclaiming his innocence because it’s exactly what he is – innocent.

[Slapstick]

Back to the original topic -

Grand juries are totally different than facing a trial by jury (and possible conviction). A grand jury does not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They only need a reasonable belief (probable cause). And only 9 out of 12 are needed for an indictment. Neither the defendant (Patricia in this case) nor his lawyer were even at the hearing (they couldn’t be). Being indicted by a grand jury does not prove guilt in any way.

Really, only Patricia, his buddy, and the girl know what actually happened that night. Maybe he’s telling the truth and the Grand Jury indictment was based on her statements which she later decided not to follow up on because she knew they were not true. At the time of the dismissal the accuser had the right to re-file at any time. She never did. She also never sued him and there’s no record of a financial settlement with her.

For me, there’s simply not enough evidence to declare him as some sort of sleazy guy who got away with something. For all we know, he’s proclaiming his innocence because it’s exactly what he is – innocent.

I agree with you. When I referenced the grand jury indictment, I was trying to highlight the differences between Patricia’s situation and what happened with Ben Roethlisberger.

In any case, I’m glad that he isn’t a coach here...not because I don’t believe in his innocence, but because we have enough potential distractions...

[Steel Maniac]

Back to the original topic -

Grand juries are totally different than facing a trial by jury (and possible conviction). A grand jury does not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They only need a reasonable belief (probable cause). And only 9 out of 12 are needed for an indictment. Neither the defendant (Patricia in this case) nor his lawyer were even at the hearing (they couldn’t be). Being indicted by a grand jury does not prove guilt in any way.

Really, only Patricia, his buddy, and the girl know what actually happened that night. Maybe he’s telling the truth and the Grand Jury indictment was based on her statements which she later decided not to follow up on because she knew they were not true. At the time of the dismissal the accuser had the right to re-file at any time. She never did. She also never sued him and there’s no record of a financial settlement with her.

For me, there’s simply not enough evidence to declare him as some sort of sleazy guy who got away with something. For all we know, he’s proclaiming his innocence because it’s exactly what he is – innocent.

This is where i stand also. The case was looked at; girl didn’t testify; case over. You can’t keep going after someone once the case has moved on; unless financial restitution was involved.