Bradley Statement to Deadspin

[Yboby]

Update (3:08 p.m.): A representative of Tom Bradley sends along the following statement:

“At no time did Tom Bradley ever witness any inappropriate behavior. Nor did he have any knowledge of alleged incidents in the 80’s and 90’s. He has consistently testified as such. Any assertions to the contrary are false. When he became aware of the 2001 incident it had already been reported to the University administration years earlier.”

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

Update (3:08 p.m.): A representative of Tom Bradley sends along the following statement:

“At no time did Tom Bradley ever witness any inappropriate behavior. Nor did he have any knowledge of alleged incidents in the 80’s and 90’s. He has consistently testified as such. Any assertions to the contrary are false. When he became aware of the 2001 incident it had already been reported to the University administration years earlier.”

This will be ignored by MSM.

 

[lionlurker]

Why release it to Deadspin?

 

[Brad908]

I'm 100% against these ridiculous claims, but does anyone expect anything else then for Schiano/Bradley to deny? lol

Their image/career would be destroyed if they did indeed see something, and just now admitting to it.

 

[PennStateNate]

I'm 100% against these ridiculous claims, but does anyone expect anything else then for Schiano/Bradley to deny? lol

Their image/career would be destroyed if they did indeed see something, and just now admitting to it.

Sadly their careers may be destroyed now..

 

[nits74]

This will be ignored by MSM.

Or, passed off as CYA. Better to believe some unnamed source who had everything to gain financially and nothing to lose. Hey, if your of age your name has to be made public. This system is absolute bullshit.

 

[Brad908]

Sadly their careers may be destroyed now..

True. Damage is most likely done at this point.

 

[21Guns]

How is this not McQueary's word, against Bradley and Schiano's word?

I read the final deposition and the final pdf listed in the original listing of docs from the docket released today and that is Mike McQueary's words, correct? According to Mike McQueary, Schiano and Bradley had been informed of Sandusky in other incidents is that correct? Just clarifying to make sure.

 

[Art]

I'm 100% against these ridiculous claims, but does anyone expect anything else then for Schiano/Bradley to deny? lol

Their image/career would be destroyed if they did indeed see something, and just now admitting to it.

I'm not Buffy's biggest fan, but if he saw Sandusky abusing a kid, Sandusky wouldn't have walked away from it, in contrast to what we know a certain eyewitness did.

 

[jerseylion109]

so its Bradley and Schiano's word vs McQuerys.

Hmmmmm maybe Mike is just making stuff up at this point. who knows anymore he has no reason to do so.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

who knows anymore he has no reason to do so.

Are you running for the "Slowest User" Award?

 

[marshall23]

Mike McQueary is on his own. No one is backing his story of witnessing CSA and reporting it......as well as the "everybody knew about JS for years" whispers. To believe Sandusky's hobby was well known, one now must believe that JVP, Joe Sarra, Tom Bradley, Dick Anderson Tim Curley and Greg Schiano all let Jerry run wild for decades. Seriously, I am starting to lean toward JZ. Something does not add up here.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

Mike McQueary is on his own. No one is backing his story of witnessing CSA and reporting it......as well as the "everybody knew about JS for years" whispers. To believe Sandusky's hobby was well known, one now must believe that JVP, Joe Sarra, Tom Bradley, Dick Anderson Tim Curley and Greg Schiano all let Jerry run wild for decades. Seriously, I am starting to lean toward JZ. Something does not add up here.

Never has added up.....

 

[jim cummings]

The more (living) names in the ring the better. This sets up a civil suit rocket being fired Match's way.

Has McQueary even been cross examined, ever, from the other side? I thought maybe once at Soapys trial, and some how that moron Amendola picked him apart. Wasn't Mike deemed not credible in which 3 of the 48 counts were dismissed?

Mike is one F'd up dude. He's the only one who admitted to seeing something he often has trouble remembering (must be PTSD) and throws other people under the bus yet he gets a free pass and the geriatric was supposed to stop Soapy.

 

[LundyPSU]

Interesting wording about the 2001 incident. Sounds like Bradley may have been aware prior to 2011. If so, what was he told. Assuming that came directly from Mike

 

[Nitt1300]

McQueary has never been believable- the fact than neither his father or the doctor he spoke with at his father's house the night before he called Joe didn't tell him to report it to the police when both were mandatory reporters always told me that the story he tells now wasn't the story he told them- or the story he told Joe.

You want the bad guy in this?- though I don't think he intended it- it's McQueary

 

[Madsol]

McQueary has never been believable- the fact than neither his father or the doctor he spoke with at his father's house the night before he called Joe didn't tell him to report it to the police when both were mandatory reporters always told me that the story he tells now wasn't the story he told them- or the story he told Joe.

You want the bad guy in this?- though I don't think he intended it- it's McQueary

Have said for going on 5 years, McQueary is either a liar or a coward, it has to be one or the other. If he really saw in 2001 what he claimed in 2011 and did nothing more about it than report it to the football coach after walking out on the abuse and going home and going to bed, then he's a coward. If he didn't see in 2001 what he claimed in 2011 but changed his story for whatever reason, then he's a liar. I'd love for someone to show me how there can be another option here.

 

[sluggo72]

Interesting wording about the 2001 incident. Sounds like Bradley may have been aware prior to 2011. If so, what was he told. Assuming that came directly from Mike

while I'll agree the wording is interesting, to me it doesn't mean he know about it prior to 2011. He may have only become aware of it at the same time as everyone else, but it also count have been 2007. It just gives him an out, which is okay by me.

When he became aware of the 2001 incident it had already been reported to the University administration years earlier. So they leaves anywhere from 2003 to 2011 to me.

 

[psualum10]

Interesting wording about the 2001 incident. Sounds like Bradley may have been aware prior to 2011. If so, what was he told. Assuming that came directly from Mike

People were made aware around 2008 that Sandusky was being investigated.

 

[LundyPSU]

People were made aware around 2008 that Sandusky was being investigated.

Agreed, but this is specific to the 2001 incident. Just wondering when Bradley became aware and what was he told and by whom. Pretty certain that Bradley have GJ testimony, so we may learn more

 

[jjsocrates]

so its Bradley and Schiano's word vs McQuerys

Seems like its a whole BUNCH of people's words vs. McQueary's words.

Dr. Dranov's word vs Mike McQueary's words.
Mike McQueary's Dad's word vs Mike McQueary's words.
Graham Spanier's word vs Mike McQueary's words.
Tim Curley's word vs Mike McQueary's words.
Gary Schultz's word vs Mike McQueary's words.

Its kinda weird how dozens of people are lying, but Mike McQueary is telling the absolute truth.

 

[Ski]

How is this not McQueary's word, against Bradley and Schiano's word?

I read the final deposition and the final pdf listed in the original listing of docs from the docket released today and that is Mike McQueary's words, correct? According to Mike McQueary, Schiano and Bradley had been informed of Sandusky in other incidents is that correct? Just clarifying to make sure.

If it was McQueary's word against just one person's word, that would be inconclusive, no? But, if 2 coaches are calling McQueary a liar, would that enable the OAG to pursue perjury charges against him?

 

[21Guns]

If it was McQueary's word against just one person's word, that would be inconclusive, no? But, if 2 coaches are calling McQueary a liar, would that enable the OAG to pursue perjury charges against him?

As another poster just put it, this appears now to be McQueary's word, vs 7 or 8 other people's word.

 

[scottpsurules]

Have said for going on 5 years, McQueary is either a liar or a coward, it has to be one or the other. If he really saw in 2001 what he claimed in 2011 and did nothing more about it than report it to the football coach after walking out on the abuse and going home and going to bed, then he's a coward. If he didn't see in 2001 what he claimed in 2011 but changed his story for whatever reason, then he's a liar. I'd love for someone to show me how there can be another option here.

Just a random theory.....any chance he had a motive, ie, was a victim(and/or someone close to him) of JS as a child. He witnessed the shower scene, MM was looking for revenge and thus jumped on the opportunity and embellished the story. (Noting child has denied anything happened.)

 

[marshall23]

If it was McQueary's word against just one person's word, that would be inconclusive, no? But, if 2 coaches are calling McQueary a liar, would that enable the OAG to pursue perjury charges against him?

He was their "prize witness." OAG didn't go after the PSP that perjured themselves in the JS Trial. They knew what they were doing, that's why they indicted the PSU 3.....to silence them.

 

[21Guns]

This has obviously been beaten into the ground but My God, it bears repeating, especially after reading the entire deposition today:

How, in God's name, do you step into a locker room, see what he saw, then step INTO the shower room, just five yards away, and do nothing but leave and call your Dad later on from your office?

How in the name of God does that happen? I truly believe, probably 99 % of the human race, would have done more than that, on that night.

 

[yorklion12]

Interesting wording about the 2001 incident. Sounds like Bradley may have been aware prior to 2011. If so, what was he told. Assuming that came directly from Mike

The thing I don't understand is, did Mike tell investigators in 2011 about what he told Bradley? If Mike is telling the truth why wouldn't Bradley be a prosecution witness? Like many posters have said none of this makes any sense. I think all today did was raise more questions

 

[marshall23]

Just a random theory.....any chance he had a motive, ie, was a victim(and/or someone close to him) of JS as a child. He witnessed the shower scene, MM was looking for revenge and thus jumped on the opportunity and embellished the story. (Noting child has denied anything happened.)

No chance that was the motive. Why wait 10 years and lawyer up even then when approached by investigators?

 

[21Guns]

He was their "prize witness." OAG didn't go after the PSP that perjured themselves in the JS Trial. They knew what they were doing, that's why they indicted the PSU 3.....to silence them.

You know something? I am beginning to think you are right. What possible other motive could they have had?

 

[marshall23]

This has obviously been beaten into the ground but My God, it bears repeating, especially after reading the entire deposition today:

How, in God's name, do you step into a locker room, see what he saw, then step INTO the shower room, just five yards away, and do nothing but leave and call your Dad later on from your office?

How in the name of God does that happen? I truly believe, probably 99 % of the human race, would have done more than that, on that night.

Because Mike didn't see anything. He may have suspected, he may have been concerned. But clearly when Dranov asked him what he saw, he spoke of the slapping sounds.

 

[nits74]

Mike McQueary is on his own. No one is backing his story of witnessing CSA and reporting it......as well as the "everybody knew about JS for years" whispers. To believe Sandusky's hobby was well known, one now must believe that JVP, Joe Sarra, Tom Bradley, Dick Anderson Tim Curley and Greg Schiano all let Jerry run wild for decades. Seriously, I am starting to lean toward JZ. Something does not add up here.

As another poster just put it, this appears now to be McQueary's word, vs 7 or 8 other people's word.

Yes, and much more credibility is afforded the married guy that texts pictures of his private parts to a coed and bets on college football games as an active assistant coach. Sounds about right.

 

[Art]

Because Mike didn't see anything. He may have suspected, he may have been concerned. But clearly when Dranov asked him what he saw, he spoke of the slapping sounds.

Or he did and did nothing. Either way, not much of an excuse for a human being.

 

[21Guns]

Or he did and did nothing. Either way, not much on excuse for a human being.

Absolutely: It's one, or the other, and both ways, it's contemptible and despicable.

 

[marshall23]

Let's put this in perspective. In order to convict Jerry Sandusky, The OAG and PSP investigators manipulated laws,facts and the lives of many innocent people. There should be outrage in the State of Pennsylvania that this could happen anywhere in America. Tom Corbett and his gang have done irreparable harm to so many. Who is protecting them?

 

[Legion of Lions]

so its Bradley and Schiano's word vs McQuerys.

Hmmmmm maybe Mike is just making stuff up at this point. who knows anymore he has no reason to do so.

Maybe Tom Corbett's standard method of doing "background checks" on his political targets (see past confirmation of Corbett's past history) gave those who contacted MM information that would "re-refresh" Mike's memory of the 2001 events to now nclude a description of the Sandusky's actions "better matching" the "Monster image" that Corbett needed to sell the Criminal Football Illusion he needed. Has anyone else thought of that???

Certainly, "...it is reasonable to conclude..." that the "professional" Media which is controlled by a limited number of "above-the-law" big-money elites has known about this practice of Corbett's and has kept all it out of the public's view for 5+Years.

YET....it is certainly "suspicious" how many versions of the truth MM has told concerning all of this. We KNOW as a fact that whenever someone from a state agency investigating Sandusky approached a "witness" or person of interest, that that person doing the investigation was not seeking justice based on unbiased information. They were gathering items without any factual QUALITY....they were hunting only for words, phases and images that could be manipulated (engineered) to create the "Monster Criminal" illusion. Their target was (as they were being directed to do) to create AN IMAGE THAT COULD BE "SOLD" to the public. That engineered public illusion was without facts - but it "sounded good" and it supported a story of a Long-term Penn State Criminal Culture lead by the "most hated man in America" - JOE "football wins at all cost" PATERNO. For these Investigators, the TRUTH BE DAMNED.

I am personally CERTAIN that MM did NOT register tell ANYONE anything like what the State stated in the GJ Presentment. We have FACTUAL EVIDENCE that PERJURY was involved in the GJP process. Why should these consistently illegal "influencing" practices stop occurring with what MM has as registered as his "testimony"?????

Which brings us back to information integrity and personal integrity - who has it...who does not!

Personally, I take Paterno's integrity of actions over any of the Harrisburg Mafia - Corbett, Fina, Kelly, Noonan, Freeh (Hand-picked Liar-for-Hire) and the OGBOT (the Central PA chapter of Corruption Central).

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors!!

 

[indoorgolf]

I'm 100% against these ridiculous claims, but does anyone expect anything else then for Schiano/Bradley to deny? lol

Their image/career would be destroyed if they did indeed see something, and just now admitting to it.

Exactly their careers would be over if they didn't deny they knew. They had no choice .

 

[EPC FAN]

Let's put this in perspective. In order to convict Jerry Sandusky, The OAG and PSP investigators manipulated laws,facts and the lives of many innocent people. There should be outrage in the State of Pennsylvania that this could happen anywhere in America. Tom Corbett and his gang have done irreparable harm to so many. Who is protecting them?

Ira Lubert?

 

[nits74]

Exactly their careers would be over if they didn't deny they knew. They had no choice .

Agreed, but that doesn't make them liars either.

 

[marshall23]

Ira Lubert?

I'd like to say yes. But my guess would be someone with a great deal more clout.

 

[marshall23]

Exactly their careers would be over if they didn't deny they knew. They had no choice .

Hey, I don't know Schiano, but Tom Bradley is not a liar.