Adam Rittenberg confirms the existence of photo evidence from some of the hazing alleged in the Daily Northwestern story.
Adam Rittenberg's Conversation with Whistleblower
- Thread starter mshelton33
- Start date
Adam Rittenberg confirms the existence of photo evidence from some of the hazing alleged in the Daily Northwestern story.
This is disturbing. Sorry but a screen shot of a white board is not evidence unless you can prove where that white board was, when the picture was taken and who else was there when the picture was taken. I certainly hope there is more context to it than just this screenshot
I just saw this: "The Sun-Times received a text late Saturday of a letter signed by ‘‘The ENTIRE Northwestern Football Team.’’ It came from the number of a former player and staffer under Fitzgerald who said it was ‘‘written by team leaders’’ in collaboration with teammates via Zoom and group messaging."
So it came from the number of a FORMER player and staffer.
So it came from the number of a FORMER player and staffer.
Taking Rittenberg's tweet at face value - if the whiteboard was in the locker room and any current or recent/former players knew what it means, it really is "case closed" for me, because it eliminates any reasonable doubt I could have about Fitz knowing the details of what "naked" things were happening.
There are enough reporters who have been inside NU facilities to know whether the photo was taken in there or not.
In the grand scheme of things...do I think versions of this are happening in locker rooms across the globe? Yup, and I can only begin to wonder how many college coaches and ADs are texting with each other right now about "cleaning things up." Doesn't matter to me anymore than the "every other program is doing it" argument that southern schools use to justify everything they do. For most participants it's fleeting childish stupidity, but that doesn't excuse it at all. It's not 1980.
Last edited:
Which the anonymous player says was in the locker room. They better have a way to corroborate that very important detail beyond the word of the anonymous whistleblower.
I 100% agree with you there. I have no doubt this photo is in the hands of several people who have had locker room access over the years and I would love to know if they would validate it or not (including Ritt).
It seems the accuser's position is "everyone knew." I feel like the investigation came to the same conclusion, but with an important caveat: "but we can't prove it." But this opens a whole other can of worms - did the accuser share the photo? Was Fitz asked, point blank: "have you seen this before?"
The picture would have a date/timestamp on it like any smartphone. From there, it's just about validating the team was at that facility at that date/time, which would be easy to confirm/disprove.
Really? What about validating that the white board was actually in the locker room? Or validating that the accuser didn't just write what was on the board himself and take a picture of it while no one else was around? There better be a lot more corroboration that just a screenshot for me to turn my back on a coach that over the course of many years has exhibited the character and behaviors that are 100% in contradiction to the behaviors the accuser is now saying Fitz condoned or encouraged. I have a lot more data points on who Fitz is as an individual than I do on who the accuser is so there better well be a lot of corroborating beyond just the accusers word and some screenshot of a white board. Let's not forger the recent incident with the Buffalo Bills punter, Matt Araiza. The Bills investigated/cut a recently drafted player and the guy was sued in a court of law over rape charges from a an 18 year olde girl when it was later determined he wasn't even present at the time of the alleged rape. People do make shit up and therefore I certainly hope all aspects of this story have been thoroughly corroborated.
Personally I am going to wait until all the facts are known before passing judgement on Fitz and NU. Even the tamest version of this story is incredibly disappointing but the hit job that is happening on social media against Fitz right now is premature and in my opinion likely undeserved.
Last edited:
Yeah, THE ENTIRE FOOTBALL TEAM letter is meaningless. It’s signed by nobody. If it were official, it would have come from the official account.
And even that note can’t say it’s false, just that it’s been exaggerated. That could mean anything.
Fitz’s interview was likely a whole lot of “I cannot recollect” and “I had no knowledge”.
wouldnt the whistle blower have presented the white board picture at his interview? and if he did then that brings into play that the official investigation was bogus and the team letter was bogus.....and then we start to look at a death penalty scenario.....I am waiting for the truth to emerge but man I have a sinking feeling about something I have believed in for a long time.
Exactly. If there was a whiteboard in the locker room , it would be in the report. If it’s not in the report, then either 1) the report is worthless or 2) it didn’t exist.
And if that fact has been publicly misrepresented/reported by the NU paper as well as so many so called journalists like Rittenberg online, what else that is publicly being bandied about online as fact is also not accurate?
The more I think about it, the more this reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse Team accusations. How did that story end?
Your opinion is , given
a) an outside law firm conducted a six month investigation, and
b) the university suspended the head coach for two weeks, and
c) investigative journalists brought additional light, and
d) the university president spoke with the initial whistleblower and his family, and
e) the university president subsequently publicly considered that the head coach should have received a more serious punishment,
that therefore
f) everything was made up.
This is not a reasonable conclusion.
How am I misrepresenting your opinion?
Last edited:
What I can’t reconcile is if the law firm report corroborates the daily report, how did the school think a 2 week suspension was sufficient? I mean the allegations include crimes! At this point, I am waiting to see what’s in the report before I cast judgment.
There has been no indication that the report will be made public, has there? The university intended to bury it on a Friday morning. (Should’ve waited til 445.)
Can you see a scenario where Schill or Gragg said, “we’re gonna have to suspend you for a year, Pat”, and Fitz responded, “No”? I can.
The report, paid for by the university, hinged on the idea that Fitz’s knowledge could not be proven. That’s why the suspension was so short and without impact.
But whether something would hold up in a criminal prosecution is not and should not be the measure of if the accused was wrong. It’s a shame the university president didn’t understand that before signing off on the suspension.
Congratulations. You've managed to totally misrepresent what I"ve consistently posted on this site over the last two days. What I've said is the following:
- First and foremost I said that the evidence suggests something very inappropriate happened and I am incredibly disappointed in Fitz that he let it happen on his watch.
- I've said that given our lack of access to the full report and corroborating evidence, none of us know what exactly is alleged to have transpired, how compelling is the evidence corroborating the accusations and how likely is it that Fitz/the staff were aware of the conduct.
- I've said that this alleged conduct that occurred since 2020 is 100% in conflict with the character and values Fitz has run the program with over an extended period of time. Don't take my word for it, take the word of hundreds of current/former players that are vouching for him.
- I've said that to the best of my knowledge there are only two players who said they were subjected to this behavior. I know nothing about them and that troubles me.
Given all the above and given the magnitude of the potential repercussions for the school, the football program, the current players, the staff and Fitz, I am very leary of passing judgment prematurely and will not do so until i have a lot more facts.
Last edited:
In the case of Duke, nothing happened, right? This is not like Duke. This is nothing like Duke. Something happened.
The point is that in a rush to judgement the public and social media got it completely wrong. The details matter here.
ok, let’s suppose the law firm report and the daily report jive. So Schill (and presumably the BoD) reads this report, detailing numerous cases of sexual assault, and says “ok, can’t prove Fitz knew about so 2 week suspension. No other actions necessary.” Is that possible?
Wouldn’t a more lilkely Response be “Fitz may have not known about these serious crimes but we, the northwestern leadership, will make sure those who participated will be held to account”. These smart powerful people read a report detailing serious crimes and said a 2 week suspension for the coach and case closed? Something is way off about this whole thing.
It’s confirmed that the law firm talked to the whistleblower, so of course those allegations are in the report. Is an administration that managed the Polisky fiasco incompetent enough to screw this up this badly? I say obviously yes
We do no know if what was reported by the whistleblower or journalists is true yet......If the President has also talked to the people the whistleblower said witnessed the hazing then ya got something, for right now you just have a guy who reported something and a President who is watching his job fly out the window
We know, based on Lou’s reporting, that ‘running’ players was well known within the program.
We do not know whether the other Daily allegations were similarly known, as Lou’s reporting refers only to running as a well-known practice.
Explosive hazing allegations call Fitz, NU administration into question
A detailed report of hazing allegations could mean the end of head coach Pat Fitzgerald's tenure.
Maybe it was also refuted by others in the report. I just find it inconceivable that the report would outline serious crimes that occurred and the admin response was a shoulder shrug.
If
That is what happened, we need a new president and a new board
The executive summary of the report literally says that the allegations were largely substantiated. Now we know what those allegations were. Let’s put two plus two together please.
The executive summary says that complainants allegation that hazing did occur was credible. The executive summary does not specify what the hazing consisted of. If the hazing that was alleged in the daily article matched the law firm report, then things are way out of whack.
I still find it hard to believe that the law firm report would describe serious crimes and the response by the admin was essentially nothing. It could be the case but I doubt it.
If there was only evidence of a more ‘benign’ type of hazing and not sexual abuse hazing, don’t you think the administration would be making that crystal clear right now? Why is Schill lining up phone calls with the victim if the report found his claims to be exaggerated?
I have no idea why schill is reaching out to the victim. Everything the alleged victim had to say should be in the report. Unless you think the report was a whitewash, there should be no new information. Again, if allegations of sexual assault were outlined in the report, how the bell did he think a 2 week suspension and no further action was appropriate?
Because this is the same board of trustees that handled the Polisky situation. They are out of touch and incompetent. I don’t think it’s an accident that Schill name checked the board in his letter
You should read the President's statement. It literally answers all of your questions.
I read it. It is a classic case of CYA. What he should have done is read the report, consulted a lawyer and issued a proper response. It’s beyond ridiculous that his initial reliance to the report was a slap on the wrist. Did he not plan on holding anyone accountable?
His handling of this situation is giving off Kevin Warren during Covid vibes. Completely in over his head.
I think the university paid a law firm to investigate and, at the university’s request, the law firm recommended the bare minimum punishment. It was a CYA investigation.
I think Schill thought he’d bury it on a Friday and that would be that.
He would’ve gotten away with it, too, if not for those meddling kids.
I’m sure the investigation and recommended punishment for Fitz was dreamed up by the athletic department. They probably went to Schill and said here’s what we want to do, okay? Guessing he never read the report or only the summary that was written in a way to avoid public scrutiny. They told him Fitz wasn’t involved and figured it wasn’t a big deal. After all, Schill has been quoted as saying he wants to make NU more fun and wants to lean in supporting the Greek system, which is also rife with hazing.
If Schill really did not read the report, he should probably be removed. Total dereliction of dury
Similar threads
