Interesting interview. Williams talks about how McQueary unquestionably didn't see Jerry assault anyone. And then at the end of course Ziegler makes an *** of himself.
JZ has posted here. He knows me from chatting golf. He knows a few of us here, I'm sure.... And then at the end of course Ziegler makes an *** of himself.
wrong Justin."I don't work for Penn State and I don't have to be quiet." Justin King
You learned your lesson from the Lemieux thread.I didn’t know old man McQueary died a couple of years ago.
I have stories, but won’t share because I was taught to not speak ill of the deceased.
To John’s credit he raised a son just like him.
![]()
Obituary information for John James McQueary
View John James McQueary's obituary, contribute to their memorial, see their funeral service details, and more.www.kochfuneralhome.com
What lesson, King of Prussia?You learned your lesson from the Lemieux thread.
Although, in your defense, i do recall Claude Lemieux being a dirty player.
And I can say with certainty a lot of former players feel this way……… the real truth to this entire saga will eventually reveal itself
I'm one of those who struggle with Ziggy's conclusion that Sandusky was completely innocent. I say that because of the 1998 incident where he might not have been guilty but he definitely should have been scared to death about his interactions with kids going forward. I'm convinced that at a minimum he had boundary issues.Ziggy is closer to the truth than many want to admit!
And I can say with certainty a lot of former players feel this way……… the real truth to this entire saga will eventually reveal itself
FWIW I also had the opportunity to speak with a couple of players who were adamant that they had zero idea that Sandusky was abusing kids. The suggestion that everybody knew and it was a running joke around PSU makes no sense and is completely without merit.And I can say with certainty a lot of former players feel this way……… the real truth to this entire saga will eventually reveal itself
I'm one of those who struggle with Ziggy's conclusion that Sandusky was completely innocent. I say that because of the 1998 incident where he might not have been guilty but he definitely should have been scared to death about his interactions with kids going forward. I'm convinced that at a minimum he had boundary issues.
I agree but you're missing my point. I don't know what JS did or didn't do with kids. It's obvious that he was a lot more "touchy feely" than people find acceptable. 1998 he should have been a wake up call so he would be much more careful going forward. Apparently he couldn't help himself. That's a red flag to me.The problem I have with victims is that no credibility was established. It was simply a negotiation over how much money someone would get. And it was arbitrary.
I agree but you're missing my point. I don't know what JS did or didn't do with kids. It's obvious that he was a lot more "touchy feely" than people find acceptable. 1998 he should have been a wake up call so he would be much more careful going forward. Apparently he couldn't help himself. That's a red flag to me.
I've never believed stories like how JS was assaulting kids in the basement and Dottie ignored their screams. I do think MM experienced (saw, heard, or imagined) something that he was uncomfortable with. My guess is that he used soft language with his dad, Dranov, Joe, C&S because he couldn't be sure exactly what it was. It just didn't seem right to him.
He didn’t just use soft language with Dranov though, right? Asked 2 or 3 times flat out if he saw them having sex he said no, which is why they told him to tell Joe.I agree but you're missing my point. I don't know what JS did or didn't do with kids. It's obvious that he was a lot more "touchy feely" than people find acceptable. 1998 he should have been a wake up call so he would be much more careful going forward. Apparently he couldn't help himself. That's a red flag to me.
I've never believed stories like how JS was assaulting kids in the basement and Dottie ignored their screams. I do think MM experienced (saw, heard, or imagined) something that he was uncomfortable with. My guess is that he used soft language with his dad, Dranov, Joe, C&S because he couldn't be sure exactly what it was. It just didn't seem right to him.
The thing with Mike is, he went from seeing something, to hearing something. Lack of credibility.
It’s been a while since I was well-versed and up-to-speed with the whole situation. What I do recall is that every story told had significant holes in it. Much of it may never have been stated in court during the trial. But Zieglers ongoing investigation after the trials exposed so many things that just didn't add up (aka reasonable doubt). For me I think JS was at most someone with some boundary issues. I wish we would one day know the truth. I doubt we ever will.I'm convinced that at a minimum he had boundary issues.
He showered naked with a kid in an empty building after a very light workout...after getting called out on it, he was so shook that he said that he wished he were dead. Then a few years later, was again caught showering naked with a kid in an empty building at night. To simply characterize that as "some" boundary issues is really minimizing what happened (and ignoring what professionals would call "grooming" when looked at through a favorable lense).It’s been a while since I was well-versed and up-to-speed with the whole situation. What I do recall is that every story told had significant holes in it. Much of it may never have been stated in court during the trial. But Zieglers ongoing investigation after the trials exposed so many things that just didn't add up (aka reasonable doubt). For me I think JS was at most someone with some boundary issues. I wish we would one day know the truth. I doubt we ever will.
ThisHe showered naked with a kid in an empty building after a very light workout...after getting called out on it, he was so shook that he said that he wished he were dead. Then a few years later, was again caught showering naked with a kid in an empty building at night. To simply characterize that as "some" boundary issues is really minimizing what happened (and ignoring what professionals would call "grooming" when looked at through a favorable lense).
I seem to remember brief statements being made, but they were limited in what they could say.Whatever happened to shultz and or Curley telling their stories after their probation ended? Their silence after all these years seems damning.
After all the lies, manipulation, wasted money and more, including the worst LE investigation all the clowns got was a few measly misdemeanors.