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.
Ex PSU player Justin Williams with Ziegler
- Thread starter NoBareFeet
- Start date
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.
He is what he is, but his interviews in Clinton County do what the entire media complex had no interest in doing - producing the truth.
Last edited:
A former player, who was on Joe's last team, has joined my club in the last few months. I only met him briefly, but hope to get a chance to talk to him at some time in greater length of that last year with Joe.
Ziggy is closer to the truth than many want to admit!
Very compelling interview. Justin is smart and has common sense. The facts and evidence are far and away in Jerry and Joes favor……. We were all fed a false presentment and constant media lies, ultimately distorting the truth (Mike said so himself in an email, and as we now know, to some very meaningful people in person) …..
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.
www.kochfuneralhome.com
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
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.
Although, in your defense, i do recall Claude Lemieux being a dirty player.
I think JZ berating JW about making his views and statements a more prominent part of his book (as well as labeling former players as "wussies" for not coming out publicly with their views and actively creating, and promoting, their own narrative as to what transpired) is pure naivete on JZ's part. He is an investigative journalist - that's what he does for a living... that is how he ultimately makes his $$$. All of these former players have lives to lead - this is not what they do for a living. They have primary responsibility to their families - they have to protect their families by doing as well as they can professionally so their children will have the best opportunities possible. This is where their daily focus and spending of time has to be - Joe Paterno himself would tell them this. Joe would have told them that they cannot take on what JZ is implying they should as a priority to, and the exclusion of, everything else in their daily life - it's unreasonable and unwise, and to expect all former players to take on his cruscade to the exclusion of all these former players' primary obligations to their families, is extreme naivete on the part of JZ.
Last edited:
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.
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.
I 100% disagree that the real truth to this sage will ever reveal itself. The media won't admit they were wrong. If a "victim" admits he lied he the media will say there are plenty of others who haven't come forward. Sadly the story has been cast and people have moved on.
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.
The thing with Mike is, he went from seeing something, to hearing something. Lack of credibility.
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.
Last edited:
I have a feeling that MM himself is at the center of the story for many of the former players. Have a feeling that MM's gambling and sexting w/ co-eds as an employee of PSU are at the center of this story (and what the corrupt AG and Chair of PSU's BOT - both of whom had vendetta's against PSU "powers that be" at the time - leveraged to use MM as their pawn to selfishly save his own skin against the criminal, and job threatening, activities he was involved in to enable their false narrative). I think in private you would find that MM is "persona non grata" among the former players and that most find him to be a scumbag and selfish prick that threw his Alma Mater and his many benefactors at PSU under the bus causing massive institutional reputational damage and destroyed countless personal reputations all to save his own sorry lying scumbag skin. Most of the former players are probably reluctant to "air dirty laundry in public" and tell the whole story of what they know because it really wouldn't help the situation, so many have done what they believe to be the correct thing and just kept it an inside story and maintained a solid front regarding the "Former Players" public appearance.
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.
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).
Does anyone remember the Mother of all Threads 
on the former Tom Mc board?
An epic cyber battle that changed nothing.
on the former Tom Mc board? An epic cyber battle that changed nothing.
I seem to remember brief statements being made, but they were limited in what they could say.
After all the lies, manipulation, wasted money and more, including the worst LE investigation all the clowns got was a few measly misdemeanors.
And tons of University $$$ for the fraudsters (and their attorneys who crafted the scheme) to split.
I think C&S were guilty of violating university policy wrt proper handling of whistleblower claims. Most businesses have policies that protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower but also require documentation of the report and what actions were taken. C&S likely went outside the system and handled things off the record because it was about Jerry. That was a huge mistake IMO. If they would have documented MMs report there would be no question about what he actually told them or how they approached their investigation and made their decision on how to respond. Instead we would up with one person's word against the other.
That doesn't mean that MM told them about sexual assault. It just means they handled the situation poorly and most likely outside of university policy.
I suspect C&S lawyers told them to keep quiet because stirring things up again could make their remaining lives difficult. Spanier had the courage to speak and even write a book but I don't think it did much to help his reputation.
Frankly, Joe's largest blunder in hindsight was trusting MM enough to bring him on staff.
The fallback aftet the immortal Ron Powlus went to South BendIn fairness, he was such an elite QB.
I always found it amazing that the prevailing "accepted" narrative involved believing every word of scumbags like Aaron Fisher and Sebastian Paden and assuming guys with impeccable reputations (Joe, Curley, Spanier, Schultz) are lying.
Joe said that it was reported to him that Jerry was doing something sexual and inappropriate with a young naked boy in the shower of an empty building at night. But I guess this is where the Free Jerry crowd wants to ignore the impeccable reputation of Joe?
You conveniently left out "I don't know what you'd call it". Joe did nothing wrong and he followed not only what the NCAA said was correct but also the Law.
It was reported that Joe said "It was a sexual nature". I think it is much more likely he said, "It was a sexual nature?"
Well, when the comment is followed up with, "I don't know what you'd call it", I think that is a reasonable assumption. It also makes sense when you factor in that Joe VEHEMENTLY denied he was told anything resembling what was in the Grand Jury Presentment related to Mike's account.
Just as a refresher, here is the testimony that we're comparing to the scene in my cousin Vinny where Joe was just asking if it was sexual...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I'm not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
...
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don't know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was.
I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn't go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I'm not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
...
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don't know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was.
I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn't go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
You =
. Keep twisting in the wind with your cherry picked nonsense.