- Oct 26, 2015
@JmmyWZiegler's primary motivation is not the truth, it's clicks.
Ziegler definitely ignores things that don't support his stance. When called out on it, he'll continue to ignore it.
He's not above lying about testimony, either. When he does talk about testimony, he seldom if ever cites it so that an independent reviewer can fact check it.
Here's some basic questions I sent him on Twitter on 4/20/21. He's seen them, but continues to ignore them.
So your 12/29/2000 date scenario: McQ met his dad/Dranov that night or shortly after; Dranov says he met Schultz three months or so later; Schultz clearly remembers telling him investigation is ongoing, placing that meeting 21/21-2/23/2001; and you worked backward to your date.You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that clearly placed the night of the incident, and his meeting at the McQueary household, on 2/9/2001? (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.162)You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that Schultz told him The Second Mile had already been informed? That places the date of his meeting with Schultz well after mid-March 2001. (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.161)You talk about Curley's 2 meetings with Sandusky. You mention Sandusky's confusion at the 1st meeting. Why did you ignore Curley's testimony that Sandusky wanted to check his calendar, did so, & confirmed the 2/9/2001 date in their 2nd meeting? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.358, 389-390)Schultz bought into your date theory in part because he clearly remembers telling Dranov the investigation was ongoing. He said so four times (1x in 1st interview, 3x in 2nd). But Schultz testified in 2017 he had no recollection of this. Why do you think that is? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.470)
And here's a few more tweets I sent him. Still no response from him.
I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.
Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.
If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.
You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.
If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
- Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
- Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
- Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
- Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
- Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
- Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
- Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
- Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
- Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
- Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
- Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
- Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?