Lord Has Strong Words For Victims.
- Thread starter dshumbero
- Start date
Finally someone in power not afraid to take on the alleged "victims" and their lies and extortion.
How could he possibly think this was a good idea?
Penn State trustee says he is 'running out of sympathy' for 'so-called' victims
A.J. Perez , USA TODAY Sports
Penn State trustee Albert L. Lord said he is “running out of sympathy” for the “so-called” victims of former Nittany Lions assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, according to an email sent to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Lord, a former CEO of student loan company Sallie Mae, also defended Graham Spanier, the dismissed Penn State president who was convicted of one count of child endangerment last week for his handling of complaints about Sandusky.
"Running out of sympathy for 35 yr old, so-called victims with 7 digit net worth," Lord said in the email sent Saturday. "Do not understand why they were so prominent in trial. As you learned, Graham Spanier never knew Sandusky abused anyone."
Spanier was found not guilty of conspiracy and a second child endangerment count at the same trial. Spanier had stated multiple times since Sandusky’s arrest --- which led to a conviction on 45 charges related to the sexual abuse of young boys and a prison term of up to 60 years ---- that he was never informed of Sandusky’s transgressions.
Penn State is estimated to have paid out about $93 million to more than 30 Sandusky victims, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
"Al Lord’s comments are personal and do not represent the opinions of the board or the university," Ira M. Lubert, the chairman of Penn State’s Board of Trustees, said in a statement to the publication. "The sentiments of the board and university leadership were expressed in the very first line of the statement released by Penn State: First and foremost, our thoughts remain with the victims of Jerry Sandusky."
Lord is an alumni-elected trustee, and he's currently seeking re-election. He's one of five candidates running for three spots in an election that will conclude on May 4.
Penn State trustee says he is 'running out of sympathy' for 'so-called' victims
A.J. Perez , USA TODAY Sports
Penn State trustee Albert L. Lord said he is “running out of sympathy” for the “so-called” victims of former Nittany Lions assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, according to an email sent to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Lord, a former CEO of student loan company Sallie Mae, also defended Graham Spanier, the dismissed Penn State president who was convicted of one count of child endangerment last week for his handling of complaints about Sandusky.
"Running out of sympathy for 35 yr old, so-called victims with 7 digit net worth," Lord said in the email sent Saturday. "Do not understand why they were so prominent in trial. As you learned, Graham Spanier never knew Sandusky abused anyone."
Spanier was found not guilty of conspiracy and a second child endangerment count at the same trial. Spanier had stated multiple times since Sandusky’s arrest --- which led to a conviction on 45 charges related to the sexual abuse of young boys and a prison term of up to 60 years ---- that he was never informed of Sandusky’s transgressions.
Penn State is estimated to have paid out about $93 million to more than 30 Sandusky victims, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
"Al Lord’s comments are personal and do not represent the opinions of the board or the university," Ira M. Lubert, the chairman of Penn State’s Board of Trustees, said in a statement to the publication. "The sentiments of the board and university leadership were expressed in the very first line of the statement released by Penn State: First and foremost, our thoughts remain with the victims of Jerry Sandusky."
Lord is an alumni-elected trustee, and he's currently seeking re-election. He's one of five candidates running for three spots in an election that will conclude on May 4.
Last edited:
Another winner that the alums put on this board. What a buffoon.
LOVE it. Needed this type of resolve 6 years ago.
Exactly! Finally, someone at PSU has the resolve to take shots at people who were raped as kids. If there's one thing the PSU Board needs more of, it's more Al Lords!!!!
I posted this for you dshumbero. I liked the Lord content of the article.
Seeking Closure in Verdict, Penn State Finds More Discord
By Jack Stripling March 30, 2017 Premium
AP Photo/Centre Daily Times, Nabil K. Mark
At a 2014 meeting of the Penn State board, Albert Lord (standing) confers with Anthony Lubrano (middle) and Ryan McCombie (left). After the former president Graham Spanier’s conviction last week, Mr. Lord said he was "running out of sympathy" for Jerry Sandusky’s sexual-abuse victims. Those remarks and a furious statement by Louis Freeh suggest anything but calm in the trial’s wake.
For a brief moment last week, Pennsylvania State University leaders described the child-endangerment conviction of Graham B. Spanier, the university’s former president, as an opportunity for closure to a sexual-abuse scandal that has roiled the institution for more than five years. But that opportunity may already be lost.
Within a day, the verdict provoked new turmoil. And it came in forms that had been seen before at Penn State: recriminations, calls for resignations, and signs of an internecine struggle on the university’s board.
The trial reopened old questions about whether Penn State’s leaders had sought to protect their own reputations at the expense of young boys, who were molested by Jerry Sandusky, a former Nittany Lions assistant football coach. A Penn State trustee, venting over the verdict, seemed all but certain to ignite further controversy about that issue, telling The Chronicle in an email over the weekend that he was "running out of sympathy" for Mr. Sandusky’s "so-called victims."
In the years since Mr. Sandusky’s arrest, Penn State has paid out legal settlements of nearly $93 million to more than 30 victims.
“Running out of sympathy for 35 yr old, so-called victims with 7 digit net worth. Do not understand why they were so prominent in trial.”
"Running out of sympathy for 35 yr old, so-called victims with 7 digit net worth," Albert L. Lord, the Penn State trustee and former chief executive of Sallie Mae, the student-loan giant, said in an email on Saturday. "Do not understand why they were so prominent in trial. As you learned, Graham Spanier never knew Sandusky abused anyone."
Since his firing by Penn State, in 2011, Mr. Spanier has denied that he was ever told of anything sexual happening between Mr. Sandusky and minors. But the jury concluded that the former president had endangered children by failing to report to authorities, in 2001, that Mr. Sandusky had been spotted showering with a young boy in a Penn State locker room.
"Obviously he knew children were at risk for something," Victoria Navazio, a juror, told the Associated Press after the trial. "He knew there was a problem."
Mr. Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor-grade charge that is punishable by a maximum of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. He was found not guilty of both criminal conspiracy and a second count of endangering the welfare of children.
Just before Mr. Spanier’s trial, Timothy M. Curley, Penn State’s former athletics director, and Gary C. Schultz, a former senior vice president for finance and business, both took misdemeanor-level plea deals rather than face the serious charges that Mr. Spanier battled in court.
Persistent Divisions
The case against Mr. Spanier descended at times into administrative minutiae, as jurors heard about Penn State filing systems, meeting schedules, and email use. But prosecutors never allowed the jury to forget that, as Penn State’s leaders deliberated, Mr. Sandusky could continue to rape children.
Penn State Scandal
This selection of articles from The Chronicle's archives looks back on the Jerry Sandusky scandal and its fallout at Pennsylvania State University.
One victim, a 28-year-old man identified as John Doe, testified at Mr. Spanier’s trial that he had been sexually assaulted in Penn State’s Lasch football building in 2002, when he was a young boy. The witness helped to bolster the prosecution’s case that Mr. Spanier, in going along with a plan not to report Mr. Sandusky’s showering incident to child-welfare authorities, endangered future victims.
The victim presented a quandary for Mr. Spanier’s lawyers, who declined to cross-examine the 28-year-old. At the same time, the defense team labored to keep the jury’s focus on discrete questions of law, not the crack-voiced recollections of a clearly traumatized man.
"This case is not about whether Jerry Sandusky is guilty of child abuse," Samuel W. Silver, Mr. Spanier’s lawyer, said in his closing argument.
After all of these years, that statement encapsulates the divisions that persist at Penn State, where trustees still disagree about whether administrators were unfairly scapegoated.
Did the university’s board, too lax in its oversight for too long, overcorrect amid public outrage and rush to condemn Mr. Spanier, his colleagues, and Joe Paterno, the legendary Nittany Lions football coach, who died a few months after Mr. Sandusky’s arrest? Or were those men, who had operated with impunity, appropriately held accountable by both the university and the justice system?
The horrors of Mr. Sandusky’s crimes, Mr. Lord said in an interview, are seared into the minds of the public, rendering all but impossible a fair-minded assessment of whether Mr. Spanier and other top officials had acted inappropriately based on the facts as they understood them.
“I am tired of victims' getting in the way of clearer thinking and a reasoned approach to who knew what and who did what.”
"I am tired of victims’ getting in the way of clearer thinking and a reasoned approach to who knew what and who did what," he said.
Mr. Spanier contacted Mr. Lord years ago, asking for advice about whether to sue Louis J. Freeh, the former FBI director, who had been commissioned by Penn State’s board to investigate the university’s handling of the Sandusky case. Mr. Freeh’s harsh conclusion was that Mr. Spanier and the most powerful men at Penn State had demonstrated a "total disregard" for the safety of children, an assertion Mr. Spanier, who decided to sue, calls libelous.
It was Mr. Lord’s rocky business background, the trustee said, that first drew Mr. Spanier to him for guidance on how to wage the legal fight of a lifetime. Since then, the two have forged an alliance. Mr. Lord, white-haired with a Florida tan and a blue blazer, sat through all of the testimony in Mr. Spanier’s criminal trial last week, pacing the halls of the courthouse, in Harrisburg, Pa., for hours as the jury deliberated.
"I’ve been engaged in corporate rough and tumble," said Mr. Lord, who is helping to finance Mr. Spanier’s lawsuit. "Graham knew that I’d had a bumpy but successful career."
Mr. Lord said he knew that his email about "so-called victims" could be combustible. But he declined an opportunity to apologize for his words or to back away from them in any way.
"The notion that there can be only one point of view with respect to all this stuff," he said, "and trustees at Penn State should toe a line that reflects the politically correct point of view, is symptomatic of what ails us."
Mr. Lord’s comments sidestep all of the careful diplomacy of Mr. Spanier’s lawyers. But such is Mr. Spanier’s dilemma. The former administrator is silent, while a cadre of supporters make his case with varying levels of sensitivity and effectiveness.
The men and women coming to Mr. Spanier’s defense include Penn State trustees, the most vocal of whom are a group of alumni-elected members, like Mr. Lord, who have struggled to find great influence on the 38-member board. They include men like John S. Nichols, a professor emeritus of communications and international affairs at Penn State, who will talk cogently for hours about his friend’s innocence.
But they also include conspiracy theorists on Twitter, whose interests vacillate between Mr. Spanier’s trial and the debunked Pizzagate story, about a supposed pedophile ring at a Washington restaurant.
Endless Tide of Fallout
In the days since Mr. Spanier’s trial concluded, administrators in Penn State’s Old Main building have tried to defuse a bomb that other people keep activating. The university’s carefully worded first statement about the verdict began with concern for the victims before saying that "in the view of the jury" — not necessarily anyone else — Mr. Spanier and his colleagues "fell short" of Penn State’s high expectations for leaders.
But it was an unexpected statement from Mr. Freeh that captured the most attention, reigniting old resentments and casting the week’s events in the most visceral of terms.
“For over 12 years, these men actively protected a notorious pedophile who inflicted irreparable harm on countless child victims on the campuses and locker rooms at PSU.”
"For over 12 years, these men actively protected a notorious pedophile who inflicted irreparable harm on countless child victims on the campuses and locker rooms at PSU," wrote Mr. Freeh. "Although these men had multiple opportunities to stop this vicious, serial predator from continuing to sexually assault children who trusted the PSU campuses and programs as safe havens, they decided together to protect this monster rather than report him to the police."
For good measure, Mr. Freeh called for the resignations of Eric J. Barron, Penn State’s current president, Mr. Lord, and Anthony P. Lubrano, another Penn State trustee, portraying them all as part of a cabal determined to protect Mr. Paterno’s legacy. Mr. Paterno was never charged with any crime, but questions persist about what he may have known about his longtime assistant’s abuses.
Mr. Barron, who visited The Chronicle’s offices just before Mr. Spanier’s trial, said that, apart from a few particularly passionate trustees, he rarely hears about the Sandusky matter anymore. He would prefer to talk about the university’s work with first-generation students and its "launchbox" program for business start-ups.
But there seems to be an endless tide of Sandusky fallout to beat back. Mr. Lord’s comments about victims, published here for the first time, have already provoked outrage.
"This office will never ‘run out of sympathy’ for victims of sexual abuse," Joe Grace, a spokesman for Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, wrote in an email.
“Unlike Mr. Lord, the jury understood how Graham Spanier's failure to act, while a predator was in his midst, caused actual and grievous harm.”
"This victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Sandusky offered testimony that was surgically constrained to establish the harm that Graham Spanier’s inaction caused — which was an element of the case we had to prove," he wrote. "Clearly, unlike Mr. Lord, the jury understood how Graham Spanier’s failure to act, while a predator was in his midst, caused actual and grievous harm."
Penn State provided a much softer statement from its board chairman, who distanced himself from Mr. Lord’s comments but did not condemn them outright.
"Al Lord’s comments are personal and do not represent the opinions of the board or the university," Ira M. Lubert, the chairman, said. "The sentiments of board and university leadership were expressed in the very first line of the statement released by Penn State: First and foremost, our thoughts remain with the victims of Jerry Sandusky."
Thomas R. Kline, a lawyer for the victim who testified at Mr. Spanier’s trial, objected strongly to Mr. Lord’s comments, which he called "profoundly tragic and sad."
"It would be so much more constructive for those entrusted with guiding Penn State beyond the troubled Paterno/Spanier era to chart a course that will heal the wounds and provide a pathway forward for the university, something which is not accomplished by baseless commentary," Mr. Kline wrote in an email to The Chronicle.
"A hallmark of the post-Paterno/Spanier era by those who continue to defend the repudiated past has been to revictimize those who Penn State harmed the most," he continued. "We look forward to the day when Penn State has finally turned the page on this tragedy."
Except we know there were no kids raped at Penn State. Way to spread misinformation.
I beg you to read up on "Victim" 5, Mike Kajak.
He was never raped. Never alleged a rape. He took one shower with Sandusky, where Sandusky put soap on his back. And allegedly Sandusky had a boner. And for that, he got $8 million from Penn State.
Not to mention the fact that he is clearly lying about something:
- First he told investigators the incident took place in 1998 the first time he ever met Sandusky.
- Then in the Sandusky trial he said it occurred the summer of 2001 because he remembered it was right before 9/11.
- Then in the Spanier trial (in between whimpers that would make a theater major proud), he said the incident took place the summer of 2002, because he remembered it was after 9/11.
Last edited:
Ugh. It's a stupid comment for a representative of PSU to make publicly. Should have fought it in court where it counts, not after you paid out millions to him. Just dumb.
It's an idiotic statement by someone that represents PSU in an official capacity. His seat is up for election this year. I will remember this when I vote.
He obviously doesn't care about the university anymore, and who could blame him. He has a few old friends and thats about it.
Then he should resign from the Board of Trustees. As long as he represents PSU in an official capacity, he shouldn't make stupid ass statements like that.
But the people he's making this stupid statement to could care less. And it makes him look like a fool and in turn makes ALL PSU supporters, alumni look like emotionless asses.
You know better than that. Those pesky facts just get in the way of a good story.
Oh, so that is the rubric that decides competency on this board? Granted, I understand this is not becoming of a person in a position of power, but come on. Nearly every member of this board should be replaced, don't be too hard on the one guy dumb/brave enough to actually show a little resistance to the narrative.
Al Lord is an idiot with that comment and should step down immediately from the board. It makes Penn State look terrible.
When I first heard about his statement I was wondering if Al was making a last ditch effort to gain support from PSU alum for reelection similar to Joel Myers last minute support of JVP?! Even though I understand the frustration part and clearly some (many?) of the 30+ unvetted "victims" are full of shiat, this was a very, very stupid comment to make. This pretty much put the final nail in Al's coffin.
we need to make sure this dude is not re-elected...what a clown
How dare you "shame the victims"! ...or the non PC way of putting it, call for actual vetting of their claims.
I do believe Sandusky is guilty of inappropriate behavior towards children and should indeed be incarcerated, however that should not stop the proper vetting of each and every "victim's" claim. There would have been absolutely nothing wrong with cross examining victim 5's testimony and asking why the time of his abuse was so conveniently changed from 1998 to after the McQueary incident. That is not "victim shaming" that is common sense.
Did you call for Frazier's resignation after his racist remarks?
I was not going to vote for Al Lord before this statement. His "gift" to convicted criminal Chaka Fattah was reason not to vote Al to another term. Then he ends up recorded by the feds on a wiretap of Rob McCord - another crooked politician. But this statement shows me he has guts and I am willing to forgive his prior sketchy decision. I am now voting for Al and Jay.
"victim shaming" is a common practice among Defense Lawyers
None of the "victims" who filed claims were vetted by anyone, they simply filled out a form and got paid. That isn't how this country is supposed to work! If you are going to accuse someone of something you better damn well have evidence (other than your word) to back it up.
Is Sandusky a pedophile? I don't know. Did he have issues with boundaries? Yes, I think that is very clear. Do boundary issues get you life in prison? If it does, it is a first, because having boundary issues is not a crime. Problem is there are many people in America who don't know the difference between boundary issues and molestation.
Wait, you really think all they did was file a claim and got paid? LOL.
Have you NOT been paying attention for the past 6 years? Or are you only 5? That is precisely what happened.. No one, not even the insurance company, vetted them! So yes, that is all THEY did.
In some cases that is precisely what happened.
Regardless of what Lord truly thinks, these statements were a poor choice of words in that forum.
He should be forced to resign immediately
hahaha!!! your old board buddies took care of Penn State's appearance long ago!
A-freaking-men.
But, the "alums put (this winner) on the board" should be qualified. Only ~ 4-5% vote in the BoT elections - and that 4-5% is very disproportionately members of the "Paterno Loyalist" wing of our alumni base.
Remember this --- Al Lord and the Paterno Loyalists who support him may be a loud and obnoxious vocal minority. But they ARE a minority.
I read his comments....as usual, the press took a different meaning and ran with it than how it was meant. What he was trying to say is that PSU has to move on and make decisions based on the best interests of the future of the University. Not on the issues of the past.
Whatever justifications may in fact exist for Al Lord's opinion, he's an idiot for stating that opinion to the media. Just more fuel for those who think that Happy Valley is some kind of isolated cult. I didn't vote for Al Lord the first time based on his statement that his ambition for his board seat was to "restore the past," and I'm sure as hell not gong to vote for him now given his completely tone deaf statement about his waning sympathy for Sandusky's victims. I get it Al, but you don't say it out loud. Stupid, stupid, stupid, and damaging to the University that he's supposed to protect and advance. .
A person with Al Lord's background never belonged on the Board of Trustees of one of the most two most expensive public universities in the country. If his reprehensible comments now are his downfall, it will be a means to a positive end - although several years too late.
Glad to see someone here has common sense. The dude has no business being on the BOT, but the sheeple voted for him because he said Paterno a few times.
I have no issue with resistance, but he should have taken the time to think About what he was going to say. It's really not that difficult.
Similar threads
