ADVERTISEMENT

LTE from former PSU Trustee...

Nothing you wrote changes the following...If MM didn't wan't to make a police report then UPPD can't force him to make one. He only had 9 freaking YEARS to make one....not once did he ask Schultz to send someone to get his statement or express dissatisfaction with the fact that no one from UPPD came to get a statement from him when TC/Joe respectively followed up with him. Those failures are squarely on him since he was the one and only witness.

If for some bizarre reason MM felt making an official written statement to UPPD could hurt his future employment with PSU FB, he also had the option of making an anonymous call to ChildLine (an option which Dr D. and JM surely would have been aware of as medical professionals) and yet MM never even did that....hmmm....could it be that he wasn't really sure what they were doing and didn't want to make a false accusation to UPPD/CYS and instead was ok with the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM dealing with it from their end and PSU revoking JS' guest privileges? I think the answer to that question is quite clear.
Yeah, the answer is clear... he's a coward.
 
Nothing you wrote changes the following...If MM didn't wan't to make a police report then UPPD can't force him to make one. He only had 9 freaking YEARS to make one....not once did he ask Schultz to send someone to get his statement or express dissatisfaction with the fact that no one from UPPD came to get a statement from him when TC/Joe respectively followed up with him. Those failures are squarely on him since he was the one and only witness.

If for some bizarre reason MM felt making an official written statement to UPPD could hurt his future employment with PSU FB, he also had the option of making an anonymous call to ChildLine (an option which Dr D. and JM surely would have been aware of as medical professionals) and yet MM never even did that....hmmm....could it be that he wasn't really sure what they were doing and didn't want to make a false accusation to UPPD/CYS and instead was ok with the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM dealing with it from their end and PSU revoking JS' guest privileges? I think the answer to that question is quite clear.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that MM was so concerned about his job that he reported it to the people he wanted to work for. That right there is a special kind of crazy.
 
Of course I care, which is why I call out those in here who attack the victims.

We were talking specifically about PSU's liability, which is why I posted what I did. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.
How very brave of you. Care to clarify which posts have attacked victims? I recall lots of posts attacking Jack Raykovitz, TSM, DPW, CYS, and Mike McQueary, whom you called a coward, but I don't recall any posts attacking abused children.

Please, refresh my recollection.
 
How very brave of you. Care to clarify which posts have attacked victims? I recall lots of posts attacking Jack Raykovitz, TSM, DPW, CYS, and Mike McQueary, whom you called a coward, but I don't recall any posts attacking abused children.

Please, refresh my recollection.

He gets a little sensitive when its pointed out the only ones who screwed up are Sandusky, Ira Lubert, Paul Silvis, and the rest of the bot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96 and Ski
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that MM was so concerned about his job that he reported it to the people he wanted to work for. That right there is a special kind of crazy.
True that! Batshit crazy....Even!
6c40a497a52b612ee44828cd9c31d823.jpg
 
Of course I care, which is why I call out those in here who attack the victims.

We were talking specifically about PSU's liability, which is why I posted what I did. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.

The problem is that real life is not a vacuum, or a closed internet forum, where you can neatly compartmentalize everything into nice little cubbyholes and nothing ever overlaps. Neither you nor Freeh get to say the problem and liability is only Penn State's because that's all you're (paid to be) interested in. You also don't get to ignore the actions or inaction of any of the other players in this- TSM, JR, CYS, DPS, OAG- because they're not as interesting as a major college football program. You also don't get to claim that Paterno was some kind of supreme being who could make people levitate or give them migraines to bend them to do his will.
 
How very brave of you. Care to clarify which posts have attacked victims? I recall lots of posts attacking Jack Raykovitz, TSM, DPW, CYS, and Mike McQueary, whom you called a coward, but I don't recall any posts attacking abused children.

Please, refresh my recollection.
Are you serious? The victims have been questioned on this board for quite a long time now.
 
The problem is that real life is not a vacuum, or a closed internet forum, where you can neatly compartmentalize everything into nice little cubbyholes and nothing ever overlaps. Neither you nor Freeh get to say the problem and liability is only Penn State's because that's all you're (paid to be) interested in. You also don't get to ignore the actions or inaction of any of the other players in this- TSM, JR, CYS, DPS, OAG- because they're not as interesting as a major college football program. You also don't get to claim that Paterno was some kind of supreme being who could make people levitate or give them migraines to bend them to do his will.
We were talking about why PSU had to pay victims, not why those other organizations failed. Yes, we all agree that they failed. This whole thing was a clown show from day one.
 
We were talking about why PSU had to pay victims, not why those other organizations failed. Yes, we all agree that they failed. This whole thing was a clown show from day one.

Funny you keep talking about why PSU had to pay victims in a thread that's supposedly about the corrupt OGBOT illegally taking over the trustee spots that had been voted on by engineering societies for more than a century. You know, those B&I trustees who always manage to get cozy little contracts with the University, and always select successors that look and think exactly like the cretins they're replacing. Yep it's the floaters and sinkers like Lubert, Dandrea, Surma, Peetz, Masser, Hintz, Junker, Frazier, Broadhurst, etc. that have made the decisions that resulted in PSU paying out close to half a billion dollars. Continuing to put the douche in fiduciary duty.
 
Nothing you wrote changes the following...If MM didn't wan't to make a police report then UPPD can't force him to make one. He only had 9 freaking YEARS to make one....not once did he ask Schultz to send someone to get his statement or express dissatisfaction with the fact that no one from UPPD came to get a statement from him when TC/Joe respectively followed up with him. Those failures are squarely on him since he was the one and only witness.

If for some bizarre reason MM felt making an official written statement to UPPD could hurt his future employment with PSU FB, he also had the option of making an anonymous call to ChildLine (an option which Dr D. and JM surely would have been aware of as medical professionals) and yet MM never even did that....hmmm....could it be that he wasn't really sure what they were doing and didn't want to make a false accusation to UPPD/CYS and instead was ok with the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM dealing with it from their end and PSU revoking JS' guest privileges? I think the answer to that question is quite clear.
Your post takes me back to John McQueary's testimony about his follow-up with Gary Schultz three months after Mike's report. Gary essentially tells John that they've never had anything to sink their teeth into wrt Jerry.

If Mike told John and Joe and Tim and Gary that he witnessed a crime in the showers that night, wouldn't John stop Gary right then and there and be like, "GARY, WTF are you talking about?? MIKE SAW JERRY ****ING A BOY IN THE SHOWERS THAT NIGHT! SINK YOUR TEETH INTO THAT!"

 
Your post takes me back to John McQueary's testimony about his follow-up with Gary Schultz three months after Mike's report. Gary essentially tells John that they've never had anything to sink their teeth into wrt Jerry.

If Mike told John and Joe and Tim and Gary that he witnessed a crime in the showers that night, wouldn't John stop Gary right then and there and be like, "GARY, WTF are you talking about?? MIKE SAW JERRY ****ING A BOY IN THE SHOWERS THAT NIGHT! SINK YOUR TEETH INTO THAT!"


One would think they'd have quite a bit of dissatisfaction to expresses when they were followed up with if MM's 2010 version is to be believed.

JM's testimony also shows that MM never reported a crime or anything definitively sexual (note JM's usage of "led me to believe" verbiage instead of "Mike said it was" or something along those lines):

Pg 151 of 12/16/11 prelim:
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?

A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.

Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?

A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
 
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that MM was so concerned about his job that he reported it to the people he wanted to work for. That right there is a special kind of crazy.
On what planet is that crazy? Taking it outside the chain of command is what someone who wasn't concerned with his job would have done.

Which is basically anyone else in the situation he described years later. That's after stopping whatever he walked in on.

MM is coward that put his personal concerns over a child's wellbeing(if we're to believe his story).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cvilleguy12
Are you serious? The victims have been questioned on this board for quite a long time now.
So, questioning the details of a victim's story is "attacking" the victim?

I believe that V9 was abused and the Sandusky belongs in prison for abusing him, and others. I don't believe his testimony that he screamed at the top of his lungs while Sandusky anally raped him in Sandusky's basement. I have a very hard time believing that the basement was soundproof or Sandusky's wife would ignore such a commotion. That story is just not consistent with any testimony about Sandusky's MO from the other 7 victims and it's not consistent with V4's testimony about Dottie questioning what was going on in the Alamo Bowl hotel bathroom

If you feel that kind of evaluation is an "attack" on a victim, you probably have a great deal of difficulty processing information rationally and dispassionately. Witnesses, including vicitms, sometimes embellish and outright lie on the stand, even if the gravamen of their testimony is true. That's a fact. If you are unable to grasp that reality and understand that separating the wheat from the chaff is part of the process, you're in way over your head. Too bad for you.
 
Last edited:
Why are you only a member here since May 3rd of this year?
I'm sure you can review posting history to determine that, just like you are so adept at doing proper research on everything else. :rolleyes: "Member dates" mean absolutely nothing and no one should use them to insinuate anything. It's post content and quality that matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile and Ski
I want Penn State's name cleared as much as you or anybody; with the exception of Nellie who has no such interest and merely wants to use us as a punching bag for her agenda.

We just disagree an whether the facts which you think will be exposed will accomplish that.
LOL! What "agenda" would that be, oh all-knowing-know-nothing? Truth, accuracy, and real meaningful child protection is an honorable "agenda" for any person to have. Why isn't it yours?

So, back to the thread topic. Horst has testified to the shenanigans that created the BOT power bloc who have been revealed via their poor (initial and continuing) Sandusky case management to be terrible stewards, financially and otherwise of the University they purport to be serving as BOT members. In fact, everything they do seems to be either for their own personal gain or to deflect from their personal mistakes in order to preserve their "industry" reputations.

What is your agenda in trying to hijack this thread from the topic?
 
Last edited:
Again it went went over your head; you missed not only my point but 2 other posts.

What are you babbling on about now?

You are incapable of making a point that goes over my head. You've proven that over and over again.
 
LOL! What "agenda" would that be, oh all-knowing-know-nothing? Truth, accuracy, and real meaningful child protection is an honorable "agenda" for any person to have. Why isn't it yours?

So, back to the thread topic. Horst has testified to the shenanigans that created the BOT power bloc who have been revealed via their poor (initial and continuing) Sandusky case management to be terrible stewards, financially and otherwise of the University they purport to be serving as BOT members. In fact, everything they do seems to be either for their own personal gain or to deflect from their personal mistakes in order to preserve their "industry" reputations.

What is your agenda in trying to hijack this thread from the topic?
What has me puzzled is why the ag members take their marching orders from the B&I members. Are guys like Eckel in it just for football tickets and free rooms at the Nittany Lion Inn on football Saturdays and don't want to rock the boat? Eckel's picture on the trustees page sure makes him look like an obese simpleton who'd be happy doing nothing more than shoving greasy hot dogs down his maw all day. Do their farms get operating loans from people connected to B&I trustees and they don't want to rock the boat? Why do these folks (besides Mr Potato Head) not exhibit any apparent type of independent thought at all?
 
On what planet is that crazy? Taking it outside the chain of command is what someone who wasn't concerned with his job would have done.

Which is basically anyone else in the situation he described years later. That's after stopping whatever he walked in on.

MM is coward that put his personal concerns over a child's wellbeing(if we're to believe his story).

Put down the crack pipe, son.
 
What has me puzzled is why the ag members take their marching orders from the B&I members. Are guys like Eckel in it just for football tickets and free rooms at the Nittany Lion Inn on football Saturdays and don't want to rock the boat? Eckel's picture on the trustees page sure makes him look like an obese simpleton who'd be happy doing nothing more than shoving greasy hot dogs down his maw all day. Do their farms get operating loans from people connected to B&I trustees and they don't want to rock the boat? Why do these folks (besides Mr Potato Head) not exhibit any apparent type of independent thought at all?
Have you ever been to a BOT Public meeting?

I have never seen ANYONE who likes to hear himself pontificate as much as Eckel.



He's the type of cheeseburger eating pig-humper who uses terms like "non-sequitur" and "ipso-facto".....and thinks he is ordering a drink and (another) dessert

The man hasn't seen his own d&ck in 15 years, hasn't tied his shoes in 10.......but his BOT stint gave him a venue to delude himself into thinking he was important.

He wanted to be "in the club" even more than he wanted another donut.

Now that he has "termed out".....he will probably still hang around every BOT meeting possible - thinking that those folks still (or ever) actually give a shit what he thinks.
 
Have you ever been to a BOT Public meeting?

I have never seen ANYONE who likes to hear himself pontificate as much as Eckel.



He's the type of cheeseburger eating pig-humper who uses terms like "non-sequitur" and "ipso-facto".....and thinks he is ordering a drink and (another) dessert

The man hasn't seen his own d&ck in 15 years, hasn't tied his shoes in 10.......but his BOT stint gave him a venue to delude himself into thinking he was important.

He wanted to be "in the club" even more than he wanted another donut.

Now that he has "termed out".....he will probably still hang around every BOT meeting possible - thinking that those folks still (or ever) actually give a shit what he thinks.
No, I've only seen video of a few and read some transcripts. I haven't experienecd the pure joy of listening to a polished orator and towering intellect such as Eckel expound upon the great issues of the day, and for that I feel as if I've missed out on something quite important in life.

I can certainly see the motivation in stroking one's own ego with a BOT position and if ag seats are about nothing more than ego and free trips to State College, then it's a little clearer to me. It's also clearer than ever that the board is in desperate need of drastic structural change.

BTW, "wanted to be in the club more than he wanted another donut" is pure gold! Thanks for the chuckle.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever been to a BOT Public meeting?

I have never seen ANYONE who likes to hear himself pontificate as much as Eckel.



He's the type of cheeseburger eating pig-humper who uses terms like "non-sequitur" and "ipso-facto".....and thinks he is ordering a drink and (another) dessert

The man hasn't seen his own d&ck in 15 years, hasn't tied his shoes in 10.......but his BOT stint gave him a venue to delude himself into thinking he was important.

He wanted to be "in the club" even more than he wanted another donut.

Now that he has "termed out".....he will probably still hang around every BOT meeting possible - thinking that those folks still (or ever) actually give a shit what he thinks.

you're stealing my material bro! LOL

I've consistently said Eckel always sounds like he's ordering 15 cheeseburgers from a Hardee's drive thru . . .
 
you're stealing my material bro! LOL

I've consistently said Eckel always sounds like he's ordering 15 cheeseburgers from a Hardee's drive thru . . .
No Problem, I'll leave all the "cheeseburger" stuff in your court
I'll keep the "hasn't seen his own d$ck" stuff. That suits me better anyway, it's a bit more mean-spirited. :)
 
Funny you keep talking about why PSU had to pay victims in a thread that's supposedly about the corrupt OGBOT illegally taking over the trustee spots that had been voted on by engineering societies for more than a century. You know, those B&I trustees who always manage to get cozy little contracts with the University, and always select successors that look and think exactly like the cretins they're replacing. Yep it's the floaters and sinkers like Lubert, Dandrea, Surma, Peetz, Masser, Hintz, Junker, Frazier, Broadhurst, etc. that have made the decisions that resulted in PSU paying out close to half a billion dollars. Continuing to put the douche in fiduciary duty.
It was the poor decision of CSS not to report the incident to police that put them in that position.
 
So, questioning the details of a victim's story is "attacking" the victim?

I believe that V9 was abused and the Sandusky belongs in prison for abusing him, and others. I don't believe his testimony that he screamed at the top of his lungs while Sandusky anally raped him in Sandusky's basement. I have a very hard time believing that the basement was soundproof or Sandusky's wife would ignore such a commotion. That story is just not consistent with any testimony about Sandusky's MO from the other 7 victims and it's not consistent with V4's testimony about Dottie questioning what was going on in the Alamo Bowl hotel bathroom

If you feel that kind of evaluation is an "attack" on a victim, you probably have a great deal of difficulty processing information rationally and dispassionately. Witnesses, including vicitms, sometimes embellish and outright lie on the stand, even if the gravamen of their testimony is true. That's a fact. If you are unable to grasp that reality and understand that separating the wheat from the chaff is part of the process, you're in way over your head. Too bad for you.
Yes, it is an attack. You are telling a rape victim that he is a liar.

Sandusky is a serial pedophile that created an organization to farm young boys for his twisted "needs". I'm not sure how you can not believe that V9 was raped in that matter, especially since Dottie has proven to not be able to accept reality of who her husband is.
 
It was the poor decision of CSS not to report the incident to police that put them in that position.
Wrong. If that were true, then Penn State would not have paid off V6, whose assault was reported to police, or any other pre-2001 victim. The fact is none of those attacks would have been stopped by a phone call to police in 2001 or any other protective measure that could have been taken after McQueary's report, because they had already occurred.

Those payouts rest 100% on the shoulders of the BOT, which voted to authorize them.

WTF is wrong with you? Why do you repeatedly post scenarios that are completely at odds with the basic laws of the physical universe that govern human existence? Is this entertainment for you while you sit in mommy's basement using her wifi connection?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is an attack. You are telling a rape victim that he is a liar.

Sandusky is a serial pedophile that created an organization to farm young boys for his twisted "needs". I'm not sure how you can not believe that V9 was raped in that matter, especially since Dottie has proven to not be able to accept reality of who her husband is.
First of all, I said I believed V9 was abused. You're a liar. I said I didn't believe he screamed at the top of his lungs while being anally raped. See the difference?

Not only are you a liar, you're absolutely hopeless intellectually. You couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag. Do you really think it's impossible to be both a rape victim and a liar at the same time? What ****ing universe do you live in? What color is the sky on your planet?
 
Yes, it is an attack. You are telling a rape victim that he is a liar.

Sandusky is a serial pedophile that created an organization to farm young boys for his twisted "needs". I'm not sure how you can not believe that V9 was raped in that matter, especially since Dottie has proven to not be able to accept reality of who her husband is.
If you ever get banned from posting, the stock price of KAO Corporation is going to tank

STFU. moron
 
Yes, it is an attack. You are telling a rape victim that he is a liar.

Sandusky is a serial pedophile that created an organization to farm young boys for his twisted "needs". I'm not sure how you can not believe that V9 was raped in that matter, especially since Dottie has proven to not be able to accept reality of who her husband is.

Didn't Ira Lubert lend Sandusky land for one of his camps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
Wrong. If that were true, then Penn State would not have paid off V6, whose assault was reported to police, or any other pre-2001 victim. The fact is none of those attacks would have been stopped by a phone call to police in 2001 or any other protective measure that could have been taken after McQueary's report, because they had already occurred.

Those payouts rest 100% on the shoulders of the BOT, which voted to authorize them.

WTF is wrong with you? Why do you repeatedly post scenarios that are completely at odds with the basic laws of the physical universe that govern human existence? Is this entertainment for you while you sit in mommy's basement using her wifi connection?
Are you kidding me? You post about one victim that was paid and ignore the 30 others and act like I am crazy when I say that CSS go into police would have drastically changed the outcome. That is what a majority of people believe, it is just the crazy ones like you that have their heads in the sand.
 
First of all, I said I believed V9 was abused. You're a liar. I said I didn't believe he screamed at the top of his lungs while being anally raped. See the difference?

Not only are you a liar, you're absolutely hopeless intellectually. You couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag. Do you really think it's impossible to be both a rape victim and a liar at the same time? What ****ing universe do you live in? What color is the sky on your planet?
Wait, so you decide to make a an issue with whether the victim yelled something while being raped and not that he was raped? What the hell does it matter if he yelled or did not? The kid was raped, that's all that matters. Why attack him about something insignificant? It's tasteless.
 
ADVERTISEMENT