Letters to the Editor

Defending the indefensible

A recent letter to the CDT by William Levinson was his usual monthly attempt to defend the indefensible. He denies, once again, that Penn State had enabled a child abuser and said that Joe Paterno had been scapegoated. Instead of issuing monthly assertions, it would be nice if Levinson would offer his evidence that contradicts the following:

▪  Paterno admitted in grand jury testimony and in the Sassano interview that Mike McQueary’s story dealt with sex of some nature

▪  neither Paterno nor anyone else at Penn State called the police and Paterno even waited a day and a half before informing Tim Curley, his “boss”

▪  a Curley email in the Freeh report indicates, in a phone conversation with “Joe,” that “Joe” was instrumental in dropping the Spanier/Schultz/Curley plan to report the McQueary story to the Department of Public Welfare

▪  a Spanier email in the Freeh report (to Curley and Schultz) agreeing to drop the plan and indicating that the only downside for them was if Sandusky didn’t cooperate and “we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

▪  except for reporting the McQueary story to Bruce Heim, Bob Poole and Jack Raykovitz at the Second Mile, the story remained covered up for 10 years

These facts strongly indicate that several people at Penn State enabled a child sex abuser so we would like to read Levinson’s rebuttal of these facts as he continues defending his friends and looking for scapegoats to blame for the Sandusky/Paterno/Penn State child sex molestation scandal.

Bernie McCue, State College

  Comments