Freeh's opinion comes through in what he says and what he doesn't. As you said, he stuck quotes in about how Curley was Paterno's errand boy, how Paterno "knew everything" that went on around the football program, how the only intervening factor between the plan to report and the decision not to was Curley's conversation.
It would have been easy to also point out that we don't know what advice Paterno gave Curley, or whether Curley heeded it. He could have stressed how Curley never said "Joe thinks" or "Joe wants", pinning the change on Curley. Instead, Freeh tucked in the "errand boy" comments, at that location in the report. Just presenting evidence, or making the connections for us?
He also, in his reply to the Paterno's family report, stated:Mr. Paterno was on notice for at least 13 years that Sandusky, one of his longest serving assistants, and whose office was steps away, was a probable serial pedophile. Mr. Paterno was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky's suspected child sexual abuse. Indeed, the evidence shows that Mr. Paterno closely followed that case.
We have already pointed out that there is little to no evidence that Paterno was ever more than simply briefed that Sandusky was being investigated. Even the police and DA didn't believe in 98 that Sandusky was a pedophile, but Freeh outright claims that Paterno should have, for 13 years, which prior to his death, would have been 98.
Notice that Freeh says he "was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky's suspected child sexual abuse" - did he mention in that sentence that Sandusky was cleared of all criminal charges and abuse allegations as a result of that investigation? No, because that would be fair and balanced, and wouldn't support the conclusions he is trying to make.
Ok. Paterno didn't follow the investigation closely. I think that's a minor point. IMO, it's much more significant that Paterno denied all knowledge of the investigation in his interview with Sally Jenkins.
Paterno insists he was completely unaware of a 1998 police investigation into a report from a Second Mile mother that Sandusky had inappropriately touched her son in a shower. The inquiry ended when the local prosecutor declined to bring charges. “You know it wasn’t like it was something everybody in the building knew about,” Paterno said. “Nobody knew about it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...ky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story_2.html
Here's what Jenkins had to say about Paterno's credibility:
You always have a feeling of, "I wish I did that" after an interview, and I wish that when he said, "I never heard of 'rape' and a 'man,' " I wish I had pressed him more. It sort of laid on the table. I think everyone there kind of just looked at him, and that was the moment I should've said, "Come on, you studied the classics; you know your Virgil. How can you say that?" But I didn't because I was focused on my master list of questions, but I should've been more responsive.
I don't regret doing the story. I do think I pressed him on the most important thing of all: his timeline and his chronology. To get him on record saying he knew absolutely nothing of the previous investigation of 1998, that was really important in establishing how we need to view him. Because the Freeh Report suggested that he did know and he was aware.
There's no question in my mind that he did not level with me. No question. I am very sure on that point. A lot of people at Penn State want me to be unsure, but I'm positive. I know exactly what he was telling me that day. He was denying in no uncertain terms that he ever heard anything about Sandusky and little boys.
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/jenkins_helps_summit_sum_it_up.php
Why did Paterno lie about his knowledge of an investigation which resulted in Sandusky being cleared of all charges?
And how about this comment from his response:As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno's knowledge and McQueary's observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky's activity to public officials.
Did you see the documentation where Paterno emailed the other three to discuss their agreement not to report? Or the meeting that he attended with the others? Me neither, but Freeh states this "agreement" as a fact, leading others to accept it despite the lack of evidence. While one can believe Paterno went along with a plan, others can believe that he left the decision up to the other three. Why are Freeh's conclusions more valid than ours, unless he withheld evidence from his Report?
If he left it up to the other three, then he obviously agreed with not reporting. If he believed that they should have reported the allegation, then he should have reported it himself, regardless of what the other three believed.
Unless, of course, he had no concern for Sandusky's victims.