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.
