I see.
So Penn State scrubbed all the bad stuff from the Freeh report.
You don't have to believe me, but realize I do know a thing or two about what I am talking about.
I am not obsessed with the PSU scandal like many are, so I am not sure I have all the information correct on what happened at PSU. But the following ius my understanding of what happened:
The Freeh report was commissioned by the PSU Board of Trustees. Louis Freeh never interviewed any of the fact witnesses (never spoke with Sandusky, McQueary, Paterno, AD Curley or President Spanier). Instead, he relied upon emails and interviews with ancillary personnel.
in his report, Freeh basically hung all the blame on a dead football coach, the AD and the President. With respect to the Trustees, he said that they didn't follow the best oversight procedures, and because they did not involve themselves enough in day to day operations of the University, no one told them about Sandusky.
Hmm....notice anything there? The Trustees, who paid for the report, were not implicated in any way, other than to say that they should pay more attention to University operations. All blame fell on a dead guy, and an AD and President who couldn't have been saved anyway, and were promptly forced to resign. So the Trustees got complete cover from that report, and got a tidy recommendation that they clean house, which the media and public at large was already demanding.
The biggest criticism of the Freeh report is that it laid the bulk of the blame on Paterno. Pretty convenient, don't you think? Him being dead and all. So no, it is not a matter of scrubbing everything bad from the report. Given what had happened, Louis Freeh couldn't very well conclude nothing bad happened. Like I said, the attorneys won't lie. But the attorney did limit his review to secondary sources, and never interviewed primary fact witnesses to ask them directly who knew, and concluded - big shocker - that the Trustees of the University weren't to blame.