I didn't defend Hubbard (bishop of Albany); I took on the attorney who keeps bringing suits against him, one John Aretakis.
The guy's a shyster, and has been proven to be a shyster.
At the very minimum, you presume the innocence of the Bishop until otherwise is shown, and I happen to agree with that predicate, even though I think that Bishop is a scumbucket--and he's merely meeting his mirror-image in the lawyer.
To repeat: do you know with MORAL CERTAINTY that the claims made in this article about the nun are true?