"A Bristol Township man killed himself after the Archdiocese of Philadelphia refused to believe that a priest had molested him when he was an altar boy...
According to the lawsuit, Neill reported the abuse to the school principal at St. Mark's in 1980, but his complaint was ignored. The principal instead allegedly "called Daniel a liar and threatened Daniel that his family would be disgraced if he persisted" with the accusations..."
I imagine there is a special place in hell for those who ruin children’s lives through abuse of any kind.
I don’t know what the law was regarding mandatory reporting in 1981 but I think if there was such the principal certainly would fall under the category of those obligated to do so. I wish the article indentified him.
It is very difficult to substantiate 20 year old accusations which is one reason for the statutes of limitations. It does not mean a party is not guilty it just means there is not enough evidence to determine the facts. However if the incident had been reported in 1981 the evidence would have been fresh and the likelyhood of establishing the facts much higher.
The article does not indicate that the archdiocese was informed in 1981. Both they and the police should have been told at that time.
Where is it shown that the archdiocese refused to believe him? It shows only that a school principal not only refused to believe him but threatened him when he reported the abuse in 1981 and that an independent review board could not substantiate the claim of abuse.
Neither of those is the same as a refusal to believe. In the first there is nothing to indicate that the archdiocese was even informed of the claim in the latter it does not say they don’t believe the claim to be true only that they can not find evidence to support either the veracity or false hood of the claim.
It is not odd that they were unable to substantiate a 20 year old claim.