[lastchance]

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.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There was plenty of corroborating evidence in this case. It was ignored.

Why didn’t the priests/bishops/parochial school authorities go directly to the police when this accusation was made in 1981?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

there is nothing to indicate that the archdiocese was even informed of the claim

The Grand Jury obviously feels differently...

The grand jury cited the handling of Neill's complaint as one of three examples of the archdiocese's failure to act on complaints that seemed credible.

[Jim from C-Town]

Actually 81 was thirty years ago. Even more difficult. I find it less than credible that a child would tell a Principal, but not his parents, friends, coach, scout master, or some other adult. He told one adult who , and I find this even more incredible,threatened him and his parents. Sorry I find it less than credible.