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.
I meant the original complaint in 1981 not the latter one in 2007 (?). I certainly agree with the grand jury report about that.
PS. Which is why it is so inexcusable that the 1981 report of abuse was not given to authorities. I do not doubt that the archdiocese mishandled the second reporting of the abuse. I imagine it must have been very traumatic for the victim to have to relive (in a sense) what happened to him all those years ago and to be told it could not be substantiated. What I don’t know is how the board could have substantiated a 20 year old claim and what the Grand Jury uses as criteria to determine a claim is credible.