Did you read the article?
From the article...
One told investigators that the priest had "improper relationships" with students but wouldn't elaborate, the grand jury said. Others allegedly confirmed aspects of Neill's accounts..." "Neill gave church investigators vivid details about the abuse and names of other altar boys, the grand jury found.
But then we have the same old concluding paragraph is so many of these cases...
"An independent archdiocesan review board ruled that it could not substantiate the complaints..."
lol. Yeah, real "independent," that "archdiocesan review board."
Pathetic.
If I remember the review board was independent in that they did not have to run their findings or their investigation by the archdiocese. They acted under their own authority.
I don’t doubt he named other victims. Was anybody able to get these other victims to confirm what happened? Did they even try to find these other victims? At the very least I would think the archdiocese should have done this.
If the one (not clear if this was a victim) would not elaborate how was the board suppose to determine the veracity of the statement. Yes I believe it most likely was true but mere belief is not enough to substantiate a claim.
Allegations are not facts. Such allegations should have been investigated as thoroughly as possible and also turned over to authorities.
The real shame in all this is that if this had been reported in 1981 you would not have the subsequent failure so rightly condemned in the Grand Jury report.
Oh I do think the priest was guilty.