Again reading comprehension is usually grasped in the lower grades. Where does it show that Archdiocese or the board refused to believe Daniel Neill.
That a grand jury in 2003 found that “In September 2003, a grand jury of local citizens released a report detailing a sad history of sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That abuse was known, tolerated, and hidden by high church officials, up to and including the Cardinal himself...” does not mean that in 2007 the
Archdiocese refused to believe Daniel Neill.
The article offers no evidence that the archdiocese and the boards failure to substantiate the abuse was because they refused to believe him. It does not state if they disbelieved or believed his claim only that they could not substantiate it. Usually this would take form of additional evidence and testimony regarding the abuse. Why they did not have this I don’t know.
So again you offer no proof nor does the reporter that the archdiocese refused to believe Daniel Neill.
Are you saying the Philadelphia Archdiocese differed considerably from the 2007 Archdiocese?
And you keep asking for evidence. Read the report.