Plenty in the article and the report states the Archdiocese refused to believe Neill.
More than plenty. All the bizarre denials to the written words I've posted from the Grand Jury report cannot change that fact.
Did they fail in not being able to substantiate his claims. I think they did.
I don't think they did. The Grand Jury doesn't think they did. The District Attorney who indicted the four priests doesn't think they did. The judge hearing the case doesn't they did.
The ONLY people who do think so are Roman Catholic apologists whose "reading comprehension," as you posted in your comment 32, hasn't yet been "grasped."
“Plenty in the article and the report states the Archdiocese refused to believe Neill.”
There is no statement to that effect at all.
“Did they fail in not being able to substantiate his claims. I think they did.
“I don’t think they did. The Grand Jury doesn’t think they did. The District Attorney who indicted the four priests doesn’t think they did. The judge hearing the case doesn’t they did.”
I think uyou misunderstand me I meant that the board, if they had done a proper investigation should have been able to substantiate Neill’s claim. That they did not take a more aggressive stance in pursuing evidence is certainly a failure on their part. That was a wrong doing on their part.
Please post a quote from the board or from the archdiocese that they refused to believe Neill. Post a quote or excerpt from the Grand Jury report saying the same. You have not done so.
There were very real and inexcusable failures on the part of both the Archbishop and the board it is not necessary to put a spin on these facts by making statements that are not supported by what happened.