en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Bransfield
1 correction found
The Washington Post reported the opposite conclusion
This misstates what The Washington Post reported. The Post quoted the report as saying there was still no conclusive evidence of misconduct with minors, while adding that there was significant reason for concern.
Full reasoning
Lori's June 5, 2019 summary said the investigation found no conclusive evidence of sexual misconduct with minors. The Washington Post did not report the opposite of that. Instead, the Post quoted the report itself as saying: "We did not find conclusive evidence that Bishop Bransfield committed sexual misconduct with minors; however, there is significant reason for concern that this occurred."
So the difference is not an opposite conclusion; it is an added qualification. Lori's wording emphasized the lack of conclusive evidence, while the report language quoted by the Post added that investigators still had serious concerns. Calling that the opposite conclusion is inaccurate.
2 sources
- Archbishop Lori releases findings of West Virginia Bishop Bransfield investigation
Lori said that while there was no "conclusive evidence" of sexual misconduct with minors, the investigation ... had found indications of consistent sexual misconduct and harassment by Bransfield against adults.
- Catholic Church leaves questions surrounding West Virginia Bishop Michael Bransfield
The report concludes: “We did not find conclusive evidence that Bishop Bransfield committed sexual misconduct with minors; however, there is significant reason for concern that this occurred.”