So it is clear they were in the same West Point class, it is clear she resented him for some reason, wonder what that could be???????????? As all of you know, anyone who can become a general in the US Army is a politician and a player and while they also may know how to fight a war (granted a valuable skill) a lot of sociopaths can achieve high status. So, all of you think she just wanted to derail him for nothing? Or was there a reason, such as she thought he was a horrible human being?
And if he did rape her (as the CID said there was no evidence to corroborate either of their stories) he has now doubly raped her.
Oh well, jury has spoken, justice has been done, right?
‘she thought he was a horrible human being’ is some type of ‘reason’ in your view?
A false rape claim? Pretty much without fail, the reason is that she liked him and couldn't have him. It's a form of envy, and it's extremely common. I don't think there's much reason to beat the bushes for a "why do the bad guys hate us?" reason if someone lies under oath. If she did that, she was the sociopath.
Is it possible he was maybe-somehow not a nice person in some other respect? I don't know, and I don't actually think that's any of my business, or hers.
Perhaps she sought a justification for a major failure in her life; that is, the failure to successfully complete her West Point education to become a commissioned officer with a career path to higher promotion.
While cadets, they had a brief consensual relationship that obviously didn't last..........It took 27 years but she finally got her poisonous revenge. Now she's going to pay for it......
What's that old saying about a "woman scorned"?
What the hell do you want? Hang him anyway, because women never lie?
So, if she resented him for some reason 27 years ago do you think that justifies a bogus charge of rape to derail his career?
And the jury settled the question of it being believable or bogus, didn't they?
“So, all of you think she just wanted to derail him for nothing? “
Yes. In case you missed it she also believes that the “government” shot the kids at Sandy Hook. One of the first things I learned during my time in the military is that some people are just nuts. I guess you think that since Col. Riggins was under consideration for promotion to General he should have been found guilty and sentenced on the word of somebody who is pretty clearly nuts? Did you notice that the article stated that nobody on the jury believed her and the only disagreement they had was the amount of damages to award? I am guessing that was probably because she comes across as a nut. I personally gave up a long time ago trying to figure out why crazy people do crazy stuff. They just do and often for no apparent reason.