Friday, August 4, 2017

Col. Wil Riggins: Rape Allegation Denial Analyzed

Susan Shannon first alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986 while they were both cadets on her blog in 2013

4 August, 2017  REPOST 

People often ask for examples of truthful statements and reliable denials to accusations. 

Here is an example where one is accused of rape and gives a Reliable Denial and we are now able to learn more about the case.  

Several years ago, the following analysis was given regarding the allegation of rape.  

At the conclusion of the article, an update is given. 

Question:  Could not the military discern truth from deception in her blog posts?

Colonel sues West Point classmate who claims he raped her 30 years ago in blog that led to end of his career

  • Susan Shannon claims she was raped by army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986
  • Former cadet waited 30 years to speak because of army's 'code of silence'
  • She made the allegations against her former classmate on a blog in 2013
  • But Riggins denies claims saying they've cost him a promotion to general
  • He has now launched a multi-million defamation lawsuit to clear his name

A retired army colonel is suing his former West Point classmate for more than $2million after he says her 30-year-old rape claims cost him a promotion.
Susan Shannon first alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986, while they were both cadets, on her blog in 2013. She says she waited three decades to come forward about her experience because of the army's 'code of silence'.
But Riggins, who vehemently denies the claims, said the 'false' allegations had cost him a sparkling military career.
Army Colonel Wil Riggins  is suing his former West Point classmate Susan Shannon  for more than $2million after he says her claims that he raped her 30 years ago cost him a promotion
The combat veteran from Alexandria had been on the cusp of being appointed to general in 2013, when Army leaders saw Shannon's rape allegation on her blog.

His promotion was snatched away and Riggins says his name was dragged through the mud after 'Susan Shannon decided to play judge and jury on her own.'

The decorated colonel denies all claims, telling ABC 7 On :

 "I did not rape Susan Shannon. I did not sexually assault Susan Shannon. Every aspect of her story is verifiably false.'

This is a very strong denial.  He not only issues the singular Reliable Denial, but in the case where "rape" may be debated, or changed to another allegation, he goes on to clarify:  "I did not sexually assault Susan Shannon."

this is to deny even an altered allegation which can be anticipated in sexual assault cases.  

Now he is mounting a multi-million dollar cases against his accuser -  which experts on survivors of sexual assault warn could have a 'chilling' effect on whether future victims come forward.
Riggins is seeking more than $2million in damages to his career and reputation after he says he 'never got a day in court' to defend himself. 
However, Shannon's attorney Ben Trichilo said his client had one, simple defense - 'the truth.'
Susan Shannon (pictured, as a cadet) alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986 while they were both cadets at West Point
Susan Shannon alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins (pictured as a cadet) in 1986 while they were both cadets at West Point
Susan Shannon  alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986 while they were both cadets at West Point
Shannon said she had finally been inspired to speak about her alleged experience after reading about several high profile convictions for sexual assaults in the military.
Despite the law suit she now faces, she said she does not regret coming forward.

'Frankly the day I started saying his name was the day I started blaming him instead of myself, she said.
'I didn't ask for this day. I'm being forced into a courtroom,' Shannon said, 'It's costing me and my family pretty much all that we have saved. I knew that risk when I wrote it and I don't regret it a day.'

She says she is planning to fight the law suit, not only for herself, but for all other victims of sexual assault.
Shannon alleges she was raped by her former cadet classmate at the United States Military Academy in New York in 1986. She dropped out shortly afterwards.
Now a jewelry designer and a mother living on the West Coast, she added that the pressure in the army to keep quiet and not turn in her peers meant that she did not even report the alleged rape at her exit interview. 

'There was no way I was going to report that. The blame would fall squarely on me,' she said, adding she had only told a few friends at the time.
Shannon alleges she was raped by her former cadet classmate at the United States Military Academy in New York (file picture)

She made the claims on her blog Short Little Rebel in 2013 -  which followed the announcement that Colonel Riggins had been nominated for general.

Shannon denies having any knowledge of his nomination until she was contacted by Army officials investigating her blog post.
Riggins was 'euphoric' after his nomination but his joy was not to last long after he was hauled in front of the Army's Criminal Investigations Division for questioning and had his DNA and fingerprints taken at Fort Myer in Arlington.
While investigators were not able to prove or disprove Shannon's claims, Riggins' pending nomination was pushed to Promotion Review Board.

Despite the board declaring Riggins 'fully qualified for promotion', army documents obtained by ABC 7 show Secretary of the army John McHugh still decided to cancel his promotion. Army officials refused to confirm why the colonel's name was pulled from the promotion list.
But Riggins, who feels he has been 'abandoned' by the army, believes the secretary was simply not willing to risk his reputation defending him. 

The decorated colonel has now filed the multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit, claiming it was 'the only avenue left to me to clear my name.'
Both parties, who will argue whether the sex was consensual or rape, will meet in a Fairfax County courtroom.

UPDATE  3 August, 2017    link 

A retired Army colonel who sued a former West Point classmate for defamation related to blogged accusations of rape has won a multi-million dollar decision in a Virginia court. Wil Riggins, a decorated veteran from Alexandria, claimed the online accusations from a woman named Susan Shannon cost him a military promotion. On Tuesday a jury agreed, awarding Riggins $3.4 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The case was unique in that Shannon's accusations of rape came nearly 30 years after the alleged assault.


Bobcat said...

She has her issues, and a blog. This article is interesting:

It brings to mind the chelebrities Davey Blackburn surrounds himself with.
"Professional Christians"

Bobcat said...

Here's her original accusation blog:


After reading it, it sounds like:

She was passed out drunk.
She could not 'consent' to sex.
He had sex with her but it was not "aggressive".

I don't know when colleges started telling students that any sex without explicit consent is considered rape, and anyone who is drunk cannot consent ... but that was not a thing back then. Now it is.

In 2013, she can look back on what happened and say it was rape, although it was nonaggressive, and back then it would be considered a stupid drunken mistake.

He can look back and say it wasn't rape.

Malene Jessen said...

The original blog post is an interesting read.
She spends the majority of the beginning talking about the contrast between his career and her own drop-out. She makes the claim that "no one leaves after three years" and that it was "Not really a logical choice, right?". She wants us to know that there could be no other reason for her to quit, than rape. Why the need to convince?

She wants us to know how the consequences of her quitting affected her. "I had nowhere to go (my disappointed mother told me not to come home if I quit) and I didn’t care." Although she doesn't tell us, if her mother actually meant it. We don't hear much about how the rape itself affected her.

The alleged rape itself is without details. "Especially because you only find out that you had been raped by certain ‘evidence’ that remains when you wake up. Which means that the rapist also failed to use a condom."

It is not her who finds out, it's "you". We know more about her room mate's rape than her own. Somehow I feel, there is an improper social introduction of the rapist. Given the fact that her entire blog post was meant to come forward and name her rapist, she utterly fails to do so at that exact moment where it would have been most powerful.

The after-part is one great big moral lecture. (Which is me being deceptive - I didn't read it, just browsed past it)

Malene Jessen said...

By the way...

"Which means that the rapist also failed to use a condom."

What else did he fail to do?

Malene Jessen said...

God, there's so much more to that statement.
"Especially because you only find out that you had been raped by certain ‘evidence’ that remains when you wake up. Which means that the rapist also failed to use a condom."

It's all present tense.
"you only find out" suggests, she was considering something else, when she woke up.

"that remains", "that" is distancing language. She is distancing herself from that which remained. Could it be, and I may be overreaching here... could she be thinking of 'he who left'?

"certain 'evidence'" If this was an actual, real rape, seamen would be considered actual, real, certain evidence. Not something which resembles evidence for the sake of making a point. Unless, of course, there never was a rape. In that case it is suitable to mention it as 'evidence'.

What triggered her respons was seeing him on FB, going up the ranks, on a shared account with his wife, whom he allegedly was dating at the time of the alleged rape. To me this looks like priority, it looks like motive for her blog post - and subsequent rape allegations.

Malene Jessen said...

And why would she hold him to such standard as "using a condom". If he raped her, failing to use a condom should not be particularly disappointing. It appears she is at least just as shocked to discover this as the rape itself.

(I'll stop now)

(I think.)

Malene Jessen said...

One last thing... (Now google is testing me to see that I'm not a robot... I myself am not so sure)

"(my disappointed mother told me not to come home if I quit)"

This suggests her mother was disappointed in her before she quit. It may not have been the first time she quit something. And being aware of how her mother felt about it, one could see how she would find the need to come up with an extraordinary excuse for quitting something again. Maybe even an excuse to herself.

Off to bed.

Hey Jude said...

As I recall, she had decided, retrospectively and opportunistically, that she had been raped because the guy with whom she had a drunken sexual encounter wasn’t interested in dating her. She was unhappy at West Point and regretted the drunken sex - it may have been 'the final straw'' but nowhere does she say she did not consent, or that she could not consent because she was out stone cold. She says she was out cold, but does not say she therefore could not consent, which I think would be the expected - I don’t believe she was raped. The language about the alleged rape is distancing, I think not due to trauma, as she also says she had forgotten about him until she looked him up on Facebook, following her reading about rape in the military. She claims to have forgotten him, which if he had raped her, and if that had been the ultimate reason for her abandoning her career, she would not have forgotten him.

I suspect she did not forget him, rather bided her time in order to trash him as he reached the pinnacle of his career. Well, there is a failure in logic - she had forgotten him, and therefore the alleged rape, which supposedly had caused her to ‘instantaneously’ leave and end her career - yet also she remembered, as she had called West Point ‘several years ago’ and was encouraged by a colonel to report him - she is lying when she says she had forgotten him.

She leans heavily on the alleged violent rape of her roommate in an attempt to make credible her own allegations. She might be expected to mention it, but as a poster above says, she says more about the roommate’s rape than her own alleged rape. The way she opened the article:

“I felt the need to tell the story about a rape of a soldier I personally know:  that soldier is me.”

- I think she initially intended to write about the roommate, then made it about herself, too. It is a strange thing to write, unless about another - also, she’s telling a story. She sounds confused, not committed to who ‘the story about a rape of a soldier’ is about, whilst also trying to persuade the reader it is about her. She then goes on to not quite tell the story of a rape of a soldier, as she was allegedly out stone cold.

She felt strongly enough to post rape allegations on his social media accounts, yet did not, through thirty years, feel strongly enough to file a complaint through the correct channels - she had ‘forgotten’ him.

She has a need to blame him, and the military environment for her dropping out of West Point, yet she also, there and in various blog posts, expresses multiple reasons for her dissatisfaction with her life in the military - her decision to leave was not as ‘instantaneous’ as she says. Vindictive, she wanted and tried to ruin him, whilst she also declined to give any account before the law about ‘the rape of a soldier I personally know.’

Hey Jude said...

These past few days I have been listening to the Jodi Arias police interviews and trial - from the first interview, she reminded me of Casey Anthony in her casual lies, cheerful disposition and general demeanour. I wonder did anyone else find that? Do they share a personality type? Jodi is on the stand ATM, so a lot more to listen to.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

A FIVE-month-old baby girl died in a hot car after her step-dad left her behind at a car dealership when he bought a new car.

Kyrae Vineyard baked to death after spending more than four hours in the car as temperatures inside the motor soared to around 49C.

24-year-old Haven Robb Hackworth is facing an involuntary manslaughter charge in the infant’s death.

After parking at the dealership, Hackworth left the baby girl in the back of the car as he took a car for a test drive.

He then went through the paper work and drove off in the new vehicle leaving the old car in exchange.

Court documents claim he had driven for around 25 minutes before realising he had forgotten baby Kyrae.

He called the dealership and asked the salesman to check on the car.

The salesman told police he went out to the car, and found Kyrae’s body inside the carseat, with a blanket draped over the top.

Police arrested Hackworth for involuntary manslaughter, he is currently in custody.

Kyrae’s mother told of her anger on TV station KTVB: “I would do anything and everything in this world to bring my daughter back and I feel like Haven needs to be charged more because he took my daughter away and I suspect it was on purpose so I don’t understand any of it.

“I loved my daughter and I love my daughter still, she is my everything and I put trust into a guy I thought I trusted and his stupid actions caused me to lose my daughter.”

She had Hackworth had been together for four months

A coroner said it appeared that baby had been dead for at least six hours before she arrived at hospital.

Police said: “When asked how he [Hackworth] could forget about K.V. for that amount of time, Haven stated that he didn’t know, and that he was just really excited to get his new car.”

Hackworth now faces up to 10 years in prison and a £7,600 fine if convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Tania Cadogan said...


This is setting off my alarm bells, something isn't right.
What set them off was this, even before reading to the end of the article.

Kyrae’s body inside the carseat, with a blanket draped over the top.
Straight away i was asking myself why she would be in her car seat with a blanket over the top.
This to me implies it was done deliberately to conceal her.
Anyone glancing in would see only the blanket, less noticeable than a child in a car seat to those passing by.

A coroner said it appeared that baby had been dead for at least six hours before she arrived at hospital.
To me,this would imply she was dead before he arrived at the dealership since a test drive is not going to take 4 hours nor would the paperwork take the time up to 4 hours.
He then claims he drove his new car for 25 mins or so before realizing Kyrae was not with him.

I would be asking when was she last seen alive by an independent witness?
Where there any signs of injuries such as bruising on her body?
What was his relationship with the mom like since they had only been together 4 months?
What was his relationship like with Kyrae?
Does he have any criminal history?
Was the family known to LE or the CPS?
As she appears to have been dead for AT LEAST 6 hours when did the mom last see her daughter alive?
What was he doing in the hours prior to turning up at the dealership?
Have cadaver dogs been used in the house to see if she was dead in the house (cadaverine can be detected by a dog approx 90 mins after death)
If yes and dogs indicate for cadaverine it prompts the question as to why 911 was not called if she was found unresponsive?
If she was dead when placed in the car, what was his motive?
Did he conceal her corpse in the car, feign forgetfulness and then 'remember', calls the salesman and then the salesman makes the 911 call.
Does the dealership record calls?
If so would it have the recording of the father calling about his daughter, 'excited utterances'
Getting the salesman to make the 911 call smacks of billy jean dunn getting someone else to make the call regarding Hailey, or the mccanns getting a 3rd party to make the call re: Maddie.
It gives them an extra layer of protection and distancing from LE

Maggie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
habundia said...

I came upon this older article

When I see this blog about denial

For some reason I believe this woman, but some of her words are not what "is expected", from a mother who finds out her child is injured and has been injured on other occasions and has nothing to do with those injuries. I do have problem with statements of her husband/boyfriend (the father of the child)
To me investigators in this case had soon made up their mind of who done this trauma to that child, and talked to much themselves, instead of letting the suspect speak..

I never heard of rare bone diseases that cause bite marks or marks that look like bite marks. If this child should have a rare bone disease then why does the baby has bite marks? And did he still has broken ribs or other fractures since he has been in custody of family? If he has such a disease then it wouldn't stop happening after the child was taken. So i wonder how he has been since.

"He would grab, like he had started to roll and he would get his hand caught under his shoulder and he would grab himself. His skin was very fragile," she said."

Didn't this child wear clothes? If he did, then how could he have "grabbed" himself in such way shown in picture present in article.
My children have done that too, grab themselves when they wanted to roll on their tummy. And yes my youngest also would grab his skin and squeeze it hard that made him cry, obviously, but that never caused an injury shown on that picture, a baby wouldn't hurt themselves in such way on their own, if laying on a safe place and trying to roll over and grabbing themselves and leave that kind of thing injury. That doesn't happen by my knowledge.

"I just remember seeing such an amazing sunset and being like, I don't know when I'm going to see this again," she said. "I don't know what's going on. I'm so confused."

Why not think about what is going to happen with your child now you go to jail? Instead of "remembering seeing an amazing sunset"?
She does know, she's arrested for abusing her child, that's what's going on. Were is she confused for? What's confusing her?

habundia said...


Statement of the father

"I was standing in the kitchen," said Coleman. "I was standing on that rug and the rug is on hardwood, and it's a rag rug and it slips pretty easy. And I went to turn around, and I turned around and my feet got tangled in it. The rug slid and I just fell. Not on him, no. With him."

Standing, twice (double important, and active)
Why stand on a rug that "slips pretty easy", with a baby in your arms if you know it does that? But it didn't slip because of the hard wood floor but because "his feet got tangled in it" (story building?)
He also has said somewhere else that the baby fell on top of him, in this quoted statement he doesn't say that, so we don't say it for him. He said 'with him'.
At the hospital he "sits" his child.

If a baby falls from the height of an average adult and then hits the floor, I would think that could cause fractured bones, it doesn't explain 'healing fractured ribs' (from squeezing to hard, discharged summary states)

Dover said he woke that morning and tended to his son before heading out to pick up the ingredients he needed for dinner. The baby fell back asleep and when he woke up later, Peele went to him.

He "tended", so he didn't go to his son before "heading out to pick up the ingredients needed for dinner". How did the baby fell back asleep? If he only tended to his son how would he know he "fell back asleep"?

"We walked in as a family, with our son in the car seat," said Peele. "I remember sitting him on the desk, you know, hey, we're here, we just want to check and make sure our baby is OK. And it was like right after, all hell broke loose."

Walked, sitting.
I somewhere read about the words "you know", also have meaning (need to look up again, was in some blog from 2015, forgot what it means)
But it was something about words becoming more important when "you know is used)

"After a long moment of silence, Dover told the detective: "I'm sorry sir, I can't confess. Like you said, stress, struggling, it's all that. But I can't confess to you that I did something that I know I didn't do."

This statement worries me.
The word 'SORRY', the politeness (sir), I can't confess (I believe him)
The detective has given him words (stress, struggling), he now uses these words parroting, these words have given him an excuse (reason), for what ever reason the detective have used these words (the question or talk were the detective used these words I haven't seen).
His last sentence contains to many words. Again he "can't confess" (I believe him again), "I did something" (confession?) "That I know I didn't do" (maybe the way he caused these injuries to his child wasn't mentioned by investigators, by squeezing to hard, he couldn't confess those other ways which were mentioned (kicking, punishing, slapping, throwing)

habundia said...


I have to say that these investigators, both should be sent an invitation for your trainings, because I do think they could use it.
The male investigator admitted to abuse himself. Leaving marks on a child is called ABUSE! No matter what you call it (scrambled eggs will always be scrambled eggs)
They didn't seem looking for the truth, because they already made up their mind (mom did it, because father works 13 hours a day and showed more emotion then she did, so mom is guilty!?

Yes Mom didn't sound really concern about how her child had gotten these injuries. I don't know how long it was between the injuries presented to her and this interrogation (clip is in article), but to me it was as if she was in some kind of shock about what she had learned. Still little concern about the child's welfare.
But it could be because from start she was being attacked at the culprit, she only had to confess, there was no real questioning only accusations. And she felt kind of trapped, whatever she would say, she wouldn't be believed by those investigators.
One other thing. She doesn't say the baby's name during interrogation (that baby, my child, him, he, but not Micah at any time) ;not to my recall

I am a single mom of two children and those first 3 months are tough, especially when dealing on your own (most hours of the day)
Breastfeeding cost lots of energy and can drain you, combined with little sleep, lots of cries, rushing hormones, "a nourishing state of body" it makes though. This counts for all mom's (especially single moms with no support)

This woman let it seem, it wasn't hard at all. That I don't believe. Ask any woman that nourished a first child, they will say it is hard work and exhausting.

What are your thoughts about this case?

Hey Jude said...

OT - Habundia - on reading that article, I noticed it was the baby's maternal grandfather who said he slipped on the rug and fell (not) onto the baby, rather than the father. I wondered if he made that up to cover for his daughter. He had only watched the baby twice, so it's possible he might have slipped on an unfamiliar rug/surface if he was not used to the home.

I wondered did the father leave the baby home alone to go shopping for the dinner ingredients? It did not sound as though anyone else was in the house. Was the mother still working as a nanny (he said he had told her he wanted her to give up her job and become a stay st home mom), the father under pressure that day to care for the baby, as well as to shop for and prepare a special dinner?

The mother described the baby as 'anxious'. He would be anxious if he was exclusively breastfed and his mother was not available because she was at work - if she left expressed milk for him, by sixteen weeks he may have wanted more than breast milk, especially if she could not express much, of which she voiced concern in regard to his needs in foster care - so perhaps already the supply had been inadequate, causing him to be fretful, and the parents to not understand his needs.

The baby's fractures were reported to be healing well between the time he was taken into foster care in July, and his case review, which was in September. Since leaving foster care he had been placed with his paternal grandmother, and there was no mention that he had suffered any further fractures since removal from his parents.

The mother said she had not given her baby a vitamin D supplement which was recommended for breastfed babies, despite she was advised that she should - she said she took him outside and had thought the sunshine would provide enough vitamin D. It turned out the baby had rickets - might have been due to both lack of vitamin D and of adequate sunshine.

The mother was very much into the idea of motherhood, and had greatly anticipated becoming a mother, but I think she did not express much enthusiasm in regard to the actual baby once he arrived - it took her a long time, in the interview, to say that she loved him. She began her police interview by inviting the detective to trust her. She offered the opinion she could not harm her baby because she had worked for many years as a nanny, indeed she would do anything to save anyone's baby, including the detective's, though I don't think she mentioned her own.

Though she cared almost solely for the baby, she expressed disbelief that during the medical examinations a bite mark had been discovered on his shoulder - from the photograph, she could not have missed it. She also said she was aware that there were bruises, but had not thought much of it - she claimed that like the bite mark, they were self-inflicted.
She rejected any suggestion she was suffering from post-partum depresssion, so one is left to conclude that she did not take her tiny baby to the hospital sooner because she chose not to, though, at the least, she was aware of the bruises and of the bite mark injuries, of which he was incapable of causing to himself.

Her concern continued to focus on herself, and upon her idea of herself as a mother, rather than on the baby, who, whilst necessary as a bestower of status, was subsequently neglected and abused under her care.

As Micah is now a toddler who is not reported to have suffered any further fractures or other injuries, I would say that regardless of the possibility of his also having a genetic bone disorder, or any type of medical condition, his fractures, bruises and the bite mark were caused in the home between birth and sixteen weeks of age, and have not recurred, which makes any medical condition he might also have/have had irrelevant to that circumstance.

His parents are not allowed to visit with him, even though he is placed with a grandparent - that is not for nothing - bone diseases do not cause bite marks.

Hey Jude said...

^^ Perhaps nannying is a bit like the plumber whose tap at home always leaks for want of a new washer - faucet, there, I think.

habundia said...

Her mom said "Jesus didn't judge her mom because every mom knows being a mom is a job each mom doesn't class being a mom isn't a job"

rob said...


Anonymous said...

Great blog.

rob said...

That was in 2012.

habundia said...

Thanks Jude for your response. It's always great to learn from others and their view.
I agree that her lack of concern for her baby stands out, but the same is to say about the father. He also said he got up at night when the baby woke, but anything further he doesn't tell us he's helping out, when he's at home. Expect for the one time he does grosseries to prepare a dinner for the family.

That she denies having post-partum depresssion,ok that doesn't mean she doesn't has it. Not all mom's recognize this illness or don't wanna admit they suffer from it, because it feels "unnatural", and because they so badly want to become a mother. Getting a baby doesn't mean you are instantly a great mother. Birth of a baby doesn't come with parental guides and doesn't make you an instant parent. It's something many woman need to grow in to, only few have natural talent.

At least the boy is in a safe place now and is doing good.

And even though it's an older article, doesn't mean one can't learn from it.....maybe you should try that one day, Rob. It wouldn't hurt!

Hey Jude said...

Habundia - I agree, he also lacks concern. Which of them do you think caused the baby's injuries? Whar do you think of her reaction to the 'news' that her baby was in such a bad condition? What of the father saying, 'here we are' when they arrived at the hospital? I tend towards both of them, or at least the father's complicity - though the grandfather claiming he slipped and fell with the baby seems suspect , too. I wonder if he said that to cover for his daughter - her aggressive tone sounds like her default. She maybe kept them away from the baby - the grandfather only had watched him twice in sixteen weeks, and the father saw little of the baby, that once during the night so his wife could have some sleep, for the most part, from his account - he does not say he changed or fed the baby during those times - he possibly did not realise the extent of his discomfort, or that there were bruises or bite marks. However, that he said, 'here we are' when they arrived at the hospital. Is like saying, 'Finally, we are here' - so I think he knew there was something up, and they delayed taking the baby to the hospital. I think it's possible he had mishandled the baby. and feared or knew he had caused the 'popping' under the baby's arm. I think their lack of concern, and feigned surprise at his injuries, especially the obvious and visible ones, says they both were responsible of abuse and neglect - it was both their business to know the physical condition of their baby, so if only one parent had caused the injuries, the other was equally responsible in not taking action to protect him from further abuse.

I think whether she had post-partum depression would be irrelevant in terms of trying to establish who caused the injuries? That might have contributed to her actions, but it would not have mitigated them, or altered the facts, or mean the baby should ever be returned to her. It's interesting, but it's more of an aside.

rob said...

Ok habundia you our write,I dough knot reade murch.

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Susan Shannon posted this tonight on Twitter:

"I want to die. This world holds nothing for me."

Anonymous said...

Hey JudeAugust 5, 2017 at 2:37 PM
^^ Perhaps nannying is a bit like the plumber whose tap at home always leaks for want of a new washer - faucet, there, I think.


robAugust 6, 2017 at 3:29 AM


Nothing funny here.

habundia said...

Trolls...I guess they have a boring thing is right.....they ain't funny at all!

Hi Jude, I can only agree with your thinking. I do think both are responsible in some way, directly causing injuries or failing to take care of injuries gotten. I think both lack concern for the child. If I came to know my child was injured like this child was and knew I hadn't done that to my child, I would be furious and want to find out who did this to my child.
I do think both know what happened.

habundia said...

Sorry for those immature who feel the need to use my nickname to troll around....but i think you are smart enough to see the difference

Anonymous said...