In the complex realm of accusations and legal battles, a recent case involving a blogger’s allegations against a U.S. Army Colonel has left many jaws dropped and people divided over a controversial ruling.
The story centers on Susan Shannon, a 52-year-old blogger from Everett, Washington, whose article made serious accusations against Army Colonel David Will Riggins. The allegations, as published in Shannon’s blog, recount a harrowing incident from 1986 when both she and Riggins were cadets at West Point, the United States Military Academy in New York.
According to Shannon’s disturbing account, she was sexually assaulted by Colonel Riggins during their time at West Point. Her story unfolds with a party in 1986 where Shannon alleges that, after consuming alcohol and becoming intoxicated, she accepted a ride home from Riggins. It was during this ride that, according to her claims, she lost consciousness, and Riggins engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with her unconscious body.
Shannon goes on to reveal that she subsequently dropped out of West Point, while Riggins continued to ascend through the ranks of the Army, ultimately achieving the esteemed rank of Colonel. However, Shannon remained silent about the alleged assault for nearly three decades. Her silence, she claims, was a result of the prevailing code of silence within the Army and the immense pressure from her peers to keep the incident under wraps, even during her exit interview.
It wasn’t until almost thirty years later that Shannon decided to unveil her alleged painful secret to the world. She cites her inspiration as stemming from the high-profile convictions for sexual assaults within the military that were making headlines at the time. Rather than approaching the authorities, Shannon chose to share her story through her blog, “Short Little Rebel,” where she boldly named Colonel Riggins as her assailant.
What adds a layer of complexity to this case is the timing of Shannon’s allegations. Susan Shannon claims that she had no knowledge of Colonel Riggins’ nomination for a significant promotion when she published her blog. She asserts that she was unaware of this development until she was contacted by Army officials investigating her post. As a result of her accusations, Colonel Riggins’ military career, which included combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, was dramatically derailed.
The decorated Colonel, on the brink of being appointed to the rank of Brigadier General, saw his promotion abruptly revoked when Army leaders discovered the rape allegations on Shannon’s blog. Colonel Riggins vehemently denied all the accusations, stating unequivocally that he had not sexually assaulted Susan Shannon. “I did not rape Susan Shannon. I did not sexually assault Susan Shannon. Every aspect of her story is verifiably false,” Riggins told ABC7.
The military launched an investigation into the matter but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue rape charges against Riggins. However, the damage had already been done. The investigation effectively shattered his military career, forcing him into early retirement from the Army.
Determined to reclaim his reputation, Colonel Riggins took legal action against Susan Shannon, suing her for defamation. He asserted that her unfounded claims had cost him his promotion. In a significant ruling, a judge sided with Colonel Riggins, ordering Shannon to pay a total of $8.4 million in damages. This sum included $3 million in compensatory damages for injury to his reputation and lost wages, as well as $5 million in punitive damages aimed at discouraging similar incidents in the future.
However, Shannon remains unsatisfied with the outcome. She expressed her frustration, stating, “I feel like I’m a financial slave for the rest of my life.” In her view, she had told the truth in her article and during the trial. Nevertheless, the jury, comprised of four women and three men, found in favor of Colonel Riggins. They believed that the Colonel’s version of events was more credible than Shannon’s.
A juror explained that they found the case to be relatively straightforward, with no doubt in anyone’s mind regarding the Colonel’s innocence. “Honestly, we thought who was telling the truth was too obvious to be discussing. We held a vote, and everybody believed the Colonel,” the juror noted. Their deliberations largely revolved around the extent of the damages.
Colonel Riggins, while acknowledging the significance of the monetary award, emphasized that what he truly sought was an opportunity to be vindicated and to restore his reputation. “You can’t really put a price tag on what I went through,” he reflected. For him and his family, who endured the years-long ordeal, the legal battle was nothing short of a nightmare.
Tom Clare, a defamation lawyer with experience in similar cases, shed light on the broader implications of such disputes in today’s digital age. He emphasized that reputations have immense value, particularly in an era where a single blog post or tweet can circulate globally and wield considerable influence.
Clare noted, “It can literally go around the world, and if something out there is false, juries are prepared to issue significant awards.” He further underscored the common desire among clients in such cases: “What they really want is a public vindication of the falsity.”
The Susan Shannon vs. Colonel David Will Riggins case serves as a stark reminder of the enduring complexities of defamation claims and the significant consequences they can have. It highlights the importance of seeking the truth through the legal system, where a judge and jury ultimately make the call on matters of reputation, and where the impact of words, especially in the digital realm, is taken seriously.