There have been several media references to this case.

The Army is declining to confirm statements by state officials that it is investigating accusations that the head of the Massachusetts National Guard raped a subordinate in Florida nearly 30 years ago.

4 Responses to “Up periscope”

  1. stewie says:

    Man how do you even begin to prove that?

  2. Cap'n Crunch says:

    The same way you do any he said/she said case.  If there are charges, she’ll say he did it.  He will say he did not.  The members will determine the outcome.  Of course, because this is a general officer, he’ll be allowed to resign and maybe lose some rank.

  3. stewie says:

    I think 30 years makes it more than your average he said/she said. Explaining why you waited decades, and why it only came out after you were in trouble will be…just a hairs breadth away from impossible.

  4. Gordon Smith says:

    A layman’s question here (okay,  maybe a couple of questions).
    Why is the Army investigating this case?  The accused is a National Guardsman.  Is the accused actually subject to the UCMJ?  Does his status as a general officer impact on the jurisdictional issues?  Isn’t this an issue for the state to investigate? 
    And I’m also curious about the statute of limitations as it applies to this case. Would a rape committed in the early 1980’s be a potential capital case?  Wouldn’t there be a statute of limitations if the case couldn’t be tried capitally?
    Or is this simply going to be an administrative investigation to determine if the accused gets to  retire as a NG general officer? Is that retirement something the Department of the Army has to approve?