Can somebody explain the logic of this ruling? The judge does not believe that she actually thought at the time that what she was doing was wrong? So therefore she has to plead innocent even though she NOW believes she is guilty? And after practically everybody thinks she was following the lead of somebody already convicted and sentenced, does that make HER innocent for playing along with her lover? Or does it make her guilty by association, in which case why are they making HER plead innocent? Is this "law" or is it "The Military" way of reasoning?
