albertop, and I, are confused by your post, because you are defending her decision to refuse the 1 million with "righteousness" but must have missed the part of the article where it states she counter offered to settle for 2.7 million.

.. or, 2.7m = righteousness

   I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??

No, you weren't. In the U.S. the primary way to get redress in these kinds of situations is a lawsuit with a concrete financial reward. And to some people, the seeking of a financial reward implies only the desire for the financial reward.

So by that logic: by virtue of seeking redress you're only out for some cold hard cash. And what easier reason is there to decide to not believe a person's claims?