The story had odd discrepancies and questionable reporting brought up from the get-go, not surprised. Still expecting a full retraction. There was also good coverage of the internal system used by colleges to handle these claims - sadly, this part, which actually should spark a national conversation, will go unnoticed.
The whole ordeal is a shame.
āI would still like to have someone explain to me the necessity of interviewing the fraternity and/or its brothers. What does one think their response would be?ā
For starters, I would imagine, āwe didnāt have a party on this date, and sheās claiming that it was an initiation party, which we can prove are only done in the springā.
Seems relevant.
That was the MOST important part of the story, and youāre right, that wonāt be whatās discussed now.
Oh thank goodness. Now the women on the UVA campus are perfectly safe.
The Inter-Fraternity Council says that thereās no longer a redord of 2012 parties, so as of now thereās no evidence behind the frat housesās convenient assertion that there wasnāt a party that night. And Jackie never said that this man was a member of Phi Psi, just that he appeared attended the party and orchestrated this assault.
So wait a minute, Jackie tells Rolling Stoneās Erdely about her rape, who then writes the story that gets all the attention. Then Jackie tells the WP herself that some of the details in the RS article are wrong before RS says anything and that she felt manipulated by Erdely. Then RS comes out and says āthere now appear to be discrepancies in Jackieās account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplacedā thus blaming Jackie only for any discrepancies.
So either Jackie made up the whole thing (possible), or a girl who got raped by someone and is fuzzy on the details (plausible and understandable) and had her story embellished by a overzealous reporter is about to get raped twice, this time by Rolling Stone.
nutshell
Absolutely a possibility
The TPM quote from the Post:
āThe friends determined that the student that Jackie had named was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi and that other details about his background did not match up with information Jackie had disclosed earlier about her perpetrator.ā
So there are further discrepancies than one of the accused not being a member of the frat. And convenient or not, all youāve just said is that so far thereās no evidence to contradicts the fratās assertion that it didnāt have a party that night.
You donāt seem to understand, when people or news organizations accuse people of heinous acts, the burden is on the accuser to prove the case, not on the accused to prove their innocence. How can the frat prove it DIDNāT have a party that night, for peteās sake?
[quote=āEpicurus, post:14, topic:14009ā]
They would have simply denied any accusations and insisted that the woman had made up her story. To what end?? The thrill of being outed as a victim in a national publication? Please. The only possible motivation, other than fame-seeking, would have been to make some money.[/quote]
Ever heard of MĆ¼nchausen syndrome? I suspect weāre all going to hear a lot more about it in the next few weeks.
What are you talking about? The woman from the Rolling Stone article (āJackieā) never claimed that anyone drugged her. The fact that you donāt know even that basic fact about the story makes me wonder whether you even read the article at all.
Guys, having spent the week defending her and the story, I have impaired credibility, but this is coming off to me a lot more like the Bush National Guard thing where the truth or falsity of the underlying story gets buried by an inquisition over the integrity of the reporting.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This was not a story of some roofie or alcohol fueled assault ā those are unfortunately common. This was supposedly a sober and premeditated āFrat initiation gang rapeā. Many people considered it a remarkable claim, which would require more careful vetting.
Another aspect was how Jackie appeared to work the reporter. If the reporter asked too many questions or wanted the names of people to talk to, is seems that Jackie would cut her off and stop cooperating. Sounds like she wanted to tell her story, but didnt want her story checked out. This is at least the opinion of Hanna Rosin.
Iād be curious what the post mortem is on this one. Was there any truth to the story? Was it a hoax, or a mere embellishment?
Look, Iām not going to say I have a clue what really happened or whatever, but thereās no reason to believe sheās telling the truth. Look, some people fake trauma to get attention. This wouldnāt be the first time. I mean, Munchausen Syndrome is a well documented issue of people pretending to have sick relatives or terminal illnesses to get attention. Theyāre not trying to be evil or doing it for money, they just like being part of support groups and getting sympathy. I once knew a girl who got kicked out of an AA-type group, once they realized she didnāt really have a drinking problem and was only using them as group therapy. (Seriously)
So the idea that being diagnosed with PTSD and claiming to think about suicide doesnāt mean anything. Thatās exactly what sheād be saying if she were just an attention seeker. Again, Iām not saying thatās the case. Iām just saying we donāt know anything and much of her story doesnāt make sense. The fact that she wouldnāt let Rolling Stone talk to the accused was bad enough, but her wanting them to cut her story looks even worse. Maybe something happened, but we donāt know if it did.
Hereās something to think aboutā¦shes a operative from the gop or some campus conservative group and she made this all up just to hurt future rape victims. You know, as a way to make it even harder for women who are raped to come forward. In todays gop it very plausible.
If a frat claimed it didnāt have a party of some kind going on a September weekend, Iād call *that *an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.
Actually, if weāre making Bush comparisons it reminds me more of the cherry-picked intelligence used to justify invading Iraq. The RS reporter only spoke to sources who could support āJackieāsā side of the story - friends, other rape victims, victim advocates, etc.
Oh FFS. Because there wasnāt enough footless speculation already.
You mean āgantlet,ā not āgauntlet.ā A gauntlet is a heavy glove, usually of fabric, worn by horsemen. A gantlet was an ordeal used by the Iroquois tribe, in which defeated foes would run between two lines of men with clubs, who would try to beat them down. If they got to the end of the gantlet, they were allowed to survive.
Well, now, letās see. The University admits that the woman complained some months after the assault. The University does not suggest that her complaint was not credible, or that it was disproved. Based on the Rolling Stone story, the University suspended fraternities and sororities. Would it have done that if it felt that the womanās story was untrue.
There are discrepancies in the story? Imagine that! Ask two people who about the dinner that they had last night and youāll get two different stories. Ask them again tomorrow and youāll get two more stories. Thatās the way it is with memory. When there arenāt any discrepancies, thatās the time to worry about truth.
And itās very easy for me to believe bad behavior of UVa fraternities. Someone I knew at a sister womanās college to my own was invited to a Christmas party held by a fraternity at UVa. (This was nearly 40 years ago.) When she arrived there, she discovered that the guys had decorated their Christmas tree with tampons. Thatās how much class some of these creeps had then, and I canāt imagine that the situation has much improved.
It wasnāt too hard for me to believe that things since then might have escalated from hanging tampons on the Christmas tree to gang rape. And to find out that someone might have made the whole thing up greatly angers me, because, as you say, it makes it just that much harder for actual victims to have their stories believed.