Discussion for article #230913
Good for her, standing up for her friend. They need a little more of that and a little less of their “cavalier” attitude about sexual assault.
11 Likes
There’s something troubling about the “unraveling”: it’s not clear whether the Post and Rolling Stone are saying they believe Jackie was never raped, or whether they have found some details in her story that may not be accurate – the date, for example, or whether the perps belonged to a particular fraternity.
In my view there’s a huge difference, but that difference is being blurred – deliberately I think.
13 Likes
Very deliberately. And, at the risk of repeating myself, it’s the same way the rather solid evidence that Bush blew off his National Guard commitment in a way that met the definition of “desertion” got buried by one guy who created false documents.
12 Likes
Big news organizations hate being scooped. Look what the LA Times did to Gary Webb.
2 Likes
Be honest. This entire farce is becoming another Duke University “non-rape”.
How can one support the alleged victim when the fraternity demonstrated that her claims are false and could not have happened according to her story?
This “rape victim” has painted herself into a corner and cannot change colors at this point.
1 Like
No. There are other victims in the story, the accused went to the UVA “trials” and were convicted…to a wrist slap because they apologized and were sorry. That was the biggest outrage and the victims were not allowed to talk about it afterward because of the rules. That is not in dispute and that is crazy.
Jackie may or may not be telling the whole truth, that doesn’t diminish the rest of the story. (NCSteve’s comment about Nat’l Guard seems on point).
Also it’s weird that after RS apologized the first time, they backtracked and said it wasn’t Jackie’s fault. WTF?
4 Likes
This is evidence of the victim’s depression and withdrawal and therefore a step forward. But the comments are hearsay and don’t add anything to the conversation. Hopefully, the ongoing investigations will provide further insights. I am reserving judgment until then.
Unless one of the actual rapists comes forward and says he did it, if you are doubting the story of the victim, then by definition every other statement is hearsay. No one but the guilty were actually there with the victim, so hearsay is what we have. Don’t toss it out because of some misguided legal mumbo jumbo.
3 Likes
Because they issued (I think the second) apology basically blaming Jackie which they took a lot of heat for possibly blaming the victim. The third apology said it wasn’t Jackie’s fault
2 Likes
I agree, but still can’t believe how unprofessionally the whole thing was handled and that now allows an important story to be dismissed.
1 Like
Oh look, another conservative sockpuppet who showed up just to post conservative talking points about this issue. Speaking of socks, are you fapping into one right now while watching rape porn and memorizing the conservative misogynist slut-shaming talking points?
2 Likes
That’s not how it works. There’s not a media conspiracy to besmirch a rape victim. In stories such as these, all you can do is try to establish what you know and what you don’t.
The initial RS story quoted an essentially unnamed source accusing several men of a heinous crime. Now some of the details of that story look shaky. What should the media do? Ignore the fact that some details are shaky? Write a story that says, “These details don’t quite hold up, but we still believe that these guys are rapists?”
The media are being agnostic about the overall truth of the story because they don’t know.
3 Likes
Because Rolling Stone and the Washington Post are part of a conspiracy to prevent victims of sexual assault from receiving justice? So far the “details” that can’t be confirmed include the date, the place, and the people involved. Not exactly inconsequential details.
3 Likes
Boo to Rolling Stone for folding like a $2 lawn chair. The whole letter from the national fraternity which was apparently the basis of RS’s retreat reads to me (a non-frat-boy lawyer) like just so much carefully worded BS written by a frat-boy lawyer. Gawker did a good job of dismantling much of the “evidence” here, http://gawker.com/that-uva-frat-letter-denying-rape-is-bullshit-and-heres-1667421511 by pointing out, for instance, that saying “we have no knowledge of these alleged acts” means absolutely nothing, since the only people who have actual knowledge of the event were in the room raping the freshman. Likewise, the letter’s statement that the frat “did not have a date function or social event during the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012” could simply mean that this was not a formal, nationally sanctioned event, that it took place on a Thursday, or that the victim simply remembered the wrong weekend. Finally, and most importantly, why the fuck would anyone believe a single word that these scumbags say, anyway?
This whole fake backlash thing stinks of money and PR muddying the water with threats of litigation and nit-picking of facts.
6 Likes
Over at Jezebel they show that in the WP takedown they’ve removed the claim that the accused never met Jackie. It’s just gone. I guess they can fact check after the fact, too, but the damage is already done. http://jezebel.com/the-uva-mess-is-now-a-full-fledged-shitstorm-1668191002
5 Likes
Right on! As a trial lawyer, I agree with your analysis.
5 Likes
By not better investigating the facts surrounding claims on her own and basing a high profile article solely on the alleged victim’s recollections in a case where no physical evidence was collected, Erdley unfortunately invited exactly this kind of firestorm. These are incredibly serious allegations. To be honest, I found fraternities while I was in college to be obnoxious and generally worthless organizations, but they do still have due process rights, and they were clearly being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. If Erdley had practiced some more basic journalism she could have shielded Jackie from some of this blowback. It’s journalistic malpractice that harms so many women by making the horrific process of coming forward after a sexual assault even harder.
4 Likes
Mr. Jefferson would be pissed.
The problem is, the story (or stories) all come from “Jackie.”
And with at least two very different stories apparently having been told by the same person (one involving forced oral sex, the other involving gang rape on a broken glass table top and insertion, at one point, of a beer bottle), it’s now impossible to say which story is true, or if either story is true.
Her friend is convinced something happened. Alright, I’ll accept that as given. But what? And if “Jackie” produces yet a third story, which is to be believed, and why? Or is the friend lying about the oral sex story? If so, does that makes “Jackie’s” story about the violent rape on the broken glass and with the beer bottle, now true? No, it doesn’t. We’re still stuck with accepting Jackie’s story, or saying we don’t know what happened, or rejecting Jackie’s story (or stories) altogether.
I stand resolutely in the middle: we don’t know what happened. If something terrible did happen, likely as not, we’ll never now know what it was.
3 Likes