Have you considered the possibility that both versions are correct? Both certainly are feasible.
2 Likes
I do not know how much, if any, of Jackieās story is true. I do know by failing to check Jackieās story, Rolling Stones and Erdely werenāt protecting her. They were leaving her vulnerable.
.
That was wrong and irresponsible, not just toward the alleged perpetrators, but toward their readers, and toward Jackie herself.
7 Likes
Define ādemonstrated.ā
2 Likes
Time for the victim to come forward, on the record, name names, and for the reporter to question the accused and do some digging into how there could be a discrepancy in their stories. Yāknow, what should have been done the first time. Right now the whole story is about journalistic clusterfuck. Trouble is, the way the story is evolved there will always be a big question mark over what really happened.
And, as another, so do I.
One thing this imbroglio has brought home to me is that most people just donāt read stuff the way lawyers read it. Most people will readily draw inferences not warranted by the facts actually presented, assume that a deliberately narrowly drawn statement is just a clumsily worded broad statement and expect that statements are intended to convey more than they do. Where most people seem to see affirmations or refutations, I see a weasel worded semantic nullities. Where most people seem to think theyāre being led to draw obvious conclusions, I see them being led to make leaps of faith or retreat to their prejudices.
And, at the risk of igniting another shitstorm, my knowledge that Glenn Greenwald is a trial lawyer accounts for most the difference between how I seem to read him and how others do because heās a master of assembling a few facts in a way that invite the reader to draw broad conclusions not actually warranted by the facts mustered and come away believing Greenwald told them something he didnāt, and, in the process, leaving himself clearly delineated lines of āI never said thatā retreat if anyone calls him on it.
2 Likes
Itās crazy, the big giant discrepancies in her story are thisā¦
1, her friends picked her up down the road from where the frat was, not right in front.
2, her friends saw something had happened, wanted her to get medical help, not to let it go. (guess what, they could have said want to get help or want to go home and that could be seen after the fact by a traumatized person in any number of ways)
3, she told them 5 guys, not 7.
4. she said (admitted to) bjās right after the fact, not penetrative sex to her friends. (because telling lurid details right after the fact to a guy friend would in no way be shameful or embarrassing)
5. the guy who looks like the date that set this up says he was a member of a totally different frat and didnāt even know herā¦oh wait, scratch that last part. But he is a member of a different frat.
6. and the biggest was there was no sanctioned party that night, so there would have obviously been no drinking or partying going on at the frat house on that weekend. BTW, they donāt keep official ecords of the parties that far back but the frat says it didnāt happen, so thatās the end of it.
I really wish RS had done a better job, maybe kept much of the personal quotes of Jackie out of it. But the rush to discredit Jackie feels kind of slimy to me, too.
3 Likes
What concerns me is the haste with which we throw up our hands and declare that now weāll never know. Iām not comparing the matters (well, maybe I am), but we have a lot less evidence of assault and a lot more elapsed time with Bill Cosbyās accusers, but his culpability seems to be settled without anyone challenging the details.
For any woman on any campus who has been assaulted after drinking too much, who among them (or us) will get all of the details right upon cross-examination by a thousand media pundits? Havenāt we all seen the experiments in which sober students are suddenly witness to a chaotic incident, and we get a hundred versions of what happened? Are they lying?
Thereās a tendency to believe that if Jackie canāt get all the details right, then sheās making it up. Thatās why trial lawyers get paid a lot of money, but in the real world it doesnāt work that way.
3 Likes
I do have to agree with the Rolling Stoneās editors that this is all their fault. I now trust no one in this, but regardless of how much of the young ladyās story is accurate (and it seems she is damaged somehow), the ability to do the right thing is severely damaged.
The fallout will be: this woman is now being victimized in ways no one should be (anyone care to publish Charles Johnsonās private info?); other cases in the article are tainted by association; more rape vicitms will be scared to come forth; more rape allegations will meet unduly harsh suspicions; right wing wackos will use this to āproveā liberal agendas; feminists and decent fraternities will be viewed more and more suspiciously; the wrong type of fraternities will think they can get away with anything; all of RSās good articles are now targets for suspicions; the reporter will now have anything she writes in doubt.
ā¦and so on.
Nothing good has come of this. Nothing good will come of it. And thatās because RS did not follow simple journalistic practices.
1 Like
RS should have called and asked if a party was held on that night. Easy enough to do. Astoundingly stupid.
Thatās exactly what I came here to say. Thanks for saying it better than I would have.
I would add that RS is really flushing itself and its long-form cred down the toilet by first allowing the article to run as is and then making such ham-handed āapologiesā
2 Likes