<p>I thought the same thing that you did Pizzagirl. But then I went back and read the article again, the Wapo said they were provided with the text messages. Not sure how they would have gotten text messages that old but if I read it correctly I think that is what the article stated. </p>
<p>“The other WashPost story seems weird, too. Who starts texting with their suitemate’s date who you’ve not met yet? I don’t believe those roommates - that’s odd.”</p>
<p>They weren’t roommates , it was the three people who she mentioned in the article as her friends whom she called to come to her aid the night in question: “Randall”, “Andy” and “Cindy”. “Randall” and “Andy” were interviewed on CBS This Morning. </p>
<p>“The irony of offering something that is complete speculation on your part when you are criticizing an article for offering speculation!”</p>
<p>I am not criticizing an article for offering speculation. I am criticizing an article for pretending that it was a factual piece of investigative journalism when it was nothing of the kind. There was not one word in that story that should have been speculation. It was at BEST a story based in fact that has been aggregiously mistold. At worst, it was complete fiction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One thing I have noticed with much of this is people are projecting their lives onto the college kids, and the college kids lives are vastly different.</p>
<p>The answer of whom texts a potential friend’s dad without ever meeting them is the very same people who met people on line, text for a couple weeks and then finally meet for a date. </p>
<p>I know someone well who met a female, texted with, email online for weeks before he met her. I bet you al young people know someone like this. </p>
<p>And the to answer your question of which kind of friends text a potential friend’s date - me. I had never met the female, but happened to be flying into where she lived for dinner and out on a whim I told my buddy I would invite her and "check’ her out for him. I emailed her and she accepted the offer (it was great restaurant, hard to turn down) and I had dinner with her and my wife. Therefore, I am proof that people do what you say they do not. And that was in 1995. I cannot imagine how much more normal that is now. </p>
<p>And again, here is the problem with trial by media and people just guessing - you do realize that it is stupid to lie about texting, emails right? Those records never go away!! </p>
<p>Investigators, if they read that article, already know if the friends are lying or not. I am also sure that tech savvy kids are also aware that lying about texts, emails and internet activity are no-no’s, as you cannot hide those from investigators.</p>
<p>If a proper investigation were done ahead of time BEFORE talking to the media, none of this speculation would be going on, as so much of this info is so easy to find out for investigators. It would take one week tops to put this stuff together. This is why I am very suspicious after two weeks the authorities have said nothing publicly because they know already most of this stuff. They are protecting someone or something. </p>
<p>"Interestingly, she also told an interviewer that she had a very strong BS detector. Yeah, me too. " </p>
<p>Very funny, marie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. But the solution is really simple: don’t name/libel/defame a specific house. Of course the story would’ve been a lot weaker. Or perhaps, the author guessed at a frat name. If so, RS should be writing checks as fast as they can for a full release.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because pretty much every “fact” that is stated in the story is now in question. But either the so-called facts were divulged by Jackie to the author and/or the author (ahem) embellished them. But there its really hard to see a “benefit of doubt” when so many “facts” are in dispute. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Welcome to the world of millenials! (they could’ve easily “met” on social media.)</p>
<p>Regarding benefit of the doubt, I would guess that RS knew that the girl had been talking to people in college administration or that the college was aware of this girl since the incident happened a couple years ago and because an advocate had suggested the girl. RS probably felt that her story had already been “vetted” by those that supposedly knew what happened.</p>
<p>Here is a link to anyone who would like to listen to CBS’s interview with Jackies friends</p>
<p><a href=“Live news stream: Watch CBS News Live – free 24/7 online streaming news from CBS News - Free 24x7 news stream”>Live news stream: Watch CBS News Live – free 24/7 online streaming news from CBS News - Free 24x7 news stream;
<p>
</p>
<p>And how would the author even know that? (Obviously, the author did no fact-checking. But, more importantly, privacy laws preclude the college from even admitting that they ever met with Jackie.)</p>
<p>This story is now half Manti Teo’s girlfriend and the other half Gone Girl. Crazy stuff. Here’s what I’ve learned:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>College rape is a serious problem. But it is not the crazy epidemic that some advocates and the DOE/DOJ purport. Turns out that young women not in college get attacked at higher rates than college women. I did not know that.</p></li>
<li><p>The Feds have WAY WAY over-reached on this issue, putting the colleges in an untenable position. Providing student loans and research money to colleges does not justify a federal take-over of matters properly left to local law enforcement and internal college disciplinary proceedings. The Feds need to butt out. </p></li>
<li><p>The states also need to butt out in their laughable efforts to define/regulate assault and sex. Based on some of those definitions, I’ve probably been raping my long-suffering wife for years. Among other things, I need to stop letting her have a few drinks at dinner if I want to get her loud affirmative unimpaired consent when we get home. Bummer for me, since whiskey does tend to make her a bit frisky. </p></li>
<li><p>Colleges should not be required to operate a parallel criminal justice system to adjudicate rape. This effort is doomed to failure. Rape should be left exclusively to the pros. Colleges should limit themselves to less serious punishments and less serious offenses that their internal disciplinary boards can handle appropriately and fairly. Due process is not optional. As the seriousness of the offense/punishment go up, so does the due process standard (burden of proof, furnishing counsel, cross-examination, independent/professional judges and appeals, discovery, etc. etc. etc.).</p></li>
<li><p>Colleges, frats, parents etc. can do a lot in the areas in terms of education, awareness, prevention. Hannah Graham was not a hoax.</p></li>
<li><p>The drinking age needs to be lowered.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This latest Washington Post story reveals all the lies she told to her friends BEFORE September 28, 2012. (I don’t want to say alleged attack or even alleged incident, because it’s looking like a complete fabricated hoax.)</p>
<p>She made up names, conversations and faked photos before Sept. 28. So all the speculation about trauma and PTSD making her recollections unreliable are bunk. </p>
<p>My view of her not leaving her room and not attending classes,that semester could be due to a number of things: Unrequited love for “Randall”, falling grades and the realization that she told a whopper to her friends the night of Sept. 28. </p>
<p>So now she’s failing at a school where she didn’t want to enroll. She has few friends. But when she is called into the academic office to talk about failing three classes with her mother in tow, she finds that she gets sympathy with the rape story. Then she finds a group of women who sympathize with her and befriend her because of her horrific story. So the lie is validated and helps her both with the university and socially. So the lie continues. Rolling Stone finds her and the lie is believed without any fact checking. But then bloggers and the Washington Post actually contact witnesses and do some fact checking and the whole thing unravels completely. </p>
<p>So what should happen to Jackie? She is a liar. Nothing happened on Sept. 28. She cannot show PTSD or traumatic memory blockage or any other excuse. I think she should be expelled. But my best guess is that before the next semester begins she will withdraw from U Va. Her name and photo are out there. She really can’t show her face on Grounds anymore.</p>
<p>And yet, whatever Jackie’s confabulations were and are, the fact remains that UVa throws students out for plagiarizing every year, but they haven’t thrown out someone for rape in over ten years. Why is rape not an honor violation?</p>
<p>What do you win TatinG if Jackie lied?</p>
<p>Nothing.</p>
<p>I was having trouble accessing the video from today’s CBS This Morning show from Mamalumper’s link. But, from their You Tube account, this appears to be the segment:</p>
<p><a href=“UVA students in Rolling Stone's alleged rape article tell different stories - YouTube”>UVA students in Rolling Stone's alleged rape article tell different stories - YouTube;
<p>
</p>
<p>Way back up thread, I tried to address that fact/question. </p>
<p>UVa’s honor code is student run (based on a long tradition); its the Honor Board that addresses cheating.</p>
<p>Not sure the feds/DoE would appreciate undergraduate-run tribunals for cases of rape. (Now that doesn’t mean that the College Administration should not be doing something about assault, but conflating the number of honor code violations with punishments of criminal behavior doesn’t make sense to me.)</p>
<p>Wow and we have those on this board taking issue with the shoddy reporting of Sabrina Erdley and skewering Jackie for tarnishing the reputation of a fraternity. Let me remind you that this is a very public message board - this thread alone has over 54.3K views. Is post #2229 based on established and vetted facts as so many here have called for, or is it just someone’s own view of things based on unsubstantiated and conflicting press reports? Really, talk about tarnishing someones reputation. </p>
<p>Win? I think it’s a lesson to the college students and to all readers to look at all news stories critically. It’s a lesson to universities not to overreact to such news stories. The public relies on its journalists to be accurate, thorough and fair. They provide the information on which laws and public opinion are made. They have the power to demonize groups, in this case fraternities. And despite the many holes in the story most people initially were completely taken in by the story and then called the doubters misogynists or rape deniers. Perhaps in the future readers won’t be so gullible. </p>
<p>This whole brouhaha also shows that accusations have to be fully and fairly investigated before any institutional action is taken. People do lie. And lie so well that even those with supposed BS detectors are taken in.</p>
<p>And perhaps before getting up on a public forum and calling a rape victim a “liar” you should give some thought to what is “accurate, thorough and fair.”</p>
<p>TatinG, Yeah…like when you posted links stating 100,000 people are going to sign up for ACA in 2014, right? The links were bs. Right? The Manhattan Institute writer lied about Stanford, right? </p>
<p>I notice you never answered these questions. </p>
<p>There is no need to trash this girl.</p>
<p>Your post #2229 was grotesque. </p>
<p>" And despite the many holes in the story most people initially were completely taken in by the story."</p>
<p>This part is interesting because my BS detector was dinging very loudly after the opening scene. So, was my college daughter’s but it may be inherited, I guess. The distinction people are missing is who exactly is lying. I’m going with the sensationalistic author who was gunning for a Pulitzer Prize and failed badly. For her, Jackie’s collateral damage,nothing more and that’s the real shame in this mess.</p>
<p>I hardly think that post #2229 is alone in this. The HEADLINE on Slate right now:</p>
<p>“The Washington Post Inches Closer to Calling the UVA Gang Rape Story a Fabrication” and that’s from the"XXfactor" which is their feminist column. </p>
<p><a href=“Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely: The Washington Post inches closer to calling the UVA gang rape story a fabrication.”>http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/10/rolling_stone_sabrina_rubin_erdely_the_washington_post_inches_closer_to.html</a></p>
<p>@northwesty - Wonderful post. Agree with every word.</p>