<p>I’ve been following this thread for quite some time and it’s been interesting to see how the pendulum has swung concerning the comments. After reading the article I was curious what it’s purpose was. They were telling us that an extremely heinous crime had been committed but not reported for sometime after the incident due to peer pressure. They also indicated that the school was investigating and sort of intimated that some kind of injustice was in the making. Most likely RS was interested in the sensationalism the article created. It would inspire those for whom the “rape culture” is a cause but do nothing really for the true victims of rape. I think this story has yet to be completely told. Rape is an interesting crime in that it is one that seems to have no statute of limitations at least in the public eye (witness Mr. Cosby). Most other crimes would be reported much more expediently. You wouldn’t wait years to accuse someone of robbing you, breaking and entering, assaulting you if it were just plain assault (with the exception of domestic violence). I believe one positive step to prevent rape would be to encourage women to step forward quickly after being assaulted. Facts are much more easily discerned and the magnitude of the alleged crime could be more quickly determined. If rapists felt that their crimes would result in an immediate accusation I believe the impact on their behavior would be greater. It would also be easier to determine if a pattern was developing both with the accused and the accuser. Rape is a serious CRIME. Men do not believe it is OK to rape. A few men are rapists and encourage others to do so. The problem is to stop rape not to condemn all men.</p>
<p>But we still have “partial information” and people now seem to be jumping to conclusions in the opposite direction. I think it is plausible that her date that evening did not belong to that particular fraternity. But perhaps he brought her there? I just hope that the facts do come out and that the discrepancies are not used as a reason to sweep this one under the rug.</p>
<p>Since right now the author is everyone’s designated bad guy, it’s worth reading this background piece about her. She is far more experienced than I thought, and has a lot of people vouching for her professionalism: <a href=“Phila. writer at center of controversy over rape article”>Phila. writer at center of controversy over rape article; </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just think about what this statement says - that is OK to try and destroy people with half-truths and “partial information,” but because something in the allegations is true that makes it acceptable. In short, young women are being trained to essentially be partial truth tellers if it advances an agenda. Great way to lose credibility completely, as people will catch on to it and scrutinize these allegations even closer. </p>
<p>There is a sad pattern here because this is the second rape story this week that is falling apart re details. Lena Dunham’s allegation about being raped by a republican at Oberlin is shot to full of holes too. Just like with Jackie, they cannot find the guy, the place, and the events, with the end result being not much of the anything matches up correctly. Eerily similar MO.</p>
<p>What an absolutely horrible example / precedent to set for females - it is OK to spread rape allegations if only parts are true, even though the allegation damages tons of people who turn out to be innocent. Wow - we are turning into a nation of losers that just makes stuff up to advance a rape culture agenda. </p>
<p>Until adult females who advocate this partial truth telling nonsense realize that they are making these younger females look like untrustworthy storytellers, this agenda will not be taken seriously by the public, as many allegations are now going to be suspect, as embellished and not fully credible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you not just making stuff up to too in order to fit the narrative you want to believe? </p>
<p>If this is what is being taught to young females, I am not surprised if Jackie and the journalist found it acceptable to make stuff up to fit what they thought would sound better as a narrative or make the story fit together better.</p>
<p>The only thing I can say with these allegations is stuff does not add up all over the place. This simply means someone is not telling the truth somewhere, yet wants to destroy people and get justice with the story. Sorry, partial truth is not acceptable at all when people can be put in jails and possibly innocent frat houses and members are destroyed and threatened. </p>
<p>Of course, Jackie may have been raped, but this is not the way to go about getting any sort of justice with a partial information, partial truth, scorched earth strategy. No one will take you seriously after starting that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>May I point out that a lot of professional women on this thread are advocating that truth is incidental and partial information is OK to go after people with. Because of CC threads such as this one, I have reached the point where I no longer take the degrees, professionalism and experience of the person, as an indicator of what standards s/he brings to the table.</p>
<p>Lack of experience is not her problem, her problem is lack of interest in fact-checking. And, she’s very much a cause-driven writer if you look at her past stories. People are doing that right now so I think she’s probably cooked. Also, she was an early defender and interestingly classmate of the last high profile journalistic fraud Stephen Glass. </p>
<p>Perhaps Jackie believed he was a member of that frat. The problem is that for whatever reason RS did not do their due diligence before going to print.</p>
<p><a href=“http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-05/uva-gang-rape-allegations-face-long-divisive-legal-path.html”>http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-05/uva-gang-rape-allegations-face-long-divisive-legal-path.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the journalist is probably a “good journalist” but if you are going to write advocacy pieces then be clear that is what you are doing. She framed this story by saying she was “looking” for stories that would substantiate the allegations that we have a rape culture on campuses and then found someone with an unbelievable story and the writer framed it as if it was fact…without the fact checking. This is half the problem today. Real stories get obscured by the absence of the actual facts. Writers cherry pick stories, accusers eliminate pieces of the story that weaken their allegations, rape advocates eliminate pieces of the story and bolster victims to “tell-all - or at least most of all” for fear of weakening the victims argument and the masses come away feeling like they’ve been “had” which makes them even more suspect the next time the story comes out. There is a reason police are suspect. If people would just start telling the truth we’d probably be in a better place. </p>
<p>I think she has a solid reputation but I do think “good journalism” involves diligent fact checking. I am hoping we get more facts and that this whole thing is just not dropped. Appears that Jackie has retained counsel but they have been surprisingly quiet.</p>
<p>Since both Jackie and Drew have been identified, it should be pretty easy for her to ID him in a line-up, and then take the case from there. I imagine Drew would be more than happy to rat on all 8 of the other perpetrators in exchange for immunity. This will require Jackie’s cooperation, however.</p>
<p>I am really getting annoyed by people who have causes making up stories to support their cause. Recently a young lady posed drunk and taped a video of young propositioning her to go home with them. It ended up they were paid actors. A year or two ago there was a big scandal at Oberlin because of racist graffiti. Later we found out it was put up by people wanting to make a point about racism not anyone who was actually racist. The problem is that it hurts the causes these people are championing and makes it less likely that women who are assaulted on campus will be believed or those that are victims of racism will see attitudes change. Jackie may have actually experienced some kind of assault but it’s being over shadowed by the fact that regardless of the truth we’ve been lied to. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure that the author is anything more than just a freelance writer (Penn undergrad, according to her bio), not a trained journalism major. (Not that trained journalists don’t have an agenda and will fabricate stuff to get out their pov …)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is ALL on Rolling Stone and their so-called editors who, for whatever reason, choose to run a story whether it is fact-checked or not.</p>
<p>There is no drew. Most likely drew is a composite character but there’s no frat boy/lifeguard identified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the American public is sick and tired of the media publishing half-truths and slanted “news,” so a lawsuit against RS in this case would be a welcome, timely, and ironically, advocacy piece.</p>
<p>"A student identified as “Andy” in the Rolling Stone article said in an interview with The Post Friday night that Jackie did call him and two other friends for help a few weeks into the fall semester in 2012.</p>
<p>“Andy” said Jackie said she had been at a fraternity party and had been forced to perform oral sex on a group of men, but he does not remember her identifying a specific house. He said he did not notice any injuries or blood but said the group offered to get her help. She, instead, wanted to return to her dorm, and he and the friends spent the night with her to comfort her at her request."</p>
<p>Yes, that is an interesting witness. Are they the ones that she claimed prevented her from reporting it because of “peer pressure?” And I wonder what kind of “comforting” they provided when they spent the night with her. Were they all men? I feel that there could be a real story here somewhere, though nothing like the getting gang raped by eight fraternity brothers.</p>
<p>“What an absolutely horrible example / precedent to set for females - it is OK to spread rape allegations if only parts are true, even though the allegation damages tons of people who turn out to be innocent.”</p>
<p>First, that is a blatantly sexist comment.</p>
<p>Second, that is really not what was said. That is what you want it to say so you can write this response. Talk about spreading half truths. Sheesh.</p>
<p>Third, you don’t seem upset about all the men who lie to avoid prosecution. Why doesn’t that bother you?</p>
<p>“Wow - we are turning into a nation of losers that just makes stuff up to advance a rape culture agenda.”</p>
<p>Fourth, that “nation of losers” comment really hurts. I don’t know how posters will ever recover. sarcasm / eye roll </p>
<p>Fifth, most of the people posting have actually been thoughtful and responsible. I haven’t heard anyone advocate making anything up to advance an agenda, as you suggest. The person misrepresenting what was said to advance their own agenda is you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a reason police are suspect. If people would just start telling the truth we’d probably be in a better place.
[/quote ]
</p>
<p>92 percent of women tell the truth according to the fbi. Sometimes the accused lie.</p>
<p>How many accusations are necessary? The three different women are lying?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/29/its-hard-to-ignore-a-woman-toting-a-mattress-everywhere-she-goes-which-is-why-emma-sulkowicz-is-still-doing-it/”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/29/its-hard-to-ignore-a-woman-toting-a-mattress-everywhere-she-goes-which-is-why-emma-sulkowicz-is-still-doing-it/</a></p>
<h1>875 - The Washington Post article is still stating that Drew says he never met Jackie but knows who she is.</h1>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/06/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story/?hpid=z2”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/06/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story/?hpid=z2</a></p>
<p>This is a thorough discussion by an attorney in libel law at UCLA on the likelihood of a defamation lawsuit prevailing. The short answer is yes, it could. The fraternity house itself and the alleged attacker who was in her small anthropology class.</p>
<p>I also learned reading the comments that Virginia has a criminal libel statute. Jackie could be prosecuted for a Class 3 misdemeanor for knowingly transmitting to Rolling Stone a story she knew to be false. </p>
<p>We want to prosecute Jackie? Really?</p>
<p>You don’t think Jackie is suffering enough?
How can “Drew” sue Jackie?</p>
<p>
</p>