<p>The fraternity and its attorney knew that the Rolling Stone writer was writing this story before it was published. He contacted her and asked that she send him written questions. She never did. An easy way to get both sides of the story and she ignored it.</p>
<p>The fraternity also sat down with the university. Presumably they told the university administrators that the story was, in their view, false. Still the university rushed to judgment and the university president has still not apologized for that. </p>
<p>We still do not really know what the facts are, so we really can’t draw conclusions either way. At least not yet. If it turns out that this particular frat had no involvement whatsoever, then I agree RS has a problem. </p>
<p>At this point there is absolutely no evidence corroborating Jackie’s story. None. If she was raped on broken glass for three hours, does she have scars on her back? That would have been easy enough for the reporter to ask. </p>
<p>There is no evidence that anything at all happened, whether it’s her original story or one of her subsequent stories. </p>
<p>If she is lying, darn sure straight she should be prosecuted!! You cannot just go around slamming people to the national media and destroying reputations, female or male. </p>
<p>Now people are saying that Drew does not exist but is composite - this thing could be one big sham if that is the case. </p>
<p>This is why I said I hope the story is true and she was raped like she said. At least there is something real there. There is no saving grace or anything to be learned from a lie, only destruction and trust lost on multiple levels. </p>
<p>And she cannot be excused because all that does is give permission to others to do the similar hoping that their story is not found out, but they might get some celebrity or something out of it. </p>
<p>As a male, if I do something like this that damages people and destroys lives, I wonder how many people would say if I got savaged by the media that I suffered enough and should not be prosecuted. Hum. I much think that would not happen, and I would be prosecuted. </p>
<p>Talk about defining deviency down for one sex. Wow!! She’s female, so let’s not prosecute her even though she might falsely accusing people of serious crimes and wrecking their lives. So much for equality of the sexes - people are admitting with this logic that females are the weaker sex and libelous behavior should be excused. No, females should be held to the same standards as males. </p>
<p>The rape culture people are losing credibility fast if they are going to defend this crap and not prosecute if she is lying about a rape. Sadly, it would be better now if she were gang raped, as this other stuff is just too messed up.</p>
<p>For the record, I have not a clue what happened here, but someone (Jackie, the reporter, or both) is lying somewhere about the facts and that person should be held accountable of damaging other peoples’ lives if this turns out to be not what it was presented to be. </p>
<p>TatinG wrote: “Still the university rushed to judgment and the university president has still not apologized for that.”</p>
<p>You can’t say that. The University did what it had to do given the outcry over not just the Jackie story part of the article but the other facts that were outlined and not in dispute. </p>
<p>All she did was tell fraternities that they couldn’t have any social events for a few weeks. It isn’t like she kicked them off campus or told them everyone had to move out of the frat houses. </p>
<p>Her defense is easy: PTSD, i.e., diminished capacity (or whatever they call it). </p>
<p>OTOH, Rolling Stone is the one that ‘rolled’ with a highly inflammatory story for which they had one the word of one (perhaps troubled) person. Moreover, RS likely embellished the story; that is not Jackie’s doing.</p>
<p>There is an Andy. The three people who met Jackie after her alleged attack are real. Jackie’s roommate is real and saw a behavior change in Jackie. </p>
<p>Jackie obviously lied somewhere in there about something but it’s probably minor details. We know she offered up at least a few different versions at different times and to different people which really should have been enough to get the reporter busy on confirming if that’s what she wanted to do. She didn’t. Instead she chose to construct the thing in such a way that Jackie isn’t saying most of it, anyway. So, probably she’s not lying about the big stuff. But, her credibility is shot and evidence if it existed is long gone. Andy says nothing helpful if you read it carefully all he says he says is I don’t know.</p>
<p>If it did not actually happen, then PTSD from what? </p>
<p>Mentally unstable sounds more useful if it is actually a fabrication.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the report should have spontaneous notes and recordings to compare to the actual story, so that should come to light, i.e., if the story’s details were embellished. </p>
<p>Good thing that a real investigation is going on now. It will be interesting to see what the actual story is, but it darn sure seems like it is not what was printed.</p>
<p>The type of sex changed, the place changed, the date is unsure, the people involved are unknown. Is there any evidence at all anywhere that anything happened to Jackie? She says she is pre-med. Her medical school application will need glowing letters of recommendation from professors at UVa or from a committee. Good luck with that.</p>
<p>Sounds plausible, but that is the problem; it just sounds plausible. There is also a pretty good chance that it is the other way around - she lied about the big stuff, but some details (the dinner, the guy, some party etc.) are real. Who knows?</p>
<p>Jackie said she did not drink anything that night because she was on migraine meds. I don’t know anything about migraine meds, in terms of whether they can cloud memory or judgment. Perhaps they were a contributor to the evening in some way (?)</p>
<p>Also, the RS article says, or implies, that she passed out and came to at around 3:00 am. The passing out thing was notable to me, because if she wasn’t drinking or drugged, what would reasonably cause her to pass out? Fainting, I assume? When the story changed to oral sex rape, it made me think that such would be impossible while she was passed out(?) So she would have been awake during all of her attacks in that case. Not that anyone said she was raped while passed out, just ruminating about piecing together the facts. </p>
<p>There are 15,000 undergrads at UVA, 55% of whom are women. The one in five statistic means that 1,650 women will be raped at UVA in any given 4-year period. Not all of them who will be, have been raped yet, but sources say most are raped as freshmen and sophomores, so there should be at least say, 1,000 women there who have been raped. Their stories need to be told, as well.</p>
<p>An entire frat and its members were implicated and run out of their house and some of her former friends were put in a bad light as well. People associate them with this, and they got serious blowback. </p>
<p>And there is the problem - there may not be “named” people, but there are people being blamed and harmed nonetheless. That I think is worse. She should have named people instead of doing the anonymous, scatter-shot approach. This is the problem when people say they want justice, but also do not want to defend their charges. That can rarely end good, as it just seems devious. </p>
<p>This “believe me” because the FBI says most accusations are true is pure nonsense if you are the guy, the frat, or the school being lied about.</p>
<p>To be fair, none of these are facts. They are all hearsay from Jackie and the reporter at this point. The only fact I see here is that Jackie does attend UVA.</p>
<p>What the reporter says is hearsay. Jackie’s words are not. She was there. That doesn’t mean we have to find her a reliable witness, but nothing she says about what happened to her is hearsay.</p>