<p>The critical point is that Jackie’s friend said she had a major change in personality after that night. That would lead one to believe that something horrible did happen to her that night, as opposed to an ongoing pre-existing mental illness. </p>
<p>I do believe that something happened to Jackie and have said that before. But hard to tell which came first the chicken or the egg. People with mental health issues are far more vulnerable ( I’ve heard two and a half times more likely) to being victimized, she may have been emotionally shaky before whatever happened and this sent her over the edge. </p>
<p>The roommate said Jackie was a happy girl when she started at the school.</p>
<p>The advocates who directed the former so-called investigative reporter to her in the first place also have some explaining to do. Good job girls. (sarcasm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to take a distinction here, as not to get caught in gross generalizations. </p>
<p>It is not that anyone should doubt a female who comes an accuses someone of rape. As with any other alleged crime reported, the accusation should be taken on its face. However, the accusation must be corroborated and an overview investigation takes place to assure that details match up before charges are filed on the accused, again, just as for any other crime that is reported. </p>
<p>The issue here is that the claim that having to fully back up one’s accusation with police or other is now considered offensive and that accuser gets to pick and choose what questions they deem offensive and what questions are necessary to answer are what is just simply asinine. No one can accuse someone of ANY serious crime and then think that the judicial system should be silly enough to allow you to pick and choose what you think is appropriate to answer in order to corroborate your claim. People can recognize when others are playing a shell game, and the reactions usually is to punch back hard because shell games are, for all purposes, disingenuous. </p>
<p>As the facts stand now, the only known victims are the members of Phi Psi, who were wrongly accused. </p>
<p>I don’t think this is the end of the story. The woman who linked Erdeley to Jackie, Emily Renda, works as a special intern in Teresa Sullivan’s office. Sullivan is the president of UVa. I think more will be coming out as to how this whole mess came about. </p>
<p>awcntdb - it’s not that the accuser/victim should be allowed to “pick and choose what questions they deem offensive”, it’s that the investigators should not be stupid enough and heartless enough and incompetent enough to ask ridiculous questions regarding say, whether or not anal sex is possible without lube. That is a complete failure of professionalism. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is this grasping at straws approach that weakens the entire advocate’s cause when people with logical thinking skills read such posts.</p>
<p>Let’s see - a young female was acting happy when she started school is somehow proof that she was raped, could have been raped, probably was assaulted etc.? No, it is proof that something not good happened in her life during some period of time. And that something could be ANYTHING, even something not having to do with UVA at all and possibly before attending UVA. </p>
<p>It should also be noted that an unstable person’s disposition is not indicative of how he is actually feeling, as he is good at hiding things. That is why they are called unstable; their disposition is out of whack with reality. So her perceived happiness at the start of school may not have represented happiness at all. But, let me guess, it would offensive to investigate and see if she had similar issues in high school right? See the shell game problem here. Things that should be known to understand things are deemed offensive to find out. </p>
<p>And I lived this personally in college. One of my best friends from college committed suicide in 2009. He was very famous and pretty much everyone knows who is his. Guess what, he was the happiest person to be around, but only those of us who know him were privy to his intense depression. His close friends did what we could during and after college when he had his episodes. Unfortunately, it reached a head in his 40s and he ended his life. But even up to the day he died, friends who were over at the house lamented at how happy he was. So it kind of falls on deaf ears here that outward displays of happiness is somehow proof that a person actually in such state. If close friends of 30+ plus years cannot tell, darn sure a roommate of a few months does not know squat of what is really up. Been there, seen that.</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys, what does it take for you to believe a woman? Did you read about the Columbia case? Three different women complained about the same guy. The hearings were kangaroo courts. </p>
<p>I have a friend and her initial impression was Jackie was a liar. We talked and I saud the fbi has said 92 percent of the woman are telling the truth. She said 8 percent not necessarily telling the truth is too high. She said, “I am the mom of 3 boys.” (She also has a daughter). </p>
<p>My daughter was assaulted on Market St in SF. There were a lot of people around. Some stranger guy came up to her. Started screaming at her. She tried to ignore him. So he spat all over her. My daughter said she never knew a person had so much spit in him. She was drenched. She did not go to the police. Sorry. She did not go to the police. She was supposed to go to work. Instead she immediately went home and took the longest shower of her life. She did not want any tiny speck of spit on her. The evidence went down the drain. She is not lying. ;)</p>
<p>No. There won’t be a conviction. My daughter is ok. Took a couple of days before she started feeling better. I don’t remember how long it took for her to call us. It wasn’t immediately. </p>
<p>
When is sometime? October? November? Obviously it wasn’t December because by that time Jackie already broke down over the alleged rape. I wish Emily gave more insight why she thought it was best not to do anything despite the fact that her friend said a group of men assaulted her.</p>
<p>Like I said and from what I’ve learned here, with the new definition of sexual assault–invasion of personal space–I’ve been sexually assaulted since 8. Ok. 8-| </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks. You are proving my point.</p>
<p>Let’s say that question were asked in some investigation, as you state. Given the fact you have not a clue what the accuser is saying the accused allegedly did to her, then you have not a clue if that question is ridiculous and inappropriate, as it might be very relevant.</p>
<p>Again, someone who accuses someone of a serious crime does not get to pick and choose what they think are relevant facts to the case and what is ridiculous to ask etc. And that goes especially so for bystanders on the outside who have no clue about anything that occurred.</p>
<p>The major change in personality could be attributed to any number of scenarios. For instance: Girl is a high achiever in high school. Has plans on being pre-med. Wants to go to Brown. Parents can’t afford it. So she goes to UVa, a place she doesn’t want to be and hasn’t even visited before enrolling. College is more difficult than high school. She starts doing poorly in her classes and becomes depressed. She is so despondent that she doesn’t go to class any longer and her grades become even worse. By the end of the semester she fails three classes. Her dreams of going to medical school are shot forever. She may be in danger of being suspended from the university. </p>
<p>And as to the Andy and Cindy story. Maybe she lied about that too. At this point, nothing Jackie says can be believed without independent proof. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Greek houses at UVa are calling for the suspension to be lifted given that there is no proof of the charges that led to the suspension.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actual, corroborated facts would seem like a very smart, logical place to start. Hey, but that’s just me though.</p>
<p>However, it seems that such corroborated facts are not part of your standards to believe someone accusing another of a serious crime. OK, I think I understand now we are using different standards. At least that is clear.</p>
<p>Awctndb, I know some people like what you write. ;)</p>
<p>Is there underage drinking going on at these frats? Is underage drinking a crime?</p>
<p>To read these posts, I have to conclude that there are several people on this thread who simply do not believe that sexual assault, including but not limited to forcible rape, is a problem on college campuses.</p>
<p>It seems many think that the larger problem are all those pesky women who have sex, regret it the next day, and inexplicably set themselves up for a whole heap of trouble by accusing these young men of rape in order to “ruin their lives.”</p>
<p>The burden of proof which is being demanded by many of these posters does not exist. DNA presence can be claimed to be consensual. Bruising and tearing can be evidence of consensual BDSM. In other words, we can pretty much make sure that no college man is ever convicted of rape, and we can continue to insist that it is not a problem on college campuses. And to the degree that minor sexual misconduct does occur, it could all be prevented if young women never drank alcohol, never trusted a young man by allowing him to enter their residence, and never engaged in consensual acts like kissing or foreplay, because at that point they are fair game by sending mixed signals to the young man.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t differentiate how and when I believe people by gender. </p>
<p>If the wink was for me, yes, generally I like awcntbd’s posts on this topic and awcntbd is much more articulate than I. I was taking a pounding on the Penn State thread a couple years back because I was upset that the conversation was hurting the students and the band and the football team and generally anyone they could think of (all who had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky or the college administration and awcntbd had my back on that thread). </p>
<p>That’s a rather simplistic viewpoint Nrdsb4, but to play devils advocate if women never drank alcohol, never trusted a young man they didn’t know well, never engaged in foreplay the chance of being raped by someone other than a complete stranger is probably fairly high. And if boys never engaged in foreplay with drinking women or went to their rooms alone the chances of them being charged with rape would also be pretty low. Cuts both ways folks and that does not on ANY planet insinuate that I don’t believe there could be a rapist on a campus…</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys, Three people complained about another person at Columbia. Did you trash one of the three?</p>
<p>Nrdsb4, that is an awesome post. :)</p>
<p>" I wish Emily gave more insight why she thought it was best not to do anything despite the fact that her friend said a group of men assaulted her."</p>
<p>If Emily had come onto CC and said - my suitemate has been acting strangely over the last few months, and now she’s said that she was forced into an act with several men but doesn’t want to talk about it any more than that - what would we have all advised her to do? Other than strongly encourage Emily to see psychological help and / or contact the police, what more COULD the suitemate do? </p>
<p>awtncb, your accusation that someone who has been depressed is “unstable” is disgusting; shame on you.</p>
<p>“I agree Marie, the writer really has no idea what has happened, just that Jackie got depressed during the semester. Students get depressed for a lot of reasons.”</p>
<p>Shame on you, too. The suitemate recounted what she knew in good faith.</p>