<p>Isn’t it only libel if the person knew the information was incorrect and maliciously put it out there anyway? If this is a mistaken identity, I don’t see how that conforms to the level of actionable libel. </p>
<p>When I read the RS story, something about it bothered me. It didn’t seem as if it was properly vetted.</p>
<p>As to “Drew,” I thought it was clear that name was made up for the purposes of the article. Am I mistaken?</p>
<p>"No one should ever be allowed to doubt a victim of sexual assault, right? Look at Atticus Finch – the great rape apologist who doubted Mayella Ewell’s story. <a href="http://dandygoat.com/atticus-finch-a-rape-enabler">http://dandygoat.com/atticus-finch-a-rape-enabler</a>"</p>
<p>I haven’t seen anyone here claim that no one should doubt a victim’s story. Why are you suggesting that they are?</p>
<p>No Cardinal, we are supposed to conclude that you and I will never know because we do not sit on the board hearing ALL of the evidence. What we are supposed to conclude is there is a process out there that is not being used properly but then complained about. </p>
<h1>1421 I am still struggling to understand that satire. .If someone has time to explain it, I’d be grateful. This particular thread is about UVA and frat boys, I’m assuming white frat boys though I’m not going to look up that frat. I’ve avoided looking up anything about them.</h1>
<p>Talking about rape accusations, convictions and incarcerations of minority men is a pretty different discussion than rape accusations, convictions and incarcerations of middle/upper middle class white fraternity men. imho</p>
<p>The comparison would be an interesting discussion in my opinion.</p>
<p>Maybe, it doesn’t come across that I’m being sarcastic with the pig label but what I’m trying to say is before you label the accused as pigs let’s wait for the facts, let’s wait for the findings of the investigation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The example you gave was a process that appears to have been used correctly. At least, you gave us not a smidgen of a reason to believe it was not used correctly. There may be many other examples where the process either was a bad process, or was a good process used badly, and indeed I think there are many other examples where the process failed for one reason or another. </p>
<p>Your example of the boy suspended for sexual misconduct was not evidence for your claim that the process is not used properly. It was evidence against your claim. That’s a confusing form of argument.</p>
<p>alh: Not sure I follow your comment, but agree it is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on these threads. I think some of these issues could be resolved simply by sitting down with a few drinks. I just think it is a good article to read as it questions some of the assumptions many have: 1 in 5, (or 1 in 4), college is more dangerous than the working world, it is almost all the work of serial rapists, it is fraternities, it is almost never two drunk kids, boys are almost never at risk of false accusation, and that colleges should expel men based solely on a 51% chance the women is telling the truth. And if any of us raise any of these concerns, we are simply dismissed as being only worried about our sons and being rape apologists, which most of us are not. (although of course i worry about my son getting caught up in one of these situation just as i worry about him being in an accident and everything else there is to worry about). </p>
<p>Unfortunately, JHS, even some of the members of Jackie’s support group question her story. I firmly believe something happened. But it is difficult for the University or police to act if the details are not known. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to not to be able to hold two separate, but equally valid positions in your head at the same time. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I have been saying very, very clearly that no one should be charged and convicted without corroborating evidence. </p></li>
<li><p>And I have also been saying no one’s accusations of a crime, male or female, should be taken as the only basis of filing charges and convicting. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Why are these two positions, so darn hard for you to understand?</p>
<p>The point of my one post you quoted is that accusations should be taken at face value. But, it seems lost on you that taking something at face value MEANS that it is believed for what it says or implies. Then an investigation is commenced, however, charging, prosecuting, and convicting requires more than the base accusation. These two positions can and should exist at the same time. </p>
<p>Maybe the above helps you. If it does not, then I cannot help you any further in terms of logic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will get to the answer in full in a second.</p>
<p>If there is no corroborating evidence, and the place cannot show or prove anything, then there is no criminal case. This does not say she is not believed. It only says that it cannot be proved, so charging and trying to prosecute makes no sense. </p>
<p>We do not charge and convict people criminally based only on another’s accusations. Why is that lost on you? It has nothing to do with what I would do. But since you asked, I darn would not going criminally charging them when I have nothing to prove that the accusation can be verified in court. An accusation alone, no matter how true, is not a basis for criminal charges. They never are; there needs to be corroborating evidence to charge someone criminally.</p>
<p>But, to answer your question fully - if I were the police in the situation you cite, I would explain that there is nothing evidence-wise (semen alone is not evidence of rape because 99% of all sex involves semen) that warrants criminally charging said person with rape, and I would suggest the accuser pursue charges in civil court. </p>
<p>An aspect that hasn’t been discussed here, most likely for the obvious reason that it is politically unpalatable, is reducing acquaintance rape to a misdemeanor. Prosecutors may be more likely to prosecute, juries more likely to convict, and defendants more likely to plea bargain if the penalty wasn’t so severe. Just a thought. </p>
<p>We tell our daughters that although rape is a crime and being raped is never the victim’s fault even if she is imprudent, they should nevertheless be prudent and not put themselves in a situation where they are more vulnerable to being raped.</p>
<p>At the same time, we should tell our sons that although false accusation of rape is a crime, and consent can be communicated by deed rather than word, they should nevertheless be prudent and not put themselves in a situation where they are vulnerable to false accusations. They should get explicit verbal consent to sex, with no ambiguity.</p>
<h1>1426</h1>
<p>One reason I’m sticking around is waiting for the serial rapist discussion. I find it difficult to believe that in these reported gang rapes, some of which have been filmed so I’m pretty sure they are “true” (though of course consent is frequently suggested), that all the serial rapists on campus got together that night. When you have high school gang rapes, are all those “boys” serial rapists? If there really are a limited number of serial rapists on campus, we have a completely different problem to solve than if some of our sons are incited to rape by peers and circumstances. At least, that is my take on it.</p>
<p>adding: of course, if there is some kind of web group for rapists it might make sense and anything is possible I guess</p>
<p>“One of the things that would be amusing about this controversy if it weren’t so awfully sad, is the apparent belief by lots of the fraternity crowd that everyone in the world pays attention to which fraternity is which, and that being mistaken about the fraternity to which the boys who raped you belonged means that nothing you say can be trusted. Whereas for most of the world that detain would be as irrelevant as whether their shoes were Topsiders or Docksiders.”</p>
<p>Spot-on, as usual. I know I went to fraternity parties where absolutely nothing untoward happened to me, and I couldn’t have told you whether I was at SAE or Fiji or Phi Kappa Sigma or Phi Kappa Psi or Psi Upsilon. I was just wandering around a fraternity quad and going in as my friends and I saw fit. And I was IN the Greek system and can rattle off the Greek alphabet like nobody’s business.</p>
<p>It does appear, though, if the Internets are to be believed, that there is a Phi Psi who <em>was</em> a lifeguard, who is from a reasonably prominent / successful family, who is lawyering up and removing all his social media. I don’t wish to name the name, however, because who knows at this point. </p>
<p>I still suspect there is some kernel of truth here, even if the date is wrong. I still suspect something very bad happened to this young lady and perpetrators have gone unpunished. I cannot cast my lot with the people who think she should have known whether it was Phi Psi or something else. And I certainly cannot cast my lot with the people who think depression = signs of being mentally unstable and apt to make stories up out of whole cloth. I would be embarrassed to have that little sense of humanity, but apparently they aren’t. </p>
<p>I am doing a poor job explaining my position because I am trying to do two things at once,(my real life and this lol). Yes the process was used correctly in the case I noted, but in many other cases it is not. What I mean is that you and I could never know whether the outcome was just. When women do not report immediately but report later, after evidence is gone , the process is not used properly.</p>
<p>The reporter made up a chunk of the story. That is pretty clear by now if for no other reason than the retraction and her disappearance from the media tour she was thoroughly enjoying last week. </p>
<p>Reporting a rape later doesn’t mean all the evidence was gone. If the accuser is going to claim consent, then DNA evidence wouldn’t be dispositive anyway. Other kinds of evidence like texts, photos, videos and statements from other people would still be available. </p>
<p>Say that she reports a rape three days after the encounter. He says they had consensual sex. Then video evidence of her being led off by him, too drunk to walk under her own power, surfaces. Seven eyewitnesses say that she was incoherent. That’s plenty of evidence-- in fact I’d say that’s enough evidence to convict him in a court of law.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, is there a link, without a specific name of the lifeguard or swim coach, that you can post that deals with what you are talking about? </p>
<p>I have no idea what my daughter’s sorority was. I can never remember the name of the sorority.</p>
<p>I doubt that the reporter “made up a chunk of the story.” Never assume malice when the situation can be explained by incompetence. She committed journalistic malpractice by not verifying the story, which is bad enough. Rolling Stone was equally credulous.</p>
<p>@dstark - Google UVA Phi Psi lifeguard - look for the buzzfeed article. </p>
<p>I have read an article saying that a named Phi Psi graduate has retained the services of a named lawyer who specializes in defending accused campus rapists. I’m not going to supply names either, because, after all, the Psi Phi house was accused of having seven rapists in it at the time this person was a brother living in the house. His hiring a lawyer is in no way an admission of guilt to me.</p>
<p>The article that I read does not say that the man who hired the lawyer was ever a lifeguard.</p>
<p>According to this article, Jackie’s father says she got the fraternity name wrong. It also says that Jackie recently told her friends Drew’s identity, and they said he has a name similar to that of a member of the Phi Psi house. <a href=“Father of girl at center of UVA 'gang rape' storm defends her saying she WAS raped | Daily Mail Online”>Father of girl at center of UVA 'gang rape' storm defends her saying she WAS raped | Daily Mail Online;