<p>Sabaray thanks. I wish names were not mentioned. </p>
<p>CF, I am enjoying your posts as usual. :)</p>
<p>Okay, I didn’t want to mention the alleged Drew’s name before but someone just mentioned the link. His photo, his employer…</p>
<p>Didn’t link directly, just told how to find it. Jackie’s name is all over the place as well. To me that is the saddest part of all. </p>
<p>If the man named in the buzzfeed article is the wrong Drew, and since Jackies dad now says it wasn’t Phi Psi, he needs to clear his name. </p>
<p>Cardinal, this is not an incompetent reporter. Instead she’s a cause-driven sensationalistic writer who wrote the story the way she wrote the story hoping to hide behind the never question victims mentality which worked for a while and got her past the editor at RS. I’ve always believed something happened but there is zero chance it was the opening scene in that story and I doubt Jackie ever claimed it was. And, why she agreed to do this at all I will never quite understand. But, she did. The author has had issues previously but I don’t think it’s coming from malice at all. I think it’s totally drama motivated along with agenda, of course.</p>
<p>Bay, thanks for the link.</p>
<p>I agree with sabaray’s post #1442.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a lot of unsubstantiated speculation for someone who claims to be interested in facts. What evidence do you offer to make me believe your claim?</p>
<p>My evidence for her incompetence is simple: she wrote a story that now appears to be untrue in important details, and she is being skewered in the media for it. That cannot possibly be the outcome she wanted. Therefore, whatever her true goal was, she incompetently pursued it.</p>
<p>From Bay’s link…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more: <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; </p>
<p>It’s not speculation. Check out her website and read a few other stories two of which have already been discredited. First and foremost, she’s not defending herself and her editor retracted the piece and apologized. That says it all, really.</p>
<p>And, Will Dana acknowledged his reasons for not probing more deeply. RS legal okayed the piece because no names were used to identify the accused.</p>
<p>The more articles there are, the more the factual scenarios are muddled. Originally the rape was alleged to have occurred on September 28th. Now her father says it was two weeks into the school year. Orientation for first years began on August 25th. Minor detail. Bad reporting? Bad memory? Didn’t happen? </p>
<p>I agree. I tend not to believe anything about this that is written. Facts don’t seem to be a driver. Just clicks. </p>
<p>It is just sad that the names of the girl, her family and of the boys are now floating around.</p>
<p>Why would RS report the name of the frat if there was ANY question as to what it was? </p>
<p>Yes, it is sad all the names are floating around, and also many frats were punished because of this.</p>
<p>Question: is it at all possible they, that is, UVA, KNEW that it was not the named frat, and therefore punished ALL frats pending investigation?</p>
<p>“Why would RS report the name of the frat if there was ANY question as to what it was?”</p>
<p>That was an oops. And, it’s a problem.</p>
<p>I believe that particular fraternity was an attractive target for a variety of reasons that I’m not going to post here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, CF, your “evidence” only shows the incompetence of the RS editor(s) who should have never published the story – by their own admission (as vetted by legal).</p>
<p>For all we know, the author could have been seeking incompetent editors to publish “her” story, in all its fabrication. (And yes, its her story, not Jackie’s.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. There are plenty here on cc that say the facts don’t really matter bcos, well…</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I have no problems keeping 2 separate ideas in my head. Part of the problem is that you keep saying one thing and then morphing it into something slightly different and not understanding the subtle nuances that are different. For example: you said that a woman without corroborating evidence should not be believed. Now you say
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The biggest problem, however, is that, as someone pointed out earlier, cases go to court all the time based on one person’s testimony against another. It is up to the jury (or judge) to decide if there is merit to the accusation. There is a difference in a woman who waits two years, which causes evidence to disappear, and a woman who goes to the police immediately and claims rape where there is clear evidence of intercourse. </p>
<p>You have no problem with someone who claims they were assaulted and has bruises getting their day in court (because there is corroborating evidence) but you have a problem with a woman being assaulted and using the results of the rape kit as corroborating evidence. Why is that? My guess from what you have written is that it is because you think a lot of women make up rape claims even though statistics show the rate of false reports is similar to the rate for most other crimes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I stated earlier, I do not believe this happens in criminal cases. </p>
<p>I’m confused. Which truth is the father referring to? The RS version or the forced oral sex mentioned by WP? And yes, quite sad that the names of Jackie and the alleged Drew are floating out there for people to pile on anger towards them. This is the result of talking to a reporter. Jackie changed her mind but RS said no, you can’t back out of this article.</p>
<p>Maybe, Jackie & Drew are both composites. Interestingly, before this whole thing blew up the writer referred to Jackie as the main character in an MSNBC interview. That’s not typical reporter-speak about a source and it was noticed. </p>
<p>Not good to use a composite when writing about a specific person. </p>
<p>Marie1234, you didn’t answer my question. If a frat sues, is the frat’s prior history fair game?</p>