<p>Yeah, I did this morning. It’s upthread somewhere.</p>
<p>Edit - Found it.</p>
<p>@dstark</p>
<p>If they sue RS for libel then the case would be specifically about whether libel occurred in the article. Well, kids were drinking in there wouldn’t be much of a defense for printing untrue allegations of premeditated gang rape although RS could probably manage to point that out if that’s your question. Jackie’s also considering a lawsuit or could be sued herself depending on who said what and who added how much embellishment which we just don’t know at this point.</p>
<p>Edit again: Marie1234, I see you edited your post and reposted the prior post. I only have so many thanks in me. This is my last thank you for now. :)</p>
<p>Ultimately we can all speculate on what the “facts” are and how various scenarios will play out. That’s all it is, speculation. I do think something happened to Jackie, contrary to what some of you may believe. I just don’t think the way this has been a trial by media is appropriate at all. </p>
<p>I like this piece. Some time ago on another thread I posted that I didn’t want to believe it could happen, but I knew that it could. It really makes me ill to think about it. </p>
<p>Even though I have never worried for one minute about a son being accused of rape, if my son was in that fraternity I would have hired him a lawyer and we would be meeting to figure out what happened and how to proceed If Jackie were my daughter, she would have had a lawyer with her doing that Rolling Stone story - if she told me she was doing it.</p>
<p>When my son called to tell me he was pledging, he understood I was going to be very concerned about houses with ‘rapey’ reputations.</p>
<p>“I don’t like the names released.” I don’t either. You’ve got more than a couple people now who have had to get lawyers. I can’t imagine as a parent having my kid or myself being thrust into the middle of this.</p>
<p>Jackie is certainly a real person. She’s been speaking to the Washington Post, has hired a lawyer and her father, friends and room mate are also talking publicly.</p>
<p>There’s two possibilities for Drew floating around. Total speculation. One is a Phi Psi bro who has lawyered up and who was a swimmer, swim coach and lifeguard outside UVA but apparently was not employed as a lifeguard at the UVA pool. So plausibly could have met Jackie while she lifeguarding at the UVA pool. The other was a lifeguard at the UVA pool and a bro at another frat. He told the WaPo he doesn’t know Jackie.</p>
<p>Hopefully the WaPo keeps digging into this. Should be pretty easy to figure out who (if anyone) had dinner with Jackie at the Boars Head Inn. Would have been pretty easy for Rolling Stone to do that leg work before publishing.</p>
<p>I think the winners are the group or person who wanted to take down Phi Kappa Psi at the expense of Jackie. They/she/he could’ve protected her throughout the entire process instead of her ending up in this fiasco. If she changed her mind about going public with the story, honor the request. </p>
<p>When you all post names, I’m just putting my fingers in front of my eyes. I am NOT looking anyone up. The “grown-ups” should have handled all this much better.</p>
<p>I wanted to add that I have a son and a daughter. Son has put me through the wringer but if this was his fraternity and these kinds of allegations were floating around, you can bet he’d have a lawyer. If D was raped, hell would hath no fury. I’ve had fury for a lot less. </p>
<p>You find that surprising? I don’t. Not at all. Not even accounting for the effects of PSTD I think I would have had trouble in college giving you the full name of some of my dates a few weeks later, let alone 2 years later. </p>
<p>They said Jackie told them for the first time the alleged attacker’s name recently, but no-one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi - it turned out to be similar to the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi. </p>
<p>Could be that Jackie is lying about Drew the lifeguard.</p>
<p>Could be that Drew the lifeguard is lying about not knowing Jackie.</p>
<p>Could be that Jackie met a Phi Psi who was a swimmer at the pool but who was not actually employed as a lifeguard there. And she got the name and employment status mixed up.</p>
<p>Some basic fact checking please!</p>
<p>From the WaPo:</p>
<p>"For example, an alleged attacker that Jackie identified to them for the first time this week — a junior in 2012 who worked with her as a university lifeguard — was actually the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.</p>
<p>Reached by phone, that man, a U-Va. graduate, said Friday that he worked at the Aquatic and Fitness Center and was familiar with Jackie’s name. But he added that he never met Jackie in person and never took her out on a date. He also said he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi."</p>
<p>We have a system of innocent until proven guilty. We have a standard of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. We believe in letting 100 guilty go before one innocent is wrongly convicted. </p>
<p>This is not one of the definitions of the rape culture. It is just the foundations of a modern, Western legal system. Rape cases still get tried, people still get sent to jail, when the cops and the prosecution can provide evidence that satisfies the jury. </p>
<p>You know, Greenwitch, I did a little bit more thinking on these numbers. </p>
<p>160 million women in the USA (Census, as I showed before)
44.5 million college going women (Department of Education as I showed before)
3 in 1000 rape AND sexual assault per BoJ in 2000 across the whole population
35 in 1000 rape and attempted rape but no sexual assault in 2000 in the population of college going women per BoJ</p>
<p>So, we have 480 thousand rape AND sexual assault in the whole population
Also, we have 1.6M in rape and attempted rape in the college going population</p>
<p>How do you square this? The only possibility is that of the 1.6M number most are attempted rape, and the actual rape incidence in the college going population is still not that high. What do you think? I would like the numbers to tie as both come from BoJ sources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t express it well. I meant that 3% of college going women get raped or sexually assaulted every year per the CDC survey, but likely 1% of college going men are responsible for all those rapes and 99% of boys are actually quite well behaved. </p>
<p>Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am sensing that you won’t believe any study that indicates low incidence of rape. But at least on this forum people are no longer bandying around the 1 in 5 number, which is patently false, so that’s progress. So, why not look into the CDC study a bit closely, eh?</p>
<p>For starters, it’s a 6-year aggregate, and needs to be divided by 6. Then, even the respondents stated that some 30-40% of the time the act they report wouldn’t be criminal (but would still be offensive). Finally, more than half of those cases were from drunken sex where the boy can claim to be raped just as much as the girl. </p>
<p>The real incidence of forced rape as the criminal law acknowledges is about 1% per the study itself. I calculate below</p>
<p>Start with total of 19% for 6 years
Divide by 6 to arrive at annual value
Discount by 30% to eliminate cases where even the respondent said that the act was not criminal
Discount by 50% to eliminate the case of two stone drunk people hooking up</p>
<p>Voila! Of course, you have read the study, so you must have done this math yourself. 1 in 5 was fiction all along.</p>