“Jackie” does not want to testify under oath.
Her attorneys say that a deposition would ‘re-traumatize’ her. How can she be re-traumatized when there was no trauma in the first place. She was willing to talk to Rolling Stone but now does not want to testify under oath. Unbelievable.
Sue her too.
Wow, just wow. She should be forced to testify. Sued and prosecuted works for me too.
The Wash Post has done a great job covering this story, including an interview back in the fall with the young man Jackie had a crush on and was trying to make jealous by concocting the whole Haven Monahan dinner date that turned into a gang rape story. How she can stick with her story at this point is beyond me.
If you have not read this, it fills in a lot of what really happened.
Oh, wow. I’d missed that “chapter.” Thanks for the link, @rockvillemom!
This whole process has been about as edifying for all involved as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Eramo managed to make some foolish remarks in public, Rolling Stone made themselves a textbook case in journalism classes for years to come, UVA faces close scrutiny because they haven’t expelled a student for sexual assault since the dawn of time, and “Jackie” looks bad for about 17 different reasons. The only involved party whose conduct can’t be faulted is the fraternity, and that’s a sentence I never expected to write.
Years ago I listened to a very, very liberal talk show host, the late Lynn Samuels, say that in a democracy women who make accusations of rape should always identify themselves publicly and stand up in court to testify against the perpetrator. Defendants have a right to confront accusers, except in cases of rape, apparently.
Jackie’s last name is not used, from what I’ve read, based on an agreement with the Wash Post. Since she is not a rape victim but a defendant in this case along with Rolling Stone and the reporter, I don’t see why other newspapers do not use her full name.
Good grief, she wreaked havoc on so many people…maybe even traumatized a few people and she gets a pass? Boo hoo. She’s the heart of this – her allegations, her stories – and it’s time to get to the bottom of it. if she can tell the story to a magazine, she can tell it to the lawyers in deposition.
I think there’s a huge difference between being in court to testify and identifying someone publicly.
I say this as a SA survivor who had to testify against my assailant even as a minor. My name was not released publicly and the court was closed- again, because I was a minor. It should be the same for all survivors/victims of crime. Forcing their names to be public is re-victimization.
(Sorry OT, carry on)
I don’t think that’s off topic and important for the discussion.
And while it’s clear that the incident as described by “Jackie” didn’t happen, it’s possible that she was the victim of some traumatizing event. If that is true, I feel for her. But I I don’t think its fair to those who were impacted so significantly by her “story” for her to get a pass.
She may be a victim of something and she has had plenty of opportunities to be truthful with the college, with the police, with the media and she has not been forthright. That alone lost any sympathy I had. She has a lifetime to work out her issues but the time has come to be truthful so people she has harmed can get on with their lives.
If you are curious, just google uva jackie, you will have her full name and more info, including photos supposedly from her father’s fb showing she recently got married. Who knows?
I might agree to having exceptions for cases involving minors, but typically secrecy is not good for maintaining fairness in a democracy.
It was not only the fraternity that was smeared by her story, it was the friends who supposedly mistreated her.
Unfortunately, Rolling Stone has a history of printing sensational but questionable exposes. The work of Janet Reitman re Duke Lacrosse, the Boston Marathon Bomber, and Dartmouth fraternities springs to mind.
It would be pretty traumatizing to have both sides’ lawyers demanding (while you are under oath and at perjury risk) that you admit that you made the whole thing up and then continuously lied about it thereafter.
What about the trauma she inflicted on Dean Eramo?
Jackie is not a victim.
As far as anyone seems to be able to tell.
My understanding is not that Jackie is refusing to testify, rather that the attorneys are arguing over what the scope of that testimony should be.
Remember that Jackie is not a party to the lawsuit. Eramo is suing Rolling Stone, Sabrina Erdley and Wenner Media for defamation. The crux of her claim is that Rolling Stone printed falsities about Eramo’s ** reaction and statements** in response to Jackie’s report of sexual assault. Eramo claims those false statements ruined her reputation as an advocate and supporter of assault victims. Jackie’s attorneys are arguing that she should only have to testify about the statements that she claims Eramo did in fact make. They contend that the underlying sexual assault is not relevant to Eramo’s defamation suit agains Rolling Stone and thus the testimony should not address it.
A similar disagreement arose over the production of documents a few months back. The judge ultimately ruled Jackie had to produce the bulk of what was requested by Eramo’s attorneys, but he did agree that certain documents/texts relating to the underlying alleged assault did not have to be produced stating:
Jackie’s attorneys are hoping he will rule in the same manner relative to what her testimony should address.