Did anyone see the 20/20 on Friday? It was a pretty comprehensive look at the whole case. Eramo gave an interview and came off pretty sympathetically in my opinion, but she may have hurt her case as she leaked video deposition from the reporter and the judge has now ruled it inadmissible.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/uva-dean-nicole-eramo-breaks-silence-retracted-rolling/story?id=42756368
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rolling-stone-wins-sanctions-20-937730
I did.
When I read the first story in the Rolling Stone, I didn’t find it credible and really don’t see how those at UVa did either. The ‘facts’ just didn’t make sense. I didn’t see how she could fall on a glass table, shatter it, the rape continued, she left the frat house all bloody, met her friends outside and refused medical treatment. That just didn’t make sense, and in fact didn’t happen. The school took the entire story as true as written, and I just couldn’t see how it could close down all greek activities, close that house without even trying to confirm any of it.
I also found it interesting that Ryan, the boy she was trying to get to date her with this story, feels she had been hurt (raped perhaps), but not as she told to the reporter, the dean, to him, and not on that night.
I saw the 20/20 story. I am sort of amazed that Eramo did not know that using the Erdely deposition tape would lead to that being inadmissible in her case. Did she not discuss this with her attorneys before doing 20/20?
I think Eramo will have a tough time getting a big settlement. The findings that UVA did not expel any men ever for rape will certainly be used against her, especially when she herself states that the number of reports increased over time. She also did not lose her employment - even if her job changed, she is still working at UVA. Since the Jackie story has been completely dis-credited, not sure how the portions of the story related to her treatment of Jackie would continue to cause her harm.
As for the fraternity, they seem to have something of a case, but I wonder how extensive the damage has been. Can they show that the frat is now less popular or that the brothers have had a hard time getting jobs?
I have to say I believed the RS article initially, although some of the points appeared a bit fishy. I seem to remember that some of the other women in the article supported Eramo and spoke positively of her. I don’t think UVA had much choice but to shut down Greek life while investigating. The students were demanding something be done.
The fact that this is going to trial and the claims of the fraternity only support the need for administrations to proceed with trust BUT verify before taking actions and that goes triple for the media who seems to latch onto stories that are on surface improbable. Students “demanding” something be done should have zero bearing on administration, they need to lead…not follow… and they are definitely learning the hard way these days. I never believed Jackie’s story from day one. I did believe something might have happened to her somewhere along the line that impacted her emotional stability…but not the story she told RS.
It seemed to me that Dean Eramo was primarily defamed by her own statements. The only memory I have of her is when she explained to a reporter that a student should never be expelled for sexual assault because if they admit it, they have learned something, and if they don’t, you can’t be sure they did it.
That view that expulsion is never appropriate, and was recorded. That is what hurt her in my eyes. I don’t remember anything that Rolling Stone said.
This is what she said in a student published video which is alittle different than saying if someone admits they committed rape she gives them a pass.
I hope Rolling Stone is held accountable. My Dartmouth grad. was furious over their fraternity story, claiming it was also not properly investigated, eg. by talking to fraternity members.
Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible for defaming U-Va. dean with gang rape story
Now we’ll find out how much the jury will award Eramo.
@Gator88NE. I believe the jury HAD to find “actual malice” in order to find Rolling Stone responsible. Under NY v. Sullivan their speech might otherwise be protected. (I assume the court found the UVA dean a ‘public figure’)
Dean Eramo won her case against Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone was found by a jury to have defamed her with actual malice. The trial will continue for purposes of assessing money damages.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html
@Jara123 I’m no legal beagle, but that’s what I thought, and the reason (“actual malice”) that there was some doubt that Eramo could win.
I like this bit…
Yes, the editorial staff was no match for a troubled 20/21 year old! Simply not in the same class! It took a huge team (of 1 person) at the WP, after going to UVa and asking a few questions, to notice something was questionable about her rock solid story…
Wow somehow I had not heard about this case. Interesting.
No question that Jackie did not provide Rolling Stone with a true account of what happened to her. But come on! All RS had to do was to tell Jackie that they needed to talk to her friends or to at least hear from them DIRECTLY that they wouldn’t talk to RS. RS was idiotic and deserve this punishment. I feel sorry for every UVA student who suffered a consequence as a result of this garbage.
So how does this decision impact the suit filed by the fraternity?
We would have to see the verdict interrogatories, and the inevitable post verdict mechinations, but in short, this verdict is a huge boost to the frat’s case.
@Ohiodad51 >>> Legal Beagle
Agree, huge boost to frat’s case. But as I understand it the Frat has an additional legal hurdle to get over. It must show that individuals in that frat were identifiable enough to be defamed. I don’t know if the trial court has ruled on that issue. Even if it did in the frat’s favor, that ruling could be overturned on appeal. I don’t know enough about VA law to know if the organization itself has rights that could be subject to defamation.
Not surprised. A big wake-up call to the media. The frat case is an interesting one. If I recall there was one young man who was in the frat and a swimmer who “fit” the young woman’s story. He retained a lawyer immediately when the media tracked him down. The college did take action against the frat after the story and the frat was vandalized by the “anti-male frat” crowd so they have some legitimate complaints, although not sure how it will stack up in court.
What’s absurd is that we expect colleges to handle rape cases instead of the criminal justice system. In any other instance, it would seem insane to have investigations of felony criminal conduct led by cops who aren’t detectives or worse yet are rent-a-cops for pseudo-trials in kangaroo courts that operate according to rules made up at the whim of college administrators in which members of the tribunal have in many cases no legal training and can serve in some cases simultaneously as the prosecutor, judge, and jury.