Everybody Should Read Anna Merlan’s Latest Post on Jezebel
Posted on December 11th, 2014 in Uncategorized | 181 Comments »
Because it raises an important argument that we’ll be hearing a lot of in the next few days…and that I intend to challenge as soon as time permits.
181 Responses
12/11/2023 11:01 am
Hilarious juxtaposition of sentences here:
“UVA is still one of dozens of schools being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education for alleged mishandling of sexual assault complaints. There’s a reason why criminal matters should be investigated by the police [not by colleges].”
Hey, Ms. Merlan! Next sentence for you: There’s a reason civil-rights allegations on campus should be investigated by the Department of Education.
Let’s let the administrators do their jobs and work on the policies. They can be improved to the benefit of any number of future parties. But it is clear that media scrutiny is much more likely to be counterproductive at this point than helpful.
If the DoE is out of hand, that is another story. Reasonable people can disagree about the standard-of-proof question and the needed protection against inept administrators. But I’ve seen nothing to suggest that UVa isn’t working in good faith to make the system better for everyone — nor did I see anything so egregious in the original article in connection with the administrative response.
12/11/2023 11:18 am
Have you noticed that feminists love to bring up the “being investigated by the DoE” line? Guilt is insinuated, just like with countless other incidents in which the fraternity, for example, is disciplined because of a “reported” incident. Guilt is presumed.
Feminismus macht frei!
12/11/2023 11:22 am
Richard —
Why on earth are you linking to a hack who called you an ‘idiot’ and even in her numerous subsequent corrections continued to throw ridiculous jabs at you? If it’s to refute her flawed conclusion — that UVa is at fault here for not fully prosecuting the nonexistent rapist — there are plenty of other activists who have made the same inane argument and are (relatively) more deserving of page views than Jezebel.
12/11/2023 11:22 am
Civil investigations don’t tend to aim for findings of guilt, and the DoE doesn’t fine anyone. The point is to reform the policy if it needs reforming.
12/11/2023 11:37 am
The argument from the Jezebel crowd will now be that even if Jackie was a hoax,the rest of the accusations in the Erdely piece are fine, prove that UVA has a “rape culture”, which the admnistration is covering up. Doesn’t seem to have occurred to Anna Merlan that there’s a bigger problem with Erdely’s reporting than a few discrepancies in Jackie’s story.
Its unclear what story Jackie told UVA administrators (why should anybody believe what’s in the RS story about this?). From seeing what happened when someone finally looked into her story, it seems to me that the UVA people who talked to her did their job very well, not forcing her to go to the police and instead trying to get her help. They deserve compliments on a job well done, not becoming targets of a witchhunt based on awful reporting.
12/11/2023 12:10 pm
“We’re in the process in the process of further investigating how UVA handled the Rolling Stone article and its fallout internally.”
These people are journalists? That is verbatim from the link, including the double process goof.
My brother drank his way through journalism school. Wound up as a tech writer for Encorpera.
For this he would correct “we are in the process of further investigating” to “we are investigating”.
And today in Slate they are decrying conservative websites using “click-bait” to draw in readers. It’s so unfair!
12/11/2023 12:16 pm
Anyone pitching the 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 lies is already so invested in lies that they cannot possibly be given any credence. The Dept of Ed is invested in pitching the dishonest narrative in order to push political agendas. They are just as unlikely to be honest as Lois Lerner, Jonathon Gruber, Eric Holder, Susan Rice or Lisa Jackson’s ‘Richard Windsor’.
If you like your youtube video, you can keep it. Period. Not even a smidge.
12/11/2023 12:30 pm
There is a really good timeline written by Margaret Hartman at NYMag.com. One interesting item that I either missed in the WaPo article the first time or was added later or was reported by someone else is this:
“Randall says that after the alleged gang rape, Drew wrote him an email, “passing along praise that Jackie apparently had for him.”
It gets weirder and weirder….
12/11/2023 12:37 pm
“Randall says that after the alleged gang rape, Drew wrote him an email, “passing along praise that Jackie apparently had for him.”
It gets weirder and weirder…
Yes, BT, that was in the original article, and implies that Jackie’s rapist, after the assault, still took the time to send an e-mail to Jackie’s crush to inform him how much Jackie liked him. (You can use your imagination about at what point in the gang assault Jackie was supposed to have volunteered this information.) It just becomes totally absurd.
12/11/2023 12:51 pm
I hope there are some adults getting Jackie the help she desperately needs.
12/11/2023 12:56 pm
I hope there are some adults getting Jezebel the help it desperately needs.
12/11/2023 1:07 pm
I would say I feel sorry for her, but I really don’t.
12/11/2023 1:11 pm
I am a woman and consider myself a feminist and rationalist. There are real problems that need to be addressed on women’s rights. But I am starting to ask myself a question I never asked before. Why are we (meaning women who believe in Feminism i.e. Jezebel) increasingly in the game of sweeping uncomfortable topics under the rug and diverting attention elsewhere? We can play a shifting game of blame PTSD, Rolling Stone, UVA, misogynistic culture - and all of that in part is true. But it is also true that it looks increasingly like (though who knows) this woman (Jackie) invented a horrific crime, framed innocent people, and wasted the financial and emotional resources of her support structure. Can we at least admit that this is a problem before moving on? That “I will always unquestionably believe” is not the way progress is made in any area of human endeavor? That anonymity for victims just propagates the repugnant idea that being a rape victim is somehow more disgraceful than being the victim of other crimes? I understand the temptation to fight the inevitable use of this debacle to deny that campus rape is a problem at all, but refusing to acknowledge facts is not the way to do it.
12/11/2023 1:18 pm
@BT: I think maybe the only way Jackie gets the therapeutic help she clearly, desperately needs is if Jackie gets sued for defamation and she is then finally forced to claim mental health issues in order to avoid having her wages garnished for the rest of her life.
Because even as it stands now, after everything we now know - including the detail that SPMoore just flagged that Jackie evidently texted Randall whilst posing as her date either as the alleged gang rape he directed was going on or immediately after it occurred when she was supposedly so traumatized - there are still prominent commentators insisting that ‘something’ must have happened to her that night she called her three friends in a panic.
In other words, there are still legions of profoundly misguided ‘feminists’ perfectly willing to continue enabling her in her harmful lies and perfectly willing to help her sabotage the credibility of genuine rape victims in the eyes of the world a little bit more each day.
This very deeply damaged woman has no reason to get help as long as so many people devoted to their narrow partisan political agendas are out there still effusively praising her for her ‘courage’ in helping to promote the ‘larger issue’ of an alleged rape culture on campuses among conservative white men, an alleged threat which they cannot seem to be able to prove exists without concocting hoax after hoax to support their elaborately preposterous claims.
12/11/2023 1:22 pm
NI@12:56 FTW.
12/11/2023 1:22 pm
I look forward to reading your response to her second half.
As someone who has sat in administrative hearings on sexual “misconduct”, I can say Anna has no f#$%^ign clue of what she speaks.
Real rape goes to police. Colleges are stuck dealing with relationship disputes that go bad. Sometimes very, very bad. This is not to dispute that rape doesn’t happen. But it is a continuum that absolutists don’t want to deal with.
example: man has sex with woman. She says he agreed not to ejaculate in her. He fails to comply. Is this is a sexual assault? Should the man be expelled, suspended, counseled by a rape specialist or counseled by sex specialist about PME?
The real life stories that colleges are now forced to intervene in are more of the example I gave above and less of the blond, fit, frat sadist rapists of Rolling Stones imagination… As a society we have not found a way to communicate what occurs in the latter unfortunately…
12/11/2023 1:23 pm
It’s really hard to grasp what this Merlan creature is even arguing.
She says at the end that “this mess” should never have been adjudicated in the media, but what does that even mean here, with respect to Jackie’s story? If it was false — and surely it was — then how was it supposed to handled by UVA? How was Rolling Stone supposed to handle it — by covering up the fact (which it could have determined with decent reporting) of a false accusation?
One suspects that Merlan has in mind that we should all pretend that Jackie and her ilk simply don’t exist, and focus exclusively on the “true” accusations of rape.
But what kind of journalism would that be? How is that not just advocacy masquerading as journalism?
The RS story, and its sequelae point to a fact that cannot rightly be ignored: accusations of rape should never be greeted without inspection, and require ancillary evidence (such as physical evidence or witness testimony) to be taken as established.
And a journalist, well more than most other professions, should be dedicated to such matters of evidence. The thing that should be a journalist’s central concern is truth.
Obviously Merlan wants us to disappear Jackie. But Jackie exists. Why would a journalist worthy of the name wish to misrepresent the truth?
12/11/2023 1:25 pm
Leilani: Just to clarify, and to expand.
I assume that the email came a few days after the (alleged) assault, and was a last ditch effort to get Randall to come running. The idea that “Drew” actually wrote it is preposterous in my view, because (a) it would mean that Jackie was volunteering her liking of Randall to Drew, while he and four other guys were sexually assaulting her, and (b) that Drew would be so callous and imprudent to expose himself to possible exposure and charges. What was the text of this email supposed to be? “Yo Randall while we were raping Jackie she kept saying how much she likes u and u r totally worth it”?
The other point is that the “other side” is never going to provide the satisfaction of saying “we were wrong.” This is circle the wagons time, and refusing to allow your enemies to count coup. I’ve seen this polarization before.
12/11/2023 1:39 pm
SPMoore8, I think you’re mishmashing two different stories. “Randall” told the Post that he got an email from “Drew” after the events of Sept. 28. Randall obviously does not believe the rape happened, or that Drew even exists.
Jackie’s story does not include what would have been a pathological post-rape email. The email is much more in line with what appears to be the actual truth — i.e., that Jackie made up “Drew” and sent the email from a burner account.
12/11/2023 1:40 pm
I am noticing a subtle pivot from “you should never doubt a rape accuser” to “Rolling Stone should have performed some basic vetting here.” This is typical of firebrand Internet vigilantism in that they will make provocative claims and then back off to a more moderate, less bold variant when publicity appears. You can always still see the resentment poking through, however. Here many are grumbling about “all the victims who will be called liars” (i.e: vetted) as a result of this. They still want to stick to their guns, even after all of this absurdity.
12/11/2023 1:47 pm
Dunno what your response will be, Mr. Bradley, but 2 salient points come to mind:
1) There has been a paucity of information identifying that DOE, through Title IX requires federal funds receiving schools to establish administrative bodies to investigate sexual assault not only ON campus, but as in this case, OFF campus (many seem to have a mistaken belief that UVa fraternities are on campus. While Ms. Merlan’s opinion that schools should not be in the investigation/sanctioning business may be correct, criticism of their role may be a bit facile. I venture that most schools would be QUITE PLEASED to defer all situations to local prosecutors and be out of the business (which cannot be cheap to administer) altogether.
2) While the underlying problems have no bearing on the truth of one woman’s story, rewarding SRE and other activists who fail to follow standards with attention to the issues upon which they poorly report really leaves others feel like complete chumps.
12/11/2023 1:53 pm
Austin: I don’t think so. Here’s what BT was responding to:
“Randall says that after the alleged gang rape, Drew wrote him an email, “passing along praise that Jackie apparently had for him.”
I am simply pointing out that if the sexual assault took place, then “Drew” must exist, since he was the ring leader (either of the 5 forced oral sex, or the 7-9 rapes). And according to the quote above, this “Drew” character sent an email to Randall after the sexual assault. Which is insane.
Now, I don’t believe (anymore) that there was a sexual assault and I don’t believe that Drew exists. I don’t think it is “obvious” that Randall disputes either the sexual assault or the existence of Drew.
Again, the targeted quote by BT just emphasizes how incredible this entire story is.
12/11/2023 1:56 pm
“The RS story, and its sequelae point to a fact that cannot rightly be ignored: accusations of rape …require ancillary evidence (such as physical evidence or witness testimony) to be taken as established. ”
I could not disagree with this more.
Since the perspectives of those concerned about the fallout of this debacle keep getting turned into straw men, let me say clearly: I was wrong about Jackie’s second story (the oral sex one) being likely to be true because it was reported to someone contemporaneously. Jackie is apparently a troubled person. There is no way her accusations would have held up to any level of scrutiny appropriate to a disciplinary proceeding.
It remains the case that “he-said she-said” “behind closed doors” “date rape” is still often, and can be convincingly shown to be, RAPE. When her story adds up and his doesn’t, and reasonable people are convinced he is lying, he should be punished even if a prosecutor doesn’t think he could be convicted.
The idea that “date rape” is just “relationships gone wrong” is pernicious and false. Date rape is a terrible crime and, whatever its statistical prevalence, it does happen. Colleges have to deal with it in a way that is human and attentive. That must include possible punishment. I’ve worked hard on this issue firsthand and many of the views expressed in these threads are simply way off base, apparently overcompensating for experiences the posters have had with troubled women. As the Jackie story indicates, simple and basic investigation drawing on fresh complaint witnesses screens out the Jackie types; SRE should have done such investigation and so should the schools in the Yoffe article.
The Yoffe article is valuable for setting the record straight about the actual statistics. But no individual disciplinary case involves statistics; it involves two stories, his and hers. A school must choose which one to act on. It is hard work.
It is shocking how many people are eager to use Jackie’s apparent lunacy as a basis to discount the reality of date rape.
12/11/2023 1:59 pm
Everyone is correct to focus on the post-date e-mail to Randall, supposedly from Jackie’s date. That document, if it exists, upsets the apple cart, demolishes it, sets it on fire, and buries the ashes. It reveals Jackie’s motives and the nonexistence of the alleged rapist.
(Notably, this poor falsely accused man does not exist. Let’s not feel too bad for him. But we should feel bad for the falsely accused men in the Yoffe article, who do actually exist. — And of course it is a shame (earnestly) about the Phi Psi house being vandalized. Their reputation, however, is recovering fast.)
12/11/2023 2:24 pm
SE,
My point is hardly that date rape doesn’t exist.
My point is rather that an allegation of rape, date rape included, requires more evidence than a she-said to be taken as established, and acted upon by any authority. Because Jackie is now a notorious case of a she-said that turned out to be stupendously and maliciously false.
Jackie’s was a case of a false accusation of rape; Lena Dunham’s seems like a strong case of it as well; Dominique Strauss-Kahn was such a case, as was the Duke Lacrosse case.
How can we pretend that false accusations of rape aren’t a real problem?
12/11/2023 2:27 pm
SE
You are being blithe about the Phi Psi men: “Their reputation … is recovering fast”. I hope you someday have your own reputation smeared so you can find out what it feels like. For about two weeks after the article came out, they have been demonized. If I understand correctly, they all moved out of the house. This is immediately preceding finals, again if I understand correctly.
I also wouldn’t be at all surprised if all fraternity men have been vilified, publicly shamed by professors, attacked by fellow students.
It is stomach-turning to hear people supposedly so compassionate about victims’ rights be so utterly dismissive about the rights of the falsely accused.
12/11/2023 2:28 pm
The argument that UVA (and other schools) are under DOE investigation should be a weak response to the ‘the RS may be false but we know UVA has a rape problem because it is under investigation.
The busy bodies at the DOE and other expensive office buildings in D.C. have to do something to justify their bloated paychecks. If it came out there is no problem on campuses around the country taxpayers might start asking ‘why are we paying so much money to those no talent bureaucrats to solve non-problems.
Governor Le Petomane said it best in Blazing Saddles.We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately!
12/11/2023 2:29 pm
Katie Grimesey of the Cavalier Daily writes on 9/21/14 that shows that UVA employee Emily Renda who is in Sullivan’s office has a connection to the Obama White House. Renda introduced Rolling Stone to Jackie (confidentially be damned). The story was immediately picked up by Sens McCaskil and Gillibrand who are pushing new the White House anti rape bill that eliminates due process for college campuses.
Is anyone reporting on this connection? Was there a concerted effort between SRE, Rolling Stone, UVA, the White House and Sens McCaskil and Gillibrand to push this story in order to help their bill?
12/11/2023 2:31 pm
“My point is rather that an allegation of rape, date rape included, requires more evidence than a she-said to be taken as established, and acted upon by any authority.”
Yep. Completely disagree. (Especially when you say that the only “evidence” that counts is forensic or eyewitness. Those are often completely impossible or inexorably inconclusive.)
[continuing directly] “Because Jackie is now a notorious case of a she-said that turned out to be stupendously and maliciously false.”
You’re using the word “Because” wrong.
12/11/2023 2:41 pm
My point is rather that an allegation of rape, date rape included, requires more evidence than a she-said to be taken as established, and acted upon by any authority.”
Yep. Completely disagree.
Could you clarify? Do you mean if someone tells a convincing tale of sexual assault, some one (or some ones) can be expelled simply on the strength of that testimony?
Second, how do you evaluate the Michigan case described in the Yoffe article? Was the suspension expulsion justified in your view?
I understand we are not talking about criminal law, simply the rules that Universities choose to follow.
12/11/2023 2:42 pm
SPMoore8 —
I think we’re both agreeing that most likely there is no “Drew” and was no “rape”. The gist I got from your earlier post is that the post-Sept. 28 email made Jackie’s account INTERNALLY inconsistent, which it did not, because Jackie’s story never references such an email.
Incidentally, here is Randall’s latest take on the situation, per CBS News:
_____________
“Now, given the inconsistencies in the Rolling Stone story and his own experience with Jackie that night, Randall said he’s not sure who or what to believe.
‘The piece that doesn’t fit for me is the way that she acted on the night of the incident. It all felt incredibly genuine,’ Randall said. ‘And that’s the one thing that’s out of place that’s keeping me from saying that, ‘Yes, I think that’s what happened.””
12/11/2023 2:44 pm
“Do you mean if someone tells a convincing tale of sexual assault, some one (or some ones) can be expelled simply on the strength of that testimony?”
If his story is not credible, yes. I would need to see some level of internal inconsistencies in his story, none in hers, and no contradiction of her story on any extrinsic detail.
12/11/2023 2:47 pm
“how do you evaluate the Michigan case described in the Yoffe article? Was the suspension expulsion justified in your view?”
I only read it once, but No. Not justified. It’s very possible I’m underinformed.
12/11/2023 2:49 pm
SE says:
Everyone is correct to focus on the post-date e-mail to Randall, supposedly from Jackie’s date. That document, if it exists, upsets the apple cart, demolishes it, sets it on fire, and buries the ashes. It reveals Jackie’s motives and the nonexistence of the alleged rapist.
So we all pretty much agree on the “what”. I think we now need to focus on the “why”. Why was this false story important to the RS article? Answer, to push the campus rape culture narrative. Why did RS want to push the campus rape culture narrative? Why now? Answer, the Sens McCaskil and Gillibrand White House sponsored bill.
It is time to tie this all together.
12/11/2023 2:50 pm
“Why was this false story important to the RS article?”
Because they didn’t know it was false.
— And didn’t think it appropriate to check, out of respect for Jackie’s trauma. Malpractice.
12/11/2023 2:52 pm
They did not want it to be false. It was just too good for their political purposes.
12/11/2023 2:52 pm
SE: Okay, that’s fine, I’m not baiting here, just trying to get a handle on your base line.
What you are implying however in your verbiage is that you would want to hear _both sides_. I am fine with that. However, the Yoffe article suggests that both sides are not required now.
On the other hand, I think adopting that kind of standard in criminal cases (only one side, or merely an evaluation of both sides) would create a lot of problems, witness the case of the Columbia grad student of some years ago who was subject to criminal conviction (later overturned.)
12/11/2023 2:54 pm
Thus Jackie (despite her delusions) was thrown under the bus for political expediency as was UVA, Phi Psi, fraternities, real rape victims, etc. All for the cause.
12/11/2023 2:56 pm
My God. You are envisioning a policy in which he doesn’t get heard? Insane. And of COURSE he should know the details of what she’s alleging, so he can respond.
I thought Yoffe was clear on the fact that Michigan didn’t follow its own procedures, and that was one basis for the lawsuit.
I don’t know about the Columbia grad student, but it is true the criminal system has a right to confront accusers. That is because people are being locked up and the Constitution mandates it for that reason. Colleges just need to work hard to get to the truth, and make a choice, even if it is hard to do so.
12/11/2023 3:00 pm
SE
It is already happening today all across America. Even the true liberals see it.
More than two dozen current and retired Harvard Law School professors, including Alan Dershowitz, are asking the university to abandon its new sexual misconduct policy because they say it violates the due process rights of the accused.
Dershowitz calls the policy “political correctness run amok.”
The law professors say the policy lacks “the most basic elements of fairness and due process.”
12/11/2023 3:00 pm
Austin: Okay, I think part of the problem is communication here. You keep referencing “Jackie’s Story” when what you mean is the RS story. OTOH, I consider “Jackie’s Story” or at any rate “Jackie’s Story, Part 1″ to be the one where she was forced to perform oral sex on five guys. In that story, Drew, and the email from Drew to Randall after the sexual assault, is part of the narrative, and I consider it simply incredible, incredible enough to cause me to doubt the whole story.
12/11/2023 3:04 pm
SE: Okay, we are on the same page.
My God. You are envisioning a policy in which he doesn’t get heard? Insane. And of COURSE he should know the details of what she’s alleging, so he can respond.
BT is correct, it does appear that in part of the new guidelines the accused is not allowed to prepare a defense, or, at any rate, the kind of defense we would both consider customary.
12/11/2023 3:21 pm
“Jackie and other UVA students say they reported being raped to administrators and were presented with several options for “formal” and “informal” hearings into their allegations.”
Jackie is the only one we can discuss, since she’s the only one whose story we know. And based on what we know of Jackie it seems fair to say that Dean Eramo was doing her a huge favor by giving her these options and leaving the ball in her court. What Eramo could have done, and should have done if she did not see her job as giving a sympathetic ear to anyone alleging rape or sexual assault, was investigate Jackies claims and then expel her.
12/11/2023 3:33 pm
“Eramo said in the interview that students who have admitted to sexual assault during an informal campus proceeding are often not expelled.”
No, she did not say that. She said something else, which Merlan then interpreted as “students who have admitted to sexual assault during an informal campus proceeding are often not expelled”.
This seems to happen a lot in feminist circles. Somebody says one thing which somebody else “interprets” in a way which makes it different. And, usually, worse. Then a third party comes along and “interprets” what the second party said, again in a way which makes it different and worse. After a few iterations of this process the story becomes completely distorted from what it started out as.
12/11/2023 3:35 pm
Sebastian:
Why does anyone think that any college has the ability to investigate and adjudicate these crimes? Shouldn’t we leave these to professionals? Dean Eramo should have immediately notified the police that a potential crime occurred.
12/11/2023 3:38 pm
Breaking: This morning in central Virginia the FBI have arrested a man named George Glass for both the five man mouth rape and the 7+2 gang bang. Sources close to the investigation say authorities are confident the suspect acted alone.
12/11/2023 3:42 pm
SE ..”It remains the case that “he-said she-said” “behind closed doors” “date rape” is still often, and can be convincingly shown to be, RAPE. When her story adds up and his doesn’t, and reasonable people are convinced he is lying, he should be punished even if a prosecutor doesn’t think he could be convicted.”
The standard for conviction in a court of law to convince reasonable people beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. So your position seems illogical and incomprehensible. If there’s enough evidence to convince reasonable people that the accuser is telling the truth there should be a trial. A REAL trial.
The notion that somebody should be punished for an alleged crime even if a prosecutor (or, presumably, a jury) don’t believe there is evidence that a crime occurred is frankly repulsive.
12/11/2023 3:52 pm
BT —
If Dean Eramo saw the story for what it appears to be — a cry for help from a freshman with serious mental problems — she was right not to call the police. Opening up a police file on this would only have made matters worse and would have subjected Jackie to criminal prosecution for filing a false report.
As it turns out, thanks to SRE, the result is even worse than that. But Eramo couldn’t have known at the time that an unethical reporter would turn this into front page news.
12/11/2023 3:53 pm
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/10/rolling_stone_sabrina_rubin_erdely_the_washington_post_inches_closer_to.html
Here’s an audio of an interview by Slate with SRE. It’s very interesting to listen to how she explains her vetting of the story, as compared to what we know now. Look for the audio clip in the middle of the story.
12/11/2023 3:55 pm
Sorry, I make a point of not giving Jezebel the ad revenue that comes with my page views.
12/11/2023 3:55 pm
Sebastian,
The justice system is very clear that there’s a big difference between a reasonable person being convinced of something (i.e., OJ should pay his Nicole Brown Simpson’s family a huge amount of money for killing her) and a reasonable person being convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of any kind (i.e., OJ should be locked up).
If you can’t see the difference just try moving the words around. I am suggesting that a rapist can be punished by schools even if someone could come up with a reasonable story by which he might be innocent. This is perfectly consistent with believing that no one should be put in jail if someone can come up with any reasonable story by which he might be innocent.
You say I am arguing that sometimes “somebody should be punished for an alleged crime even if a prosecutor do[es]n’t believe there is evidence that a crime occurred.” Notice I didn’t say that (though I might have): I said that somebody should sometimes be punished for a crime even if a prosecutor “doesnt think he can be convicted.” Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the standard for all things at all times. — Witness, again, OJ paying the Browns a huge amount of money for killing their daughter.
12/11/2023 3:57 pm
Austin is right.
12/11/2023 3:57 pm
“Dean Eramo should have immediately notified the police that a potential crime occurred.”
Let me remind you that we don’t know what Jackie told Dean Eramo.
Let me also remind you that many things which are violations of college rules are NOT crimes or potential crimes.
Of course the solution to this is to scrap the silly efforts of colleges to micro-manage their students sex lives. At that point all the school officials have to know is the relevant law in their own locality. If they then determine that a potential criminal offense has occurred they should notify the proper authorities.
Of course we must realize that the reason girls say things to people like Earmo is precisely because they know that it won’t get forwarded to the police.
12/11/2023 4:04 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/11/us/jury-decides-simpson-must-pay-25-million-in-punitive-award.html
12/11/2023 4:10 pm
Austin: But Eramo couldn’t have known at the time that an unethical reporter would turn this into front page news.”
However, Eramo’s employee, Renda, was the one pitching the gang rape story to SRE and RS. What do you mean Eramo couldn’t have known? The UVA administration PITCHED the story!
12/11/2023 4:11 pm
Tumbling Dice:
I think they arrested Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Tawana Brawley, Crystal Magnum, Al Sharpton, and Mike Nifong.
SRE used all of them as sources for her story on Jackie. The RS fact-checker took her word they were all reliable.
12/11/2023 4:14 pm
When the gang rape story was all a sensation, the UVA employees bragged that they introduced SRE to Jackie.
12/11/2023 4:15 pm
SE, you don’t seem to realize that you’re giving a school the sort of power which in your analogy is reserved to courts of law. (A civil court is still a court of law).
If you want to argue for the right of injured parties to sue in civil court then fine, I’m right with you. But that does not seem to be what you’re arguing for.
The rules of civil cases vary by state. While they don’t generally require a unanimous verdict by the jury they do usually require more than a simple majority.
I’m at a loss as to why you imagine that women who refuse to go through with a (very secretive and “victim” friendly) collegiate hearing process or a criminal trial will participate in a civil trial.
12/11/2023 4:18 pm
BT —
Renda pitched the story. It does appear that Renda is a zealot, but I don’t think she qualifies as “UVA administration”. If Eramo pitched the story herself — and I don’t recall reading that — then I would think that would be a serious breach of confidentiality.
12/11/2023 4:22 pm
Sebastian, are you suggesting a college shouldn’t have the power to decide who goes to it?
12/11/2023 4:23 pm
From NYMag.com
November 28, 2014: Erdely Describes Her Reporting Methods
In an interview with the Washington Post, Erdely says that after deciding to write about sexual assault on campus, she spent six weeks talking to students across the country and eventually settled on UVA. She says she was introduced to Jackie by Emily Renda, a leader in UVA’s sexual-assault group.
What NYMag.com does not say is the Emily Renda is UVA employee with ties to the White House.
12/11/2023 4:33 pm
I feel compelled to actually comment for the first time. The notion that what occurred with OJ or occurs in a any civil case is analogous to school disciplinary procedures is misguided. As noted courts of law are still courts. The accused still has numerous protections including the right to counsel, to confront and question witnesses, to see the evidence against them and to know that those offering opinion testimony have some expertise to do so. Furthermore they are entitled to an impartial and (hopefully) skilled judge and an impartial jury which they play a roll in selecting.
The notion that a dean, or academic officer, assisted often by young (sometimes very young) staff can conduct this type of investigation is fanciful. When the result they reach is one that is credible, fair and transparent it is frankly a matter as much of luck as it is any skill.
To be blunt: academic officials struggle to figure out who bought the beer for a freshman dorm room kegger. The notion that they can conduct these type of inquiries, some of the most challenging with the highest stakes is absurd.
Their is a point somewhere on the arc of student discipline where a school is just out their league. At one end is public urination, petty vandalism and the like…at the other is murder. I think rape and sexual assault probably fall closer to the murder end of the spectrum.
12/11/2023 4:36 pm
BT —
I understand why you want to use this story to villainize UVa and the Obama administration, but in the spirit of Bradley’s original post, we should stick with what we know. The villains here are a mentally troubled teenager, an unethical and grossly incompetent reporter and a publication that put sensationalism/politics ahead of the truth.
(Unindicted co-conspirators in this affair include any do-gooders (like Merlan) who accepted the story at face value under the belief that a rape complainant should never be questioned, no matter how ludicrous her story.)
But to go further than this and point the finger at University administration or the U.S. government is really stretching it.
12/11/2023 4:37 pm
Se ..”are you suggesting a college shouldn’t have the power to decide who goes to it?”
Stop arguing like a feminist. No, I’m not suggesting a college shouldn’t have the power to decide who goes to it. I am stating that a college should not have the power to expel someone for rape (or any other criminal offense) in situations where that someone has not been convicted of rape (or any other criminal offense) in an actual court of law.
Should whatever organization you work for have the power to get rid of you for failure to do your job properly? Of course they should. Does this mean they should have the power to fire you for theft and battery, and to tell your future prospective employers that you are a violent thief …. without your ever being convicted (or even tried, or even arrested) for these crimes?
I don’t know what college you attend or attended but they don’t seem to have done a very good job of teaching you to think.
12/11/2023 4:44 pm
“Does this mean they should have the power to fire you for theft and battery, and to tell your future prospective employers that you are a violent thief …. without your ever being convicted (or even tried, or even arrested) for these crimes?”
Yep.
12/11/2023 4:55 pm
In May 2014 Emily Renda was promoted from an Intern, Office of the President at UVA to the position of Project Coordinator, Vice President for Student Affairs Office UVA.
Associate Dean Eramo is also in the Vice President for Student Affairs Office. So we know that Eramo and Renda are both part of the UVA administration.
12/11/2023 4:59 pm
Austin,
Why do you think it is a stretch to ask the question of why a UVA employee is pitching a gang rape story to SRE at the RS?
12/11/2023 5:05 pm
JSR writes, “I am a woman and consider myself a feminist and rationalist. There are real problems that need to be addressed on women’s rights. But I am starting to ask myself a question I never asked before. Why are we (meaning women who believe in Feminism i.e. Jezebel) increasingly in the game of sweeping uncomfortable topics under the rug and diverting attention elsewhere?”
The problem is that reality is nearly as bad as many on the left want to claim it is with regard to sexism, racism, homophobia, and other social probems so the routine truth isn’t all that disturbing or sensational enough to push demands for change. So what happens is authors like Erdely go shopping for the most sensational and outrageous story possible to push for change.
If there is one thing I’ve learned watching both ends of the political spectrum, it’s that stories, statistics, and projections that are too good to be true often aren’t true. And that’s where the left is going wrong, again and again and again. They grasp on to the sensational stories, statistics, and projections to shock people into listening tho them, but the most sensational aspects often turn out to be questionable or false. And while this certainly happens on the right and left, there seem to be a lot of people on the left who have an “ends justify the means” attitude toward exaggeration and lying in order to push people to act that keeps getting them in trouble.
12/11/2023 5:12 pm
BT —
Renda is a “project coordinator”. The VP for that office is Patricia Lampkin. Eramo is the “associate dean of students”, and is not listed in the staff directory of the Student Affairs Office.
There is not really any point in debating whether this makes Renda “part of the UVA administration”, although I don’t think it does. My point is, there’s no evidence of a larger conspiracy by the University (and certainly not by the U.S. President) to peddle a fake rape story. This is exactly the sort of agenda-driven speculation that Richard Bradley was so helpful to cause us to scrutinize.
And to answer your last question, there is nothing wrong with asking why Renda was involved. My point is, ASK. Don’t shoot first and ask second.
12/11/2023 5:42 pm
Another angle on the Rolling Stone hit piece that an enterprising journalist should examine is the possible link between Sabrina Rubin Erdely and the Title IX plaintiffs’ bar. Lawyers like Wendy Murphy – one of the few actual names appearing in SRE’s article is a lawyer suing colleges and universities including UVa under Title IX – benefit enormously from this so-called advocacy journalism and it is worth examining whether SRE collaborated in any way with any of these lawyers. I would like to know whether Ms. Murphy or any other attorney pitched this story to SRE or otherwise encouraged, advised or supported her efforts to research and write it, financially or otherwise.
12/11/2023 5:52 pm
From Merlan: “There’s a reason why criminal matters should be investigated by the police [not by colleges].”
I generally agree with this view, but it’s exactly the opposite of the view that’s consistently and vehemently pushed by Merlan and those who share her point of view.
12/11/2023 5:53 pm
For what it’s worth, I think Amanda Hess’s article in Slate today perfectly captures what many of us who do identify as feminists think:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/11/_istandwithjackie_and_the_feminist_response_to_the_unraveling_of_rolling.html
“It is wrong to assume that seeking the truth—to the extent that it is discoverable—comes from a place of mistrust or outright derision of rape victims. Carefully examining the Rolling Stone debacle and taking rape seriously as a national problem are not incompatible goals; we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
…
The idea that fully investigating or truthfully reporting on rape claims boils down to a simple “belief” in a victim’s account is simplistic and offensive, as Rolling Stone itself realized after it claimed that its trust in Jackie was “misplaced,” and it was swiftly and rightfully shamed for saying so.”
12/11/2023 5:59 pm
Austin,
Eramo’s boss reports to Patricia Lampkin according to the UVA org chart. So they are both under Lampkin and in the same “office”.
I’m not claiming any evidence. Just asking questions that some of the journalist should be asking.
12/11/2023 6:00 pm
http://www.virginia.edu/orgchart/viceStudent.html
12/11/2023 6:03 pm
Oh, I think that Emily Renda has a lot to answer for. She knew that Jackie’s story had changed from 5 to 7 men, and Renda kept her mouth shut about the discrepancy until the Rolling Stone story was investigated by the Post. Renda was perfectly willing to take a story with material falsehoods and use it to help accomplish her goals. Those goals were, according to the White House task force she served on, to use the media to raise rape awareness. It is not at all a stretch to see the Rolling Stone article as White House policy.
Renda is the one who put Sabrina Erdely in touch with Jackie. She bears a lot of the responsibility for the Rolling Stone story. I think that part of what happened to Erdely was that she trusted Renda’s judgment and statements about Jackie’s past.
12/11/2023 6:05 pm
I think for many of us who do identify as feminists, Amanda Hess’s piece in Slate today perfectly captures what we think about this mess:
” It is wrong to assume that seeking the truth—to the extent that it is discoverable—comes from a place of mistrust or outright derision of rape victims. Carefully examining the Rolling Stone debacle and taking rape seriously as a national problem are not incompatible goals; we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time…
The idea that fully investigating or truthfully reporting on rape claims boils down to a simple “belief” in a victim’s account is simplistic and offensive, as Rolling Stone itself realized after it claimed that its trust in Jackie was “misplaced,” and it was swiftly and rightfully shamed for saying so.”
12/11/2023 6:06 pm
JD Envy
Is that the same Wendy Murphy that KC Johnson at Durham-in-wonderland blog so thoroughly debunked in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax?
12/11/2023 6:06 pm
Dave wrote, “I generally agree with this view, but it’s exactly the opposite of the view that’s consistently and vehemently pushed by Merlan and those who share her point of view.”
Exactly. The Rape Culture movement is finally, finally under some real scrutiny thanks to this Jackie Coakley/SRE fiasco of epic fail, and their response is to move the goal posts. And not just move em back twenty yards-Merlan pulled a 180 and parked them on the other side of the field.
12/11/2023 6:08 pm
Crap, sorry for the double-post!
Anyway, I think the reaction to that article and line of reasoning - from all sides of the political spectrum - will be very revealing.
12/11/2023 6:11 pm
Eramo has retained a plaintiff’s attorney specializing in defamation cases, according to the National Law Journal.
12/11/2023 6:19 pm
Dizzy, did you read Judith Levine’s piece “Feminism Can Handle It” in the Boston Review? A great article. Google it in case you haven’t read it yet.
12/11/2023 6:29 pm
@FYI
Eramos is firmly in the cross hairs of the rape culturistas. Shame on The U administration for not backing one of their own.
#DefendUVA
12/11/2023 6:30 pm
Ryan —
“Rolling Stone article as White House policy”? I have to call B.S. on that, unless by “policy” you mean trying to end rape of students.
What sinister plan do you think the WH carried out here? By your and BT’s comments, it went something like this:
Obama: “We need a way to oppress white male college students. Holder, whaddya got?
Holder: “This dame Renda knows a chick who says she was gangraped at a frathouse. Well she wasn’t ACTUALLY raped, but she has a pretty incredible story.”
Obama: “Great. Get me Renda.” (On phone) Hello, Renda? This is your boss. A guy named Wenner is gonna call you. He runs a magazine. You know that student with the crazy rape story? Get her in touch with his reporter pronto!
Renda: Yes sir, sir!
Obama: (wrings hands, laughs maniacally.)
12/11/2023 7:07 pm
Ashe Schow:
Many… universities don’t provide accused students with a definition of the charges against them — or even tell them the name of their accuser. Some universities don’t allow the student to have any legal representation, or only allow a lawyer to sit in but not speak on the accused student’s behalf. Most universities don’t allow an accused student to cross examine his accuser, instead only allowing him to submit questions to the judge, who plays a role more like a prosecutor. This same judge — or prosecutor — then decides whether to actually ask those questions. And in all cases, the “jury” is made up of a small panel of students or administrators that are not bound by the law or impartially selected.
In this new environment, don’t even think about investigating an accusation of rape. Question an accusation, and you can expect to get called a “rape apologist” or be accused of perpetuating “rape culture” — as if there were anyone other than rapists who actually think that way.
The implication is clear: Burden of proof, an impartial trial, the right to cross examination, a jury of one’s peers — none of these matter when the accusation is rape.
12/11/2023 8:08 pm
Just found a very interesting post at BigTrial . net - I’m not posting a link because it goes into moderation - “Before Rolling Stone Ran with Jackie’s Story they fell for Billy’s” written by Ralph Cipriano 12/6/14 -
This is a Philadelphia attorney writing that in 2011 the RS article by Erdely, “The Catholic Church’s Secret Sex Crime Files”, is completely fabricated. He has links, and states that he’s been working for over 2 years to get the media to pay attention. Unlike UVa, 3 priests and a schoolteacher went to jail because of the story, and one just died in prison.
Mollie Hemingway over at the Federalist also is taking her on - “Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s Old Stories Sure Read like Bad Lifetime Movies” 12/8/14. Media is beginning to go back through everything she’s written.
12/11/2023 8:41 pm
When women falsely-accuse others of rape they disrespect every rape victim who ever lived.
The problem is none of Jackie’s story is true.
She invented a boyfriend, and showed a picture she clipped off social media.
She invented a competing suitor to this fake boyfriend and endlessly praised herself.
She planned an imaginary “date” with fake boyfriend, left, walked around the block for two hours and came back crying, falsely-claiming:
1. Say she was raped by between 3 and 7 people
2. At three different locations.
3. By a primary assailant with three different names.
Not a single fact checks out from the story she gave Rolling Stone… none. zero….
None of the names are right.
None of the dates are right.
None of the locations are right.
None of the alleged employers are right.
Its clear this is another Duke Lacrosse Rape accuser…
Rolling Stone did zero due diligence and fact-checking, and needlessly smeared an entire group of students when a single phone call could have exposed “Jackie’s” lies.
12/11/2023 8:50 pm
I really have grown to dislike President Sullivan. She shows her true colors in T. Rees Shapiro’s latest piece. When the RS story broke, Phi Kappa Psi voluntarily suspended itself pending an investigation, stating that it had “no specific knowledge of the claims” set out in RS. Of course the members had no knowledge of the claims in RS. The claims weren’t true!!
Sullivan then suspended all Greek activities on campus. Here’s what she said today:
Asked whether the suspension impugns the reputation of innocent students, Sullivan said she does not think that is true — “any more than I think they impugned themselves by beginning the suspension themselves.”
So, one fraternity voluntarily suspends itself when facts aren’t known. Now that facts are known, Sullivan blames that fraternity when defending her continued suspension of the entire Greek system. Wow!
Is there anything else that we can blame on these poor guys?
12/11/2023 8:54 pm
I totally agree. As someone who has a Creative Writing degree, I found the RS article to read just like a bad Lifetime movie. If I had read her article as a fictional story in a workshop, I would have critiqued it for being unrealistic. The dialogue, for instance, is too “on the nose,” as we say.
12/11/2023 9:14 pm
An interesting article showing that these feminists with agendas are usually the ones with more prejudice against women
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/rolling-stone-cindy-uva-rape-story
Look at how Erdely related the fact that Cindy was a hookup queen to the fact that she thought gang rape was tolerable
Or how Erdely didnt want a “normal, average” rape stories because they had too much self blame elements..
Erdely clearly thinks that rapes where the girl drank too much and went to a party with a tiny skirt are not worth writing about… she needed a pure, sober victim..
12/11/2023 9:15 pm
“Sebastian, are you suggesting a college shouldn’t have the power to decide who goes to it?”
Why do I suspect that if colleges exercised their “power to decide who goes to” them in order to expel women who make allegations of sexual assault, you would not be at all comfortable with that? You like the idea of this “power” only as long as it gets used in the particular fashion you want, not because you think the power itself is a good one for colleges to have.
12/11/2023 9:18 pm
Three students at UVa, who have come forward to identify themselves as the characters Andy, Randall and Cindy in the RS article, have spoken to ABC news, of late, expanding their account of September 28, 2012. It seems unlikely, improbable, that there would be other students at UVa who would consider themselves to be identified as these characters in the story. The link ought to work, although the video and the photograph on this page do not line up (i.e. they’re two different reports). The text of the story should be okay.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/questions-raised-rolling-stones-uva-rape-story/story?id=27537952
12/11/2023 9:19 pm
You’re wrong — I’m totally comfortable with that.
12/11/2023 9:38 pm
Are you any relation to the other SE here who wrote that “There’s a reason civil-rights allegations on campus should be investigated by the Department of Education”?
12/11/2023 9:47 pm
Yes. Notice I didn’t say what I thought the result of the investigation should be.
I’m sure Congress could change the Title IX regime if it works badly.
12/11/2023 9:49 pm
Earlier today, I tried to leave a link to a Slate article that contained an 8:00 minute podcast segment of SRE explaining the vetting process of her sources for the gang rape allegation. This was an interview that she did before the sh**storm started. I found her answers interesting, especially with what we know now. Richard hasn’t posted it yet, not an issue, he deserves a life beyond us. However, I wanted to hear what the rest of you notice.
So, look it up without the link: @Slate.com. “The Washington Post inches closer to calling the UVA gang rape a fabrication”. The audio is located 2/3 of the way through the article.
12/11/2023 9:54 pm
The point was “There’s a reason civil-rights allegations on campus should be investigated by the Department of Education,” i.e., *not by armchair detectives and yellow journalists who cut corners.*
12/11/2023 9:54 pm
Sorry if this is old news at this point but abcnews has the three friends at a sit down interview now (all three are pictured). A shock to us all, but they have identified a few more inconsistencies in the RS story. And get this, Erderly was not available for comment. Not sure if I’m allowed to link but a quick search will point you the way.
12/11/2023 10:27 pm
Speaking of links, or not using them, be aware that ABC has interviewed two guys and a girl named Ryan, Alex, and Catherine and has a two minute video interview with them as of this evening (12/11/14). You can probably figure out, based on the nyms, who is who.
12/11/2023 11:18 pm
SNS,
I would love to hear your comment on Cav Daily’s latest. It’s getting embarrassing over there.
12/11/2023 11:19 pm
T. Rees Shapiro’s latest article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/uproar-at-u-va-about-rolling-stone-story-spawns-debate-over-fraternity-treatment/2014/12/11/d94686a4-8170-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html
12/11/2023 11:20 pm
This is an info dump for those who are using this blog to share or relay information.
The ABC story interviewed the 3 friends, and identified them, namely, Kathryn Hendley (Cindy), Alex Stock (Andy), and Ryan (no last name). All three are active in social media, for those who are interested. verbum sapienti sat.
12/11/2023 11:42 pm
Anonymous-
As someone who worked diligently on a university newspaper (not UVA), I have been appalled at the “coverage” provided by the Cav Daily. Every article promotes the same agenda. My colleagues and I are getting a good laugh at how so many seemingly intelligent students can be so gullible. Maybe UVA should drop the Cavalier and make Jackie it’s official mascot.
12/11/2023 11:52 pm
ANON
What do I think of the latest story on Cavalier Daily.
Complete fucking hogwash.
They are still pushing the narrative.
Here’s a quote:
“And even if she made up the story, things like this do happen, and there are sexual assaults that don’t get reported, so I meant to bring the focus back to Jackie. Whatever comes of this, we’re still behind her and we still think she did something brave by coming forward.”
12/11/2023 11:53 pm
In the ABC interview, apparently it was only Randall/Ryan whom Jackie called and asked to talk to. Ryan then asked the other two to join and Jackie did not particularly want Cindy/Kathryn to come. Deriving conclusions from this needs us to assume of course that all of this is true (we, too, need to avoid simply accepting information which confirms our confirmation biases. But, apparently T.R. Shapiro saw the time-stamped texts and pictures for himself, so that would be 10 times the amount of corroboration that Rolling Stone ever bothered to get). Accordingly, if so this appears to further lead into the direction of the whole thing being a fabrication to get the attention of Ryan/Randall.
12/12/2023 12:09 am
Whoops! I forgot that links don’t show up right away. For Shapiro’s latest article, search “uproar about Rolling Stone story spawns debate”.
12/12/2023 12:37 am
Thanks for the heads up on the new Wash Po piece by Shapiro. There is nothing new on Jackie — focus is on Sullivan and Phi Psi.
Excerpt:
A woman who said her son is a current member of the Phi Kappa Psi chapter at U-Va., who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect her son, said professors “shamed the fraternity members in class” after the Rolling Stone article appeared.
The fraternity has said it did not host any parties that weekend, and the student’s friends have said they now have serious doubts about the allegations.
The mother of the Phi Psi member said she thinks university leadership did not act to protect fraternity members from harassment, even after cinder blocks were thrown through the chapter house’s windows late at night as students slept upstairs.
“To date, no one has issued any sort of public apology directly to the fraternity or its members,” the mother said. “The men in this fraternity have been through hell, and they have handled it with dignity and respect.”
12/12/2023 12:50 am
Sullivan has got to go. She is THE WORST.
Why can’t she just admit it was wrong the suspend the fraternities and sororities? Saying the suspension is lifted now wouldn’t make any difference since exams are going on, and there usually aren’t parties during exams. So just lift it and be done with it. The kids are all leaving within a week anyway.
Sullivan is looking very stubborn now and it’s unbecoming in a leader.
Can we get Dragas to stage a coup again?
12/12/2023 1:05 am
Where have the Phi Psi brothers been staying the past few weeks? Are they just couch-surfing with friends? What a hellish way to finish the semester and deal with finals.
Strawberry Girl and her merry band of criminals deserve Honor Charges as well.
12/12/2023 2:07 am
Hi Richard,
Just wanted to let you know that sites like Jezebel make most of their money from website hits, so any time you link to Jezebel, they make money. Jezebel is a vile website, so I would recommend using archive.today to take a snapshot of the website, this means we can still see the site without them getting clicks (and therefore money).
Here’s a link to the article: https://archive.today/i0Pzn
12/12/2023 3:49 am
Not sure if anyone decided to look up the Slate article that contained an audio interview with Sabrina Erdely, from two weeks ago. But I found her comments interesting, given what we know now.
She was asked if she knew the real identity of Drew and the classmate from Anthropogy class. “Of course, but I’m not going to talk about them as individuals… everyone seems to know who they are”.
Did you contact the fraternity? “Yes, but they didn’t seem to know about this incident, but they knew there was some kinda hazyy alligation…I can’t imagine that in fraternity communal life, that everyone didn’t know what was going on”.
Did you contact the boys at the fraternity? “Well, I contacted the fraternity itself, which was hard to get ahold of…”
Did you contact the boys in question, Drew? He couldn’t be hard to find as a lifeguard at the pool or her friends? “I talked virtually all of her friends to find out what she told them… I found their accounts very consistent”.
This a brutal crime, you’d think that the University would’ve gotten the police involved and said, hey come get this psycho out of here. “Yeah, that’s why it’s so telling that they supressed this and kept her from moving forward…”
What made you believe this story, it’s so extreme? “She was so credible, you just knew that something terrible happened to her”.
I’d enjoy hearing others comment on her evasiveness with supposition during this interview. In hindsight, this interview seems damning that she knew from the start, that she didn’t properly vet Jackie’s story; she didn’t want to know the truth.
12/12/2023 3:50 am
Not sure if anyone decided to look up the Slate article that contained an audio interview with Sabrina Erdely, from two weeks ago. But I found her comments interesting, given what we know now.
She was asked if she knew the real identity of Drew and the classmate from Anthropogy class. “Of course, but I’m not going to talk about them as individuals… everyone seems to know who they are”.
Did you contact the fraternity? “Yes, but they didn’t seem to know about this incident, but they knew there was some kinda hazyy alligation…I can’t imagine that in fraternity communal life, that everyone didn’t know what was going on”.
Did you contact the boys at the fraternity? “Well, I contacted the fraternity itself, which was hard to get ahold of…”
Did you contact the boys in question, Drew? He couldn’t be hard to find as a lifeguard at the pool or her friends? “I talked virtually all of her friends to find out what she told them… I found their accounts very consistent”.
This a brutal crime, you’d think that the University would’ve gotten the police involved and said, hey come get this psycho out of here. “Yeah, that’s why it’s so telling that they supressed this and kept her from moving forward…”
What made you believe this story, it’s so extreme? “She was so credible, you just knew that something terrible happened to her”.
I’d enjoy hearing others comment on her evasiveness with supposition during this interview. In hindsight, this interview seems damning that she knew from the start, that she didn’t properly vet Jackie’s story; she didn’t want to know the truth.
12/12/2023 3:54 am
From BT: “Is that the same Wendy Murphy that KC Johnson at Durham-in-wonderland blog so thoroughly debunked in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax?”
Yes. Google Murphy’s name to read her background. Little surprise RS would look to her for a quote.
12/12/2023 3:59 am
Oops, didn’t mean to post that twice.
12/12/2023 6:33 am
@John Doe—that’s what Anna Merlan did to me in her original post attacking me and Robby Soave of Reason. I’m not going to stoop to her level.
12/12/2023 6:57 am
Study challenges notion that risk of sexual assault is greater at college
The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics finds that female college students are less likely to be raped than other women in the same age group. — Chronicle of Higher Ed
12/12/2023 7:19 am
When Sabrina Rubin Erdely went university and story shopping, she picked the one school where a beautiful young women had gone missing. By the time the article was published Hannah had been found, but the students at UVA were still grieving. Perhaps this helps explain the mindset of why so many students are standing by Jackie despite the mountain of evidence that she lied.
This just makes SRE even more despicable. She knew that UVA had just suffered a terrible tragedy and she decided to thrust them back into the national spotlight with bothering to check any facts. Unbelievably cold!
12/12/2023 7:56 am
I have a pretty good feeling it’s no coincidence that:
1. On Sept. 19th — exactly 2 months before the Rolling Stone article was published on Nov. 19th — the Obama administration publicly announced the official launch of the “It’s On Us” campaign to raise awareness and prevent sexual assault on campus (lots of interesting stuff if you do a Google search on the campaign name)
2. Emily Renda served on the White House campus sexual violence task force, the mastermind behind the “It’s On Us” campaign
I work in advertising and this has all the hallmarks of a manufactured WOM/advocacy marketing strategy. My assumption is the Rolling Stone article was a preconceived PR stunt designed to be the centerpiece of the campaign and “fuel the conversation” in social media and garner lots of free press coverage (hence, the need for such an over-the-top story)
12/12/2023 8:41 am
Carrie
Good detective work. It’s starting to look like Emily Renda deserves more scrutiny.
12/12/2023 9:08 am
Does Truth Matter to the Feminist Left?
I suggest everyone read this story — published this morning. Can’t post a link, so just search for it. Or you can find it posted on my Twitter account.
I am “Daily Bail” on Twitter.
12/12/2023 9:09 am
Also, if you Google Emily Renda & Al Sharpton, you’ll find an interesting MSNBC video clip of him interviewing her on his talk show about the Rolling Stone article and the campus “rape culture” epidemic (note: the show aired before the RS article was exposed to the general public as being a hoax)
12/12/2023 9:21 am
Sabrina No Source
Thanks for the heads up on UVA professor Creasy’s “The Flight from Reason on Campus” in The Weekly Standard. Finally someone on the grounds brave enough to speak out against the mob mentality!
12/12/2023 9:33 am
*forgot to mention that the Al Sharpton interview w/ Emily Renda also features the lovely Wendy Murphy
12/12/2023 9:55 am
FYI,
I think that you are correct: re, a possible explanation of why many in UVa’s student body are reluctant to stop backing Jackie could be because the RS article followed in the wake of Hannah Graham’s murder. In addition, a Va. Tech student was murdered at UVa in recent years (by the same man who murdered Hannah Graham, apparently) and Yeardly Love was murdered by George Huguely V. A story of rape-even as false as Jackie’s story now has proven to be-would definitely gain traction, given that history.
As far as where the Phi Psi fraternity brothers are now staying: it is my understanding that they have moved back into the fraternity house. Some degree of normalcy seems to be returning to the university.
12/12/2023 10:14 am
THIS IS A MUST SEE
And on msnbc of all places. Last night Host Chris Hayes had a pretty decent discussion with T. Rees Shapiro of the Washington Post.
1) Hayes is on our side, the side of truth. His thoughts come out in the last 10 seconds.
2) Start watching at the 7 minute mark to hear the discussion of Jackie’s elaborate Catfish.
I am posting the link to the Video on my Twitter account now, because I can’t post the link here.
Search for ‘Daily Bail’ on Twitter.
12/12/2023 10:38 am
NEW STORY FROM SALON
Rolling Stone’s UVA disaster just got a whole lot worse
Excerpt:
What goes conspicuously unstated in the Post report is the conclusion that many readers will understandably jump to after reading these details: That Jackie created a fake love interest for herself, with his own email account, phone number and swiped photos, who she later went on to accuse of rape. And if Jackie did indeed make him up — although it bears repeating that the Post never explicitly stakes that position itself — it adds yet another bizarre layer of opacity to an already less-than-transparent story.
The link is on my Twitter page
12/12/2023 10:45 am
It was a mistake for Hayes to pick as Caitlin Flanagan to appear in the same segment as Shapiro because even though it is valuable to have a balance of opinion, the topic of her work only tangentially relates to the UVA allegations (because her reporting concerned fraternities in general and also sexual assault committed by their members) and it is in fact completely unrelated. Shapiro was obviously asked about the details of the UVA case according to what he has found, but Flanagan isn’t involved with the UVA story, so Hayes was basically just bouncing back and forth between two unrelated stories. All Flanagan had to say about the UVA story was that (and this is hilariously revealing) she is distressed and disappointed that a false accusation of rape against a fraternity might no longer be able to be used as a weapon against fraternities in general.
12/12/2023 11:05 am
Hayes MSNBC interview was like a bad SNL skit.
Hayes: Fraternities are bad and evil. What do you say Caitlin
Flanagan: Yes Chris, fraternities are bad and evil, read my book
Hayes: Taylor, Jackie’s 3 friends came off as bad people
Shapiro: Ah, they said Jackie lied.
Hayes: Back to you Caitlin, are fraternities really bad and evil?
Flanagan: Yes, Chris, fraternities are bad and evil.
Hayes: Taylor, What do you possible have to gain by reporting on this ; story?
Shapiro: The truth
Hayes: But didn’t something really bad happen?
Shaprio: Chris, it was a fake date.
LIve from NY its Saturday Night!
12/12/2023 11:06 am
Oh and I forgot to include the part where Flanagan was sad that the UVA rape is turning into a hoax since she won’t have that story to push her narrative and her book sales.
12/12/2023 11:20 am
BT: The SNL skit was pitch perfect
12/12/2023 1:40 pm
KC Johnson at mindingthecampus.com on the latest OCR at SMU:
To reiterate: this new procedure, which OCR requires SMU to continue in the future: (1) denies the accused student the right to an attorney; (2) denies the accused student the right to cross-examine his accuser; (3) allows the accused student no meaningful discovery; (4) can brand the accused student a rapist even if SMU’s own investigator and, later, own conduct review officer concludes he did nothing wrong; and (5) can reach that determination on a 3-2 vote.
The OCR settlement with SMU contains one final assault on due process. SMU must “review sexual harassment/violence complaints and reports of sexual harassment/violence filed during and since 2012-2013 to determine whether the institution investigated each complaint or report promptly and equitably and, following OCR review and approval of SMU’s proposed response, take action to address any problems identified.”[emphasis added] This goes beyond the double-jeopardy provision of the OCR settlement with SUNY, and at the least strongly implies that a student acquitted of sexual assault in the 2012-3 or 2013-4 academic years could now be tried again by SMU.
Even for an agency as indifferent to due process as OCR, this is a breathtaking mandate.
12/12/2023 2:33 pm
We are now entering Alice in Wonderland territory.
According to Ace of Spades:
Bizarrely, incredibly, it is now revealed that when Sabrina Erdely was a student newspaper editor at U Penn, she was disciplined for fabulism, for making a story up out of whole cloth.
She was disciplined by the paper’s editor in chief, Steven Glass.
12/12/2023 3:28 pm
I posted a response to Ms. Merlan, following up Honest Broker’s comment, over at my iSteve blog on the Unz Review. (Just Google.)
12/12/2023 4:55 pm
Has she personally apologized to you for insinuating you are/calling you an “idiot”? I notice in the “Correction” to the post she does not say anything about that.
Honest question: Why pay any attention at all to anything written by this disgusting cunt?
12/12/2023 4:58 pm
“My assumption is the Rolling Stone article was a preconceived PR stunt designed to be the centerpiece of the campaign and “fuel the conversation” in social media and garner lots of free press coverage (hence, the need for such an over-the-top story)”
Carrie,
UVa was aware of the story as early as last August. They retained a PR firm to help deal with the expected fallout, which which explains the new public safety campaigns like Hoo’s Got Your Back. They were an effort to get ahead of the expected scandal.
To think they created the story, that’s going a step too far though. There’s no profit in being slandered by Rolling Stone.
- CS
12/12/2023 6:19 pm
Merlan displays the problems inherent in trying to discuss this issue (or, really, any issue) with feminists. They believe they are already in position of The Truth, it’s never something they need to search for. And they sledgehammer all new information into their predetermined view of the world.
Merlan writes that …”Eramo said in an interview, the informal hearings virtually never led to expulsion, even when the accused student admitted to rape or sexual assault.”
That’s NOT what Eramo said. What she said was that “I feel like if a person is willing to come forward in that (informal interview) setting and admit that they violated the policy when there is absolutely no advantage to do so, that that does deserve some consideration.”
So some unspecified number of students “admitted that they violated the policy”. This is not an admission of rape or sexual assault, certainly not in the sense which these terms are used in the real world and almost certainly not even in the sense they are employed in the Orwellian world of the modern campus.
The informal interview process is not one which will result in expulsion, and the “survivors” already know this when they choose to go through the informal interview process. As becomes clear if you watch the Eramo interview, the typical student she interacts with is not a “rape survivor” at all but a young woman who got her feelings hurt and wants the cad who hurt them to say he’s sorry.
12/12/2023 7:22 pm
On PBS Newshour a few minutes ago, there was a discussion hosted by Judy Woodruff that focused on the role of alcohol in college sexual assaults.
The UVA rape case was mentioned twice prominently in the introduction and early discussion. This is now our reputation — the Rape School, UVRape, etc.
Jackie must pay.
12/12/2023 7:28 pm
This weekend, I am going to look into starting a Change.Org petition asking the UVa Honor Committee to bring charges against Jackie.
This fantastical, delusional hoax perpetrated by Jackie and Rolling Stone will forever haunt the University, all done in the the hope of making a first-year man jealous.
Honor charges are warranted, for Jackie has no honor.
12/12/2023 9:49 pm
Just read an excellent piece… google “Call it what you will ‘culture of rape’ must end” by Cynthia M. Allen for the Fort Worth Star Telegram. To the hacktivist editors and contributors of VMA’s school rag, who continue to heap the dying coals of this stunning national debacle of a story onto the true victims of this incident-the guys of Phi Psi and all Greek males of UVA, take note: this is actual journalism.
Allen concludes, “And today’s culture of sexual expression, often celebrated by so-called feminists and exacerbated by a drunken and sometimes treacherous social scene, feeds the narrative that irresponsible behavior is perfectly OK until the woman – and the woman only – decides that it’s not.
All this said, campus sexual assault is not a mirage. And if the reality is that one in 30 women is a victim instead of one in five, it’s still too many.
But identifying and confronting the underlying problems that make sexual assaults as pervasive as they are requires honesty and objectivity.
That begins with thoughtful debate, reliable sources and responsible reporting.”
12/12/2023 9:52 pm
Current Student-
I wasn’t suggesting the RS article was created by UVa; I was suggesting it was masterminded by the Obama admin & the WH campus sexual violence task force (that Emily Renda was on) as part of the broader “It’s On Us” campaign they launched this fall.
12/12/2023 9:55 pm
It will be especially interesting to see how this story “plays out” from here. That is, a partial clue to the riddle of this matter is provided, by default, in the discrepancies between “Jackie’s” account, and the contradictory narratives of the three UVa students who were with her on September 28, 2012. It seems apparent that further developments could be transparent or opaque, depending on a group of contingent factors that cannot be predicted at this moment.
12/12/2023 10:23 pm
BRAND NEW DETAILS
Daily Caller just published an in-depth interview with “Randall” — More detail about Jackie’s crush and the police investigation.
Excerpt:
“There was a lot of crying involved,” Ryan told The Daily Caller in an interview on Friday of the conversation with Jackie after she expressed interest in dating him during the fall semester of their freshman year.
He said that when he approached UVA’s dean of students about the incident, he says he was directed to Charlottesville police. He was interviewed by investigators once for about an hour, he said.
The link is available on my Twitter account “Daily Bail”
12/12/2023 10:43 pm
It wasn’t clear in my previous post, but Randall said he spoke to Charlottesville detectives in the last few days about Jackie’s Catfishing adventures.
This is pretty good news.
12/12/2023 11:07 pm
For the moment, at least, “Jackie” has become sort of indispensable, although not in a way that is particularly advantageous reg. her own welfare. It’s in the way that any politicized person in the media becomes a symbol of their own travails and so representations. This could well make it more difficult for any institution (e.g. UVa) to know how to engage her situation, but, this kind of dilemma comes with the territory of these kinds of personae and so events.
12/12/2023 11:31 pm
Sabrina No Source
Thank you for referencing the Daily Caller article. I am glad to see that the police are pursuing the catfishing angle. I hope they make some sort of statement soon.
12/12/2023 11:39 pm
Personally, I think this story is as dead as a doornail now.
When I first heard of the RS story, I ignored it, because I just assumed it was sensationalized. Frankly, the only reason I did get interested in it was because a friend told me about the flak Richard Bradley (and later, others) were receiving just for very respectfully articulating some skepticism about the story.
The main points, which were that the story was inaccurate, and that proper journalistic practices were not followed, was conceded as far back as 12/5. The information from 12/10 to today (12/12) has pretty much destroyed whatever was left.
What is left is parceling out blame to RS, Sabrina RE, and Jackie, as well as sundry UVA personnel. That will not be pretty, but it will also not likely be terribly newsworthy. Jackie would be the default scapegoat, but she’s young (I don’t think she’s even 21 yet), and clearly has big personal issues. SRE will probably disappear off everyone’s radar, for a good long time. There’s nothing to gain for her by blaming Jackie, or taking responsibility. There will probably be some lawsuits and personnel changes at UVA, but, again, unless you have a tie to the institution there’s little interest there.
12/13/2014 12:33 am
SPMOORE
I think the next step in this tale will come from Jackie. She has counsel now who is likely telling her that she must finally tell the truth. The Charlottesville police have an active investigation. They have interviewed Randall for certain, and probably Andy and Cindy as well.
They will be contacting Jackie through her lawyer. She knows that she can’t give them any false names for her non-existent attackers, so the party’s over, so to speak.
I would expect a statement from Jackie’s lawyer sometime early next week. Though a confession to T. Rees Shapiro sometime this weekend also wouldn’t shock me.
He is still in Charlottesville working the story.
12/13/2014 2:20 am
Why does the media (and even this post) treat Jezebel as a legitimate media outlet? It simply isn’t, as its disgusting outbursts along the lines of “giant ball of shit” make clear. There’s no reporting, just hastily/poorly written demagogic outbursts.
12/13/2014 5:06 am
@ PS 12/13/2014 2:20 am
Hear hear!
12/13/2014 9:07 am
PS,
“Why does the media (and even this post) treat Jezebel as a legitimate media outlet?”
Not speaking for RB, but didn’t he say that Jezebel is advancing an argument that we will hear repeated?
Dizzy and JSR, if you are still following this conversation:
I am not a feminist, but I do not have disdain for the women’s movement. Without the early activists in the women’s movement, not one woman commenting here as an alumna would be doing so, since none of us would have attended the university. (UVa admitted women in 1970) The problem for me is that feminists seem to support positions far from those with which I can identify. Perhaps a correction is needed, and a pulling back to the center, as Yoffee and Levine seem to suggest in the articles referenced here. In my view, defending “hook up” culture and promoting the idea that a “Slut Walk” advances the protection of women is way off base. It seems that feminists need to take their movement back.
eah,
Unfortunate choice of words a couple of posts back. Using that word in connection with a woman you are criticizing seems to confirm the stereotype of “misogynistic” woman hating, member of the patriarchal power structure, etc (And I realize you could be a woman) Just unfortunate, it seems.
Well, I don’t get it. Are some seriously arguing that those accused of rape are to be denied due process?
A commenter above is correct: this story will fade and recede into the background. Maybe picked up once in a while by a tabloid newspaper that we will see on our way through the check out aisle, except for all of us, no matter what our position, who still love the University of Virginia and have a stake in its future and its reputation.
12/13/2014 11:29 am
I know the story isn’t quite over yet, but I’ve distilled some thoughts on the whole movement behind Jackie’s criminal bullshit, behind the “affirmative consent” policy, and the fallacious 1 in 4 numbers.
Let me be straight: campuses do have a rape culture. But it’s not in the way the argument is currently being framed by the social justice dogmatists at the center of all this. Campuses have a rape problem the way Salem, MA had a witch problem. Scrutinizing the activist groups Jackie Coakley is part of makes this abundantly and disturbingly clear; these groups are about as radical and polarized as you can get, insular to the point of cultish, both demanding and ultimately deifying victimhood among members, objectifying, dehumanizing, and vilifying a very general Big Bad Wolf “patriarchal” enemy (their fellow students, young men), and celebrating the most extreme and graphic story within their tightly closed ranks.
Numbers like “1 in 4″ are thrown around with zero critical thought and are given blind and zealous devotion. The definition of sexual assault is about as clear cut as a McCarthy hearing: consensual sexual activity at any given time could be shifted to “rape” as the goal posts are always moving. These groups are not fringe outliers; as demonstrated by Emily Renda’s White House connections, this movement is front and center of formulating national policy.
The public group both Jackie and Emily are part of is very active on facebook. It’s worth a thoughtful and critical examination. They’re clinging tightly still to the Jackie narrative, regardless of its real world implosion. When I first read the SRE article, it had just begun to unravel. The initial reactions among the Jezebel and Social Justice brigade was startling: boiled down, the first outcries after the absurd, knee-jerk labeling of skeptics as “truthers” coalesced into a collective “This could be bad news for us.”
Very troubling-wait, the truth coming out is a bad thing? What?
Jackie’s group-One Less at UVA-is deliriously clinging to the false narrative, despite it being a castle built on sand. They WANT with all their heart Jackie’s story to be true-because, after all, even if Phi Psi didn’t do the gang rape as SRE so ecstatically described, they’re all still rapists, because we have members who have their own Phi Psi “survivor” stories from the “rape house!” And by that extension, all fraternities are guilty, because they’re rapists too-the 1 in 4 numbers prove it! They need Jackie’s insane, libelous, destructive, absolute bullshit to be true in order to hoist their absurd 1 in 4 (or did Jackie boldly state 1 in 3, or 1 in 2 from SRE? I don’t recall) claim and subsequent sweeping reforms on campuses across the country.
This is how she was able to peddle her stupid and totally unbelievable story all over UVA for two years. Who cared that it snowballed a little bigger with every telling, whether at a public speaking or within the closed group, because facts and truth were never the core issue. No, an actual gang rape isn’t important, because it happened/happens/could hypothetically happen to all of us! It’s rape culture we’re after here. “My rapist doesn’t know he’s a rapist… because of rape culture.” Good God.
Basic common sense dictates there is no so-called rape epidemic on American college campuses. Let’s say they were pushing the number 1 in 10…. that’s ten percent. What is that, third world/ war ravaged and guerrilla plagued countries? The 1 in 4 number… you don’t even see that in the most sadistic post-apocalypse pulp fiction (save for maybe Cormack McCarthy’s The Road). It not only defies belief, it’s caricature. It’s too much even for an over the top parody.
And now it must be challenged. It must be called out at every turn, the proponents questioned and made to actually back up the number, instead of citing one or two nebulous studies, one of which was only a sampling of two campuses and the authors have clearly stated it is not indicative of anything nationwide. Emotional, reactionary rebuts of “rape apologist” or “denialism,” or, my personal favorite, “neckbeard” ain’t cutting it in anymore.
It needs to be challenged from the very top, where policy is emanating and attempting to trickle down.
Salem era hysterics are the overwhelming driving force here. And if left unchecked, and policy is formed and enforced based on fabrications and an absolute lie, there may eventually be a 1 in 4 number… 1 in 4 men falsely accused of sexual assault and their lives ruined as due process and criminal justice are entirely circumvented, the accused hauled before a university kangaroo court led by an ideologue adherent of “1 in 4.” All it takes is one cry of “He’s a witch!”
Despite what social justice activists claim, their movement is not a nonviolent one, as clearly evidenced by what happened to Phi Psi. Cinderblocks are all we know about thus far, but the guys have stayed mum-and a good move that is. In this climate of madness and mob rule, they could have been entirely away from their house the weekend in question, the house itself under fumigation for termites, all of the evidence and alibis checking out, hell, the termite team themselves showing footage of an empty house. They’d still be under siege and de facto gang rapists.
So why put yourself out there, even to defend yourself? Hopefully, when this bullshit blows over, Sullivan is sacked, Rolling Stone and SRE sued, Jackie expelled, these guys can get a movie deal. I’m thinking David Fincher, The Social Network meets 17th century Salem.
Perhaps the most tragic outcome of all is the effect this movement will have on real victims of sexual abuses. Not the confused or brainwashed college female who turns a consensual act into an attack (see the insane reactions in Levine’s “Feminism Can Handle It” article from movement pushers when Emily Yoffe lampooned a wife for asking her if she should divorce her husband because he had a drink or two and they engaged in intercourse, which she admitted to enjoying thoroughly, but under the new absurd definitions of “assault” turned her husband into a rapist).
It has become crystal clear: the movement was never about real female victims, or sexual assault, or actual truth; why stonewall police investigations, why the hysterical fear of seeing Jackie’s “story” unravel into the epic farce that it always was, why strategically and wholly ignore the several other very real gang rape stories unfolding throughout the country at this very moment?
There’s no “compassion,” no empathy-the activists could not be more transparent and vicious in their attempts to use the SRE article as the launching pad for their Brave New World.
((A final thought: I’ve cobbled my thoughts together all morning, but I just want to echo 77 above me:
I do not have disdain for the women’s movement. Without the early activists in the women’s movement, not one woman commenting here as an alumna would be doing so, since none of us would have attended the university. (UVa admitted women in 1970) The problem for me is that feminists seem to support positions far from those with which I can identify. Perhaps a correction is needed, and a pulling back to the center, as Yoffee and Levine seem to suggest in the articles referenced here. In my view, defending “hook up” culture and promoting the idea that a “Slut Walk” advances the protection of women is way off base. It seems that feminists need to take their movement back.
— I am in 100% agreement. Thank you.
Also, let’s watch it with the nasty polarizing language. Please. It helps no one, certainly those of us who are pushing to get the truth out. Save the gender slurs and personal attacks for the SJW brigade.))
12/13/2014 11:47 am
From 1993, but this beautifully and frighteningly illustrates the mentality of these radical groups:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-05-08/news/1993128032_1_potential-rapists-campus-feminist-art
12/13/2014 11:54 am
Campuses have a rape problem the way Salem, MA had a witch problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep
12/13/2014 12:22 pm
RB,
(somewhat off topic)
On Twitter I saw that you defended your comment when Larris mischaracterized an earlier comment of your’s.
“…thought gang rape didn’t happen in U.S. but there was just one at Johns Hopkins University this year”
She, of course, is being intellectually dishonest bringing up that case. Neither the accused rapists nor the alleged victim went to the university. The supposed victim is only 16 not even college age. Larris (and just about everyone else in the media) rather give the impression that a handful of male pre-med students planned out an attack one of their own classmates.
12/13/2014 1:23 pm
Roan Novachez,
Thank you! ………..Lol, whatever you think or do, don’t hold back!
In all seriousness, I am not happy that UVa was put in the spotlight, but I am glad that these issues have been brought to the forefront. I have been reading conservative and liberal commentators and many are beginning, it seems, to start to form a discussion that is outside of politics and back in line with some just very basic ideas, like due process.
For me personally, I am very concerned about both the lack of due process on college campuses, and the abuse of alcohol. I believe that alcohol abuse on campuses is creating problems in a lot of areas, as adolescents away from home for the first time try to impress the opposite sex. Not only can we get into a he said/she said regretted encounter, but some situations can start off as consensual, then get out of hand because of alcohol. But I do not think that we then jump from that to a “rape culture”, something that I did think before starting to read this blog, because of how the issue has been presented in the media. Hannah Graham, the UVa student who was murdered, had had too much to drink and was lost. That is really heartbreaking. Her alleged murderer had been accused of sexual assault at two different colleges, and slipped through the cracks somehow. Anyway, I think everyone knows the story of Hannah.
Erdely could have written about Hannah Graham and Yearley Love and researched alcohol abuse on campuses, the serial rapist that can appear on campuses, and relationship violence, without attaching the story to a political agenda, and she would have done a service to the side of the debate concerned about sexual assault. Instead, she pulled a catfish scam herself and presented herself as a legitimate journalist, and many readers bought it, including me. I should have known better, though. It was not the Washington Post, but Rolling Stone. Ok, lesson learned.
12/13/2014 1:42 pm
@77 - you put forth good ideas. Unfortunately, I think that what you propose is highly unlikely due to the professional interests of those pushing positions, in the name of feminism, far from those with which you identify. Whether it’s groups such as NOW raising money or women’s studies professors explaining why their department deserves greater funding and professional deference, the natural motivation is to present a view that the situation of women today is extremely dire. That is a problem with most issue advocacy groups - it is almost never in their interest to say that their issue has been “solved” or greatly ameliorated because that calls into question why the group needs to keep raising and spending a lot of money.
What I’ll refer to as the “radical feminist academic” school of thought looks to be an extreme example of this problem because it implies both enormous power for its adherents (society as a whole is sexist and therefore every aspect of it needs to be reorganized according to their point of view) and an all-encompassing ability to blame sexism for almost any professional or personal dissatisfaction.
12/13/2014 2:56 pm
I am surprised that Jackie’s (presumably former) friends have their Facebook profiles public after their names are now well known. But since they are, there is no reason not to view them.
Interestingly, on November 1, 2013, Alex Stock indicates that he was engaged to Kathryn Hendley. (See link below). A Facebook friend of his named Chetan Jajadiya posted on November 20, 2013, “But i think I would have believe Jacqueline rather than you..! since she keeps telling this from very first day..!” It seems like it was in response to a Facebook comment that has since been deleted. This comment suggests that there was certainly substantial discussion for some time as to whether Jackie was being truthful.
https://www.facebook.com/100002170000026/posts/554378891311106/?pnref=story
12/13/2014 3:22 pm
Dave,
I posted a response before, and it got lost somewhere. In essence, what I said is that I appreciate what you have said. It is the reality we are facing. I guess that I am hoping that both sides will stop being self serving and put the interests of young men and women first. That is difficult when so much power, and its potential loss, is involved. That is not the way the women’s movement started out. I hate to see it become what it originally started out to challenge.
12/13/2014 4:28 pm
This is probably not going to fade away. SRE unwittingly picked the wrong fraternity to libel. There are certain Phi Psi members with unlimited resources who are willing to use them. It’s possible,if not probable, that they are just trying to figure out who to sue (Jackie? RS? SRE? UVa?) and just how to assess the damage unto which they would be entitled.
12/13/2014 8:01 pm
An absolute must-read:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html
“During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.
Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped.”
12/13/2014 9:34 pm
Sabrina No Source-
Thanks for posting the links to today’s hotair article and tonight’s Robby Soave interview on CNN. Here’s hoping that all of those with standing to sue SRE, save the audio clip of her stating that she talked to every friend Jackie confided in.
12/14/2014 5:20 am
@77 12/13/2014 9:07 am
Sorry, but for women like Merlan the gloves have been off for a long time now. Should I have called her a disgusting bitch instead? And I bet she has not apologized personally — people like that are…like that.
Credit to Luke Ford for going at this from an angle most are either missing or avoiding:
“A Left-Wing Jew With A History Of Christian-Bashing Wrote That Bogus Rolling Stone Article About Rape At UVA”
http://www.lukeford.net/blog/?p=60662
Also a good post here:
“The Erdely-Renda Connection”
http://28sherman.blogspot.de/2014/12/the-erdely-renda-connection.html
12/14/2014 6:35 am
3 NEW STORIES THIS MORNING
Moonbats defend fable not the facts
https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/2014/12/carr_moonbats_defend_fable_not_the_facts
UVA And College Rape — Quotes of the Day
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/13/quotes-of-the-day-1939/
Jack Kelly: Rape story falls apart
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/12/14/Jack-Kelly-Rape-story-falls-apart/stories/201412140087
12/14/2014 6:59 am
And here are are 2 more stories that are being pushed relentlessly on Twitter by pro-Jackie miscreants.
University of Virginia fraternities chief say she WAS raped and stand by girl who ‘got details of frat house wrong’ - as MailOnline shows just how similar Greek buildings are
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868909/University-Virginia-fraternities-chief-Jackie-raped-Senior-student-stands-girl-got-details-frat-house-wrong-MailOnline-shows-just-similar-Greek-buildings-are.html
I Believe Jackie and Respecting Survivors
http://nomore.org/uva-jackie-respecting-survivors/
12/14/2014 12:24 pm
Really what’s needed is a congressional investigation into media bias and outright fraud by the same. Perhaps media should be suspended while we have a national conversation on the lies and propaganda spewed by national media on a daily basis.
12/14/2014 12:40 pm
I posted 5 or 6 new links for today here in comments but Richard hasn’t moderated the comment yet. It was several hours ago, so it might be a while. I am posting them on my Twitter account as well.
‘Daily Bail’
12/14/2014 12:58 pm
Sabrina NS, I have couple links too that are in limbo since yesterday-both old articles debunking the 1 in 4 insanity. Google “The Campus Rape Myth” by Heather MacDonald, City Journal, 2008. She really does a good job of explaining where the bogus 25% figure comes from. Talk about massaging the data and manipulating the numbers!
There’s another one that’s 20 years old from a local city paper about a radical feminist group who pulled every male-sounding name from the school’s directory and posted signs stating that everyone on the list is a “potential” rapist.
12/14/2014 2:54 pm
I’m currently battling CNN’s Brian Stelter who covered the UVa case this morning on his show Reliable Sources.
.. @brianstelter The following hashtag summarizes your CNN show — #RapeByFantasyBoyfriendIsStillRape — @HannaRosin @Brithume @cnnreliable
@brianstelter Jackie created a fake person, fake email, fake photo, fake messages and fake date. Why is this difficult to accept?
@thedailybail is my Twitter account.
12/14/2014 5:05 pm
Emily Renda was supposedly an eyewitness, and also victim, to the beer bottle throwing incident as Stephen Glass-style narrated by SRE, right? That deserves some serious scrutiny. I’m speculating now, but I don’t think that ever happened-no way. After reading through their extremist group’s facebook page, that scenario, if it actually had occurred as the way penned, would have been the nonstop Vegas buffet for their cause-especially knowing Renda’s White House “It’s on You” policy connections.
Also, it was the Boar’s Head Inn restaurant where the alleged date with Jackie Coakley happened, right? That can be investigated… did the date pay cash, or did he drop Daddy’s card? It was “extravagant,” as reported by SRE. Jesus, this whole story is so Stephen Glass, it’s just… honestly, SRE is going to fall through a lot more glass than Stevie did once this is all said and done.
Just watched the 2003 film “Shattered Glass”-thanks isteve for the awesome blog post connecting the dots. Seriously, watch this movie-it really weighs in on these current events with SRE. And on top of that, it’s a damn fine movie with some great acting/very realistic adaptation of the real life events surrounding Glass-at least according to some of the people involved.
12/14/2014 6:43 pm
Sabrina No Sauce, maybe it would be a good idea for you to start your own blog? You can do it free on Blogger or WordPress.
Just a thought.
12/14/2014 7:58 pm
Can someone who works in the media please explain why Brian Stelter, CNN, and Matt Stroud, Associated Press, ignored the catfishing? I don’t understand why that crucial information is being left out of the reporting.
12/14/2014 10:40 pm
Just came across a new article in the Patriot Ledger that was written by Wendy Murphy that made me even more curious about her connection w/ Sabrina Rubin Ederly. Considering her Duke lacrosse hoax involvement and that she’s a civil trial lawyer w/ several active lawsuits pending against UVa for Title IX violations, the following quotes strike me as misleading and seem like she’s trying to defend SRE and re-direct all blame onto UVa:
“It’s not clear whether the writer or Rolling Stone magazine deserves the most criticism for allowing the ‘Jackie’ story to be propped up, and it’s hard to believe a reputable journalist would intentionally sabotage her own career.
People aren’t stupid, especially the parents of potential UVA students.
The good news is, ‘Jackie’s’ story is so over-the-top, it screams red herring (OK, neon whale) and has many folks shining an even brighter light on UVA to see what’s behind the PR curtain. Yet another reason to send our daughters (and sons) to college someplace else.”
12/14/2014 10:47 pm
@Anon 4:28 pm - if there are Phi Psi members with a lot of money to spend in this issue, I’d recommend that they pursue a different tactic than suing. Namely, instead hire investigators to look into other SRE articles, especially ones published by Rolling Stone.
12/14/2014 10:48 pm
* on this issue, not in
12/14/2014 10:48 pm
Give CNN some more time. They can create an animated video like they usually do… to explain how catfishing works. Lol.
What did Stelter say on Reliable Sources this morning? I missed it. I usually watch that and Media Buzz with Howard Kurtz. His piece had a woman attacking the 25% fraud. Forget her name.
Anna should get herself on TV to set everything straight.
12/14/2014 10:53 pm
“it’s hard to believe a reputable journalist would intentionally sabotage her own career.”
I get the impression from hearing her interviews, etc., that she’s very aware of what she can get away with when she believes nobody can or will check up on her.
I find this woman very disturbing. I checked out the big Jayson Blair fiasco last week for more details. His fraud was so irrelevant compared to hers in terms of putting other people’s lives and future at risk.
12/14/2014 11:58 pm
Did you guys hear that Erdley called each one of the three friends to apologize for their treatment in the story? She’s apparently “re-reporting” it. Is Rolling Stone insane? This is the last person on earth you would want to “set the record straight.”
12/15/2014 12:24 am
Kelsey-
It’s also the last person on earth most people at UVA would want to talk to. I wonder if Erdely called each and every member of the fraternity to apologize. If so, I certainly hope she offered to paint over the gaffiti, pay for the cost of repairing the windows, and help the fraternity members study for their exams (since I am sure their grades suffered this semester).
For those members who were on campus in 2012 but have since graduated, I hope she offered to call their bosses and explain it was all a big misunderstanding that she said gang rape was part of the initiation process for fraternity members. Do you think she called all their grandmothers and apologized for gang rape being the hot topic at the Thanksgiving dinner table this year?
12/15/2014 12:58 am
I’m not sure I even see an “important argument” in Merlan’s latest. But her assertion that the shredding of Erdely’s/Jackie’s account is almost played out strikes me as wishful thinking. If anything, I’d say only the surface has been scratched. Her downplaying of the unreliable part and her urging us to fixate on the second part strikes me as the whimpering after so much barking.
12/15/2014 12:59 am
FYI: The weirdest thing about that is it was kind of kind of buried in another story about the three friends. They just said “Yeah, she called to apologize. Guess she’s re’-reporting the story.” And there was zero followup from the interviewer. What did Erdley say to these poor kids she had never met, but viciously slandered? Did they accept her apology? Wish her luck with the new story?
Also is “re-reporting” going to become a thing in our horrible new media age? Like you get a “do-over?” This is actually not a bad strategy. Once you get the reader hooked on the first story, you reveal it was all wrong, so stay tuned for part 2. The key is that the first story is really sensational and attention grabbing, which is easy, because it has no basis in reality. Then you let the other media outlets all thoroughly discredit the story (while providing links to it of course) as you hold out as long as possible (Rolling Stone caved too quickly) before announcing that you’re going to “re-report” the whole thing. Make sure to use the same disgraced journalist, who has now become more popular than if she had won the Pulitzer. I don’t know the name of a single person who has ever won that prize, but I know Sabrina Erdley’s name (Although I think I’m spelling it wrong). The point is who wouldn’t want to read about her shameful return to the scene of her greatest failure? The second story would get even more clicks than the first one.
12/15/2014 4:07 am
In addition to Erdely reaching out to the 3 friends to apologize/re-report, it appears she’s also been attempting to contact Alex Pinkleton (one of Jackie’s activist/survivor friends quoted in the RS article). Pinkleton was on CNN w/ Stelter yesterday and disclosed that SRE had emailed her a few different times recently, but that she hadn’t responded yet because she was “too busy with final exams”. It was pretty clear she was upset with SRE, but also seemed like UVa asked her not to speak with SRE anymore
4/14/2015 2:44 am
[…] Richard Bradley’s blog, commenter Honest Broker […]