“No Evidence”
Posted on March 23rd, 2015 in Uncategorized | 98 Comments »
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Charlottesville, Virginia police announced today that they have found “no evidence” that Jackie, the primary figure in Rolling Stone’s story on campus sexual assault, was gang-raped, as that story proclaimed, at a UVa fraternity.
However, the cops said, that doesn’t mean that she wasn’t raped, “possibly somewhere else, on a different day.”
Rolling Stone now reports that, in the next Mission Impossible movie, Tom Cruise risks everything to try to track down Jackie’s attackers, then dies before succeeding.
98 Responses
3/23/2015 2:12 pm
But Richard, the New York Times emphasizes that the police chief said that something terrible could have happened to Jackie that night and that the investigation isn’t over by any stretch. He also referred to Jackie as a “survivor.”
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — The police here said Monday that they had found no evidence that a woman was gang raped at a University of Virginia fraternity house in 2012 and that they were suspending their investigation, after a lengthy inquiry in which the alleged victim refused to cooperate. But they said the inquiry was not closed.
“I can’t prove that something didn’t happen, and there may come a point in time in which this survivor, or this complaining party or someone else, may come forward with some information that might help us move this investigation further,” Police Chief Timothy Longo told a roomful of reporters here.
“That doesn’t mean that something terrible did not happen to Jackie on the evening of Sept. 28, 2012,” Chief Longo said, referring to the alleged victim and adding that his department was simply unable to corroborate her account. He added, “This case is not closed by any stretch of the imagination.”
I don’t see “no evidence” in quotes anywhere. How does a journalist choose what to quote and what not to quote?
3/23/2015 2:38 pm
>> “This case is not closed by any stretch of the imagination.” <<
It makes you wonder how you can even consider this a case anymore under any circumstances… an alleged victim who refuses to cooperate and who has been widely discredited, and with the only 'corroborating evidence' being a complete work of fiction. Even now, this has to be the coldest of cold cases.
3/23/2015 3:21 pm
Anon, if you click on the link, you’ll find the phrase “no evidence.”
3/23/2015 3:43 pm
Of course, for those who are heavily invested in this case — I’m thinking of UVA alumni and students — it must be frustrating that this case will never be closed.
On the other hand, the police don’t want to say ‘never means never’ because to do so would have a ‘chilling effect’ on the large number of victims of sexual assault who have not yet come forward. That is the reasoning.
And yet, when the police conduct an investigation for four months, and find “no evidence”, and when the person who claims to have been sexually assaulted “refuses to cooperate” it doesn’t take a lot to understand that there was in fact no sexual assault and they are simply drawing a veil over the obvious.
I still don’t see how she was able to not cooperate given that her statements to Erdely imply that there are 7-8 depraved sex criminals floating around UVA.
3/23/2015 3:48 pm
Spmoore8 -
I don’t mean to quibble, but do do we know at this point that she even made those statements to Erdely? Given that Erdely has already confessed to having made some things up, it’s entirely possible that this was among them.
3/23/2015 3:51 pm
also worth noting to anon that the NYT headline on their website is “police find no evidence of rape at uva fraternity”
3/23/2015 3:51 pm
Thanks Richard. I see the phrase only in the headline and in a block quote, of uncertain attribution, in the final paragraph of the story. And that quote appears to reference information that is a month old.
3/23/2015 3:52 pm
@spmoore8
Yes, this entire situation has been exasperating for UVA students and alumni. Unfortunately, the Charlottesville Police cannot compel Jackie’s cooperation. And she is wise not to cooperate - from all appearances, she is exposed to false statement prosecution.
I can deal with the fact that the investigation will never be closed. I have a tougher time dealing with the unlikelihood that UVA will have a tough time recovering from RS’s libel.
3/23/2015 3:52 pm
IO - You mean that SRE made up the story of the sexual assault?
I suppose anything is possible but it was my understanding that Jackie had made a reputation as a survivor of sexual assault and had spoken semi-publicly about it at UVA, which is why SRE was directed to her.
3/23/2015 3:54 pm
also worth noting to anon that the NYT headline on their website is “police find no evidence of rape at uva fraternity”
It is in the headline of the NYT article but I don’t see it quoted in the body. Seems like a pretty important assertion and should be quoted if it were said.
3/23/2015 3:58 pm
SPmoore8 -
I don’t think Erdely made the whole thing up, but the contours of what Jackie actually told her and what Erdely embellished are unknowable. Sorry for not being clearer.
3/23/2015 4:10 pm
The “being knocked out with a bottle” story looks to have been a lie as well.
“[Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy] Longo disputed several points made in the article, including the accuser Jackie’s claim that she received no help after reporting the incident to campus officials. The police chief said that police spoke with Jackie in May 2014, after she claimed to school officials she suffered a second attack.
“At that time, Jackie claimed a group of four men called her name and threw a bottle at her head when she turned around. She claimed at the time that her roommate had to pull shards of glass from her face.
“The roommate denied this to police.”
3/23/2015 4:12 pm
What kind of rape victim brings a *lawyer* to *stonewall the police* who are trying to investigate her alleged rape??
“After the Rolling Stone article was published, police again tried to interview Jackie, but she brought a U.Va. dean and a lawyer and refused to speak. Another officer at the press conference said that a follow-up message from the lawyer said in no uncertain terms that Jackie would not cooperate with the investigation.
“Longo also said the Charlottesville police tried to obtain records from Jackie’s meetings with U.Va. Dean Eramo, but that Jackie wouldn’t sign a waiver releasing them.”
3/23/2015 4:12 pm
(via Ashe Schow — http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/police-no-evidence-to-support-rolling-stone-gang-rape-story/article/2561907 )
3/23/2015 4:46 pm
Jackie’s stance was what you’d expect from a person accused, not the victim.
Here is how the UVA paper is reporting today’s developments:
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/03/police-find-no-evidence-in-rolling-stone-investigation-suspend-inquiry
“Longo said most individuals were fully cooperative with the investigation, including the article’s author Sabrina Erdely…”
3/23/2015 7:47 pm
Next up: The president of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia says the organization is considering legal options against Rolling Stone for the erroneous “A Rape on Campus” story.
via thewrap-dot-com
3/23/2015 8:37 pm
So feminists were all like “Jackie is so brave for coming forward with her story and giving hope to many victims.. What a strong, brave woman”
So now that Jackie refuses to cooperate with the police, not helping them arrest 7 gang rapist and making other woman vulnerable to them… Can we get feminists to say she is a coward whose attitude is putting other girls in danger?
Nope.. Feminists will be silent..
3/23/2015 9:01 pm
The headline of Erik Wemple’s WaPo piece goes one better than “no evidence”:
“Charlottesville police make clear that Rolling Stone story is a complete crock”
Quite so.
3/23/2015 9:05 pm
Is it possible Sabrina Erdely has been so quiet because she’s expecting legal action against her by Phi Kappa Psi?
Same with Jackie?
3/23/2015 11:02 pm
Richard,
I only saw one small segment and this annoying lady on CNN said survivors remember things differently.
This is a blow. Remembering things differently and making up something such as fake emails and using pinger numbers are two different things. I changed the channel, but at at that point it was over. Anyone have the link for the whole conference?
I wonder how Jezebell will spin this? Perhaps if they condemned lying, maybe just maybe people would attempt to respect them.
3/23/2015 11:23 pm
Geez.
Check out this comment on Jezebell;
I started to type a snarky comment about how “I’m sure Jezebel will do the responsible thing and retract or apologize blah blah…” but stopped because I’d rather ask a question.
What do you, Anna Merlan (or any Jezzie’s really), feel is the appropriate course of action to take in light of the new information regarding this case? The reason I stopped typing my snarky comment is that it’s still quite plausible some sort of assault or non-consensual activity occurred. Since I’m not a douche, I know that it doesn’t matter the “degree” of assault (was she plied with drinks to the point where she couldn’t consent or instead simply forcibly assaulted instead). Assault is assault.
That said, this is as good an example as any of the need to have a conversation about the vilification of supposed perpetrators who have not yet been convicted in a court of law. In my mind, women should be out for the blood of other women who falsely accuse or cry assault when no crime occurred. It has a chilling effect on the desire of law enforcement to take seriously/pursue allegations and gives ammo to all the jackasses out there who would have use believe that most of the time it’s the woman’s fault.
My point is…I don’t think Jezebel needs to be like apologizing to the frat or anything but there’s a case to be made that you guys SHOULD have a discussion or something to that effect to address something like this.
Just my two cents, I’m sure my comment will be relegated to the greys…
1049Reply
Response
You’re not a douche, but you have to make your burner mocking a well-known Gawker commenter. Sure thing, pal. Oh, and you suggesting that women need to go after women who falsely accuse of rape is as stupid and unhelpful as telling black people they need to address black-on-black crime.
First, what we still need to do, regardless of whatever number of false rape accusations are out there, is teach people not to rape from a young age. And, no, we aren’t just talking about the “jump out of the bushes at night” rape; we need to teach about consent, teach about respecting people’s bodily integrity.
Second, the desire of law enforcement to investigate rape cases is as old as time. It was never deterred by false accusations and still isn’t. This is because law enforcement is generally run by men who hold conservative values and conservative values only consider the above mentioned stranger-danger rape serious. Everything else is just “regret sex” which is horseshit and is in no way to be blamed on women.
Third, check yourself, douche.
Reply
3/24/2015 12:02 am
The Police Department’s statement is very clear that the evidence is overwhelming that this was all a hoax.
The New York Times has been extremely resistant to admitting that roots of the whole story, going back before the alleged gang rape, are that Jackie catfished dream date Haven Monahan into electronic existence to make Ryan jealous. The NYT never published the name “Haven Monahan” until today, when it snuck in via an AP wire service report. The NYT seems very concerned about making sure its columns are a Safe Space for true believers in Jackie’s story.
3/24/2015 12:06 am
What the NYT wants is for the story to remain vague and boring: mistakes were made, proper journalistic procedures were not followed, that kind of eye-glazing thing.
The absolute key fact is that Jackie was engaged in massive fabrication, catfishing Haven Monahan into apparent existence to impress Ryan, _before_ the purported gang rape.
Once that’s clear in your head, you can see the entire story is a hoax. There’s nothing there at all.
3/24/2015 12:14 am
The question of Rubin Erdely’s culpability is worth debating, since Jackie was the prime mover with her catfish scheme. But it was very silly, very girly (her fake emails were cribbed from “Dawson’s Creek” and the like).
Most people in contact with her, such as the much maligned but level headed UVA assistant dean Nicole Eramo, didn’t take it all that seriously. We now know that Jackie had a couple of interviews with cops long before the story, but would back off with her charges when they asked tough questions.
Emily Renda apparently believed Jackie or thought her story would be good for Emily’s budding career.
Surely, Rubin Erdely must have had doubts — she’s 42, this isn’t her first rodeo, she watched Stephen Glass up close — but she’s a professional at extracting sensational charges from dubious characters.
3/24/2015 12:38 am
Steve go look at Jezebell comments.
They tbink Jackie is a victom of mental trauma despite;
“On April 21, 2014, “Jackie” again met with Dean Eramo and reported a physical assault that was alleged to have occurred on April 6, 2024 on the University Corner in the vicinity of Elliewood Avenue. According to “Jackie” she was struck in the face by a glass bottle. She further advised that her roommate at the time, a nursing student, assisted her in removing glass from her (“Jackie’s”) face.
In a subsequent interview by investigators, “Jackie’s” roommate denied ever removing glass from “Jackie’s” face. Further, she described “Jackie’s” injury as an abrasion consistent with having fallen.
According to “Jackie” she stood in the parking garage on Elliewood Avenue and called her mother. Yet, a subsequent search of phone records which we believe to be “Jackie’s” failed to yield any evidence that such a call was made. In fact, no calls were made from April 5, 2024 from 8 p.m. to April 6, 2024 at 4 a.m. Further, a search of the police department’s Computer Aided Dispatch records revealed that an officer responded to an unrelated call for service at 9 Elliewood Avenue, adjacent to the garage where “Jackie” was alleged to have made the phone call. The officer was on location for several minutes and would have likely been visible to “Jackie” had she been at that location during that same time frame.”
3/24/2015 12:39 am
*They think Jackie is a victim of “Mental Trauma” or “emotional abuse”
3/24/2015 12:42 am
Here is the full statement. http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wset/PressStatement%205.23.15.pdf
It was okay for the Press to destroy the frat boys lives, let’s take it easy on Jackie Coakley? Bullshit.
3/24/2015 12:43 am
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wset/PressStatement%205.23.15.pdf
Last time I am going to post this link, it’s not showing up on my end.
3/24/2015 12:45 am
No ones seen through this but we are the jerks who do
“Jackie told Eramo about the alleged assault during a meeting to discuss her academic performance, Longo said.”
3/24/2015 12:57 am
Hearing this, my wife says that, just like Jackie, she also got called in by the lady dean at her state flagship university over her poor grades in the spring of her freshman year. Improvising, my future wife pointed out that her rooming house had been recently burgled and that the crime had left her too, like, psychically traumatized to, you know, study. My wife, who had played the lead in “South Pacific” the year before in high school, even broke into actual tears in front of the dean as she was recounting the sense of psychological violation left by the burglary (which actually had occurred, although nothing was stolen from her personally) and how that had completely precluded her from concentrating on her Poly Sci textbook.
But that was the Seventies, so the dean simply stared at her for awhile and then said, “Some people just aren’t cut out for college.”
3/24/2015 8:52 am
@SteveS: LOL. Great story. Smart Dean.
And that’s the thing. The people who are healthily skeptical of these hoaxes - particularly the over-the-top stories promoted by professional activists & second-rate journalists with a conflict of interest - are the ones who do real victims of crime (rape or burglary ;-0) a favor and protect their interests.
But with false “friends” of rape victims like the ones at Rolling Stone & Jezebel, rape victims certainly don’t need any enemies!
The epidemic of rape hoaxes currently being given shockingly blind credence by self-styled women’s rights advocates even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence is actively undermining the credibility of genuine rape victims everywhere a little bit more each day. Some “feminists” they turned out to be!
3/24/2015 9:07 am
WHY THE MEDIA CAN’T COVER SEXUAL ASSAULT: A concerned journalist who asks anonymity writes law professor Glenn Reynolds:
You might be interesting in this Tip Sheet from Columbia’s Dart Center:
Note how from the very first paragraph the tip sheet assumes that anyone making a complaint is a “survivor,” not an “alleged victim” or other neutral language.
Nowhere do these guidelines say “Be sure to give the alleged perpetrator or his/her representatives a chance to respond to the allegations.”
But they do say:
“Listening is important. Make sure to allow ample time for the source to tell you their story. Don’t rush them. Don’t press for details if they are not willing. Allow them to tell you what they feel comfortable talking about.”
The closest the document comes to saying “Check the facts!” is this:
“Corroborate information. Be aware that accounts of what happened may not be entirely accurate as trauma can impact a person’s memory. A person may forget details or misremember due to the psychological effects of the trauma. Be sure to corroborate your information with other sources to the extent possible.”
But note how any discrepancies in an account of an assault are pre-judged to be the result of that assault, the reality of which is not to be questioned.
One could argue that Sabrina Rubin Erdely followed these guidelines in her Rolling Stone piece. She only corroborated the facts in the story to the extent that they would not upset her “survivor.”
Columbia Journalism School is the institution investigating that Rolling Stone piece. Fortunately, Steve Coll, dean of the school, is a first-rate journalist. Hopefully, they will produce a solid report—and then circle back to take another look at their own guidelines for reporting these stories.
—-
see http: // pjmedia. com/instapundit/204033/ [remove spaces to paste link into address bar]
3/24/2015 9:30 am
Based on the Charlottesville PD report one thing is still unclear to me. This sentence appears in Eric Wemple’s “Crock” column.
The incident supposedly occurred on April 6, 2014, according to Longo. Jackie told the police that her roommate, a nursing student, “picked the glass particles from her face,” as Longo tells it.
Did Jackie actually talk to the police about the bottle throwing incident or was this just alleged somewhere (RS or otherwise)?
3/24/2015 10:19 am
For more on the potential significance of the “bottle-throwing incident”, see Wemple’s earlier blog on this topic (“More on RS bottle throwing incident”, Wemple Blog 1/6/2015.
Apparently the police did talk directly w Jackie at this time (4/6/2024), and it was then, according to Longo, that they first heard of the 2012 sexual assault allegation. If the police had reason to doubt the bottle-throwing complaint, then they presumably also had reason to be skeptical of the sexual assault allegation. SRE cited UVa’s Renda and Eramo in her account of the incident, perhaps as an attempt at corroboration. (Agree w Anon above: This does appear to raise more questions than it answers….)
3/24/2015 11:23 am
Steve Sailer: What exactly is a “lady dean?” How different than an actual dean?
3/24/2015 4:22 pm
“Inconsistencies in Jackie’s story do not mean that she wasn’t raped at UVA” by Jessica Valenti
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/inconsistencies-jackie-story-rolling-stone-rape
“Daily commentary on feminism, politics, culture and more from Jessica Valenti”
Lol!
3/24/2015 4:43 pm
Example of how insane, and ultimately self-destructive, rape propagandists are:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/inconsistencies-jackie-story-rolling-stone-rape
3/24/2015 6:09 pm
She’s not some sexist, patriarchalist mansplainer.
3/24/2015 6:24 pm
Yeah fire Erderly. Student needs counseling for having survived her own story. A mea culpa from Erderly would be nice.
3/24/2015 7:34 pm
TRIGGER WARNING, nausea variant:
U. of Virginia pats itself on the back even as police decry lost evidence in ‘Jackie’ case: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21738/
3/24/2015 8:30 pm
Has anyone trademarked #JusticeForHavenMonahan tee shirts yet?
3/24/2015 10:36 pm
From the CollegeFix article:
“The Huffington Post reported earlier this month that the distributor for The Hunting Ground, a new documentary that purports to show a rape-culture crisis in higher education, has received more than 1,000 invitations to screen the film on college campuses.”
What the…
3/25/2015 1:38 am
That Jessica Valenti column in the Guardian (link above) is interesting. If we assume it expresses a widely held position among rape activists, it actually gives critics of the Title IX process a lot of common ground to work with.
Instead of focusing on the strangeness of insisting that it’s still possible that Jackie was raped (i.e, of latching on to the fact that the police investigation doesn’t conclude she wasn’t raped) we might focus on all the things that Valenti is now willing to grant:
“The truth is that we don’t know what happened to Jackie,” she says, “and likely never will.” That’s because, “According to research from The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women … there are numerous reasons that real victims of sexual assault may ‘omit, exaggerate or even fabricate aspects of their report.'” Valenti will go on to use the word “lie” in her column to describe these aspects.
“The center’s research showed that even when a woman has been raped, it’s ‘quite common’ for victims to change the details of the attack: they may say they were assaulted vaginally because talking about oral or anal rape is too embarrassing; they may blame the attack on a stranger because the actual perpetrator is their partner; they may lie about drinking alcohol, taking drugs or other behaviors they think might undermine their credibility.” She concludes that “it’s much more likely for a rape victim to lie about the details of her attack than for a woman to fabricate a sexual assault whole cloth.”
Valenti thinks it is important (and perhaps it is) to believe the accuser about the fact that she was raped. But she actually cautions us against believing her “about the details of her attack”. If this sensibility had informed both Erdely’s reporting and UVAs response to it, it would have avoided a lot of trouble.
Upon hearing her story, the reaction should have been: even if something happened we will probably never know exactly what it was; it is, let’s say, “likely” that she was raped but, if The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women is right in its conclusion, it is therefore also “unlikely” that she was ritualistically gang raped by the members of the fraternity she named. Or to put it in Valenti’s terms: it is “much more likely” that she was raped than that she was raped by the men she accused in the way she described it.
Erdely should have made this assumption. UVA should have, and perhaps were doing so until RS published the piece. And the police apparently did exactly that from the beginning.
What Valenti has done, if both sides can agree to it, is to maintain the presumption of innocence for the accused that can co-exist with a presumption of victimhood for the accuser. What it does is to pinpoint the very real difficulty of justice in this area. If both sides recognised that justice for rape victims is not a no brainer, but a very difficult problem, we’d come a long way.
After all, rape activists do sometimes say it’s easy: “Men shouldn’t rape. Just don’t do it.” But that’s only my personal “easy” solution to the problem. It doesn’t help me when I stand wrongly accused of raping a complete stranger who has actually been raped by her boyfriend.
3/25/2015 5:54 am
“Men shouldn’t rape. Just don’t do it.”
Women shouldn’t lie about rape. Just don’t do it.
3/25/2015 10:25 am
That Jessica Valenti column in the Guardian (link above) is interesting. If we assume it expresses a widely held position among rape activists, it actually gives critics of the Title IX process a lot of common ground to work with…
What Valenti has done, if both sides can agree to it, is to maintain the presumption of innocence for the accused that can co-exist with a presumption of victimhood for the accuser.
Your example presumes activists are willing to consistently apply this principle even where it impedes their goals. There’s no evidence this is true, and overwhelming evidence this is false. Valenti is willing to advance this issue in this circumstance because it serves to protect the accuser by explaining away her now undeniable lies. Yet no activist advances this principle where it would serve to protect the accused rather than the accuser.
Further a close analysis of the current events demonstrates how dishonest her application of the principle is in this case. Jackie’s lies began before the supposed trauma when she invented a romantic interest trying to make a friend jealous. The trauma cannot have caused the misstatements of fact, yet Valenti invokes trauma as the reason we should leave open the possibility she was raped that night. So she won’t advance this principle when it is possible to protect the accused, but she will advance it even where impossible to protect the accuser.
Her stated principles are entirely a convenience. The only principle that universally describes her and the other hysterics’ actions is to support any accusation by a woman and support punishment for any man accused even when they understand the accusation is false.
3/25/2015 11:02 am
“I can’t prove that something didn’t happen,” says Chief Longo. Alas, the investigation will never end since no one, not even our vaunted Chief, can prove a negative.
3/25/2015 2:27 pm
There’s a man who comes into the homeless shelter where I volunteer who is sure that the voices in his head were caused by another homeless man putting a “haint” (curse) on him.
Chief Longo wouldn’t be able to close that investigation either, since there’s no way to prove that old Jos didn’t put a haint on Mr Teos.
In fact, given that that’s the standard, one would expect police departments to have warehouses full of “suspended investigations”.
P.S. Mr Teos is a lot better now that we found him a light blue sleeping bag. That exact color of blue chases off haints. Prove that it doesn’t 😉
3/25/2015 4:59 pm
@Marshal: Excellent catch on this. You’re absolutely right:
Further a close analysis of the current events demonstrates how dishonest [Valenti’s] application of the principle is in this case. Jackie’s lies began before the supposed trauma when she invented a romantic interest trying to make a friend jealous. The trauma cannot have caused the misstatements of fact, yet Valenti invokes trauma as the reason we should leave open the possibility she was raped that night. So she won’t advance this principle when it is possible to protect the accused, but she will advance it even where impossible to protect the accuser.
3/25/2015 5:10 pm
Meant to add: There is abundant evidence that Jackie started advancing her massive web of lies before any trauma at all, by all accounts, had ever even occurred, just as Marshall has shown.
So for Valenti to excuse Jackie’s pattern of lying on her alleged trauma is preposterous and it serves to prove exactly Marshall’s cogent point that self-styled ‘rape advocates’* like Valenti only strive to be even-handed when it advances their preferred narrative which serves their own very narrow & clearly unjust agenda rather than the truth.
*[and I submit Valenti is no such thing, she unwittingly does more damage to genuine rape victims every time she advances this harmful & illogical claptrap. I’ve said it before I’ll say it again: With ‘friends’ like Valenti, rape victims don’t need enemies.]
3/25/2015 6:27 pm
@Marshal: I basically share your pessimism about a consistent application. I was just pointing out that she did actually articulate a workable principle.
3/25/2015 8:21 pm
I understand - I just wanted to highlight the issue.
I was hopeful that Slate’s and later WAPO’s key roles would mean at least some effort on the part of liberals to take control back from the hysterics. But I don’t see much evidence of continued momentum in that direction, including essentially no criticism of Valenti or Teresa Sullivan (or many others demonstrating essentially no change from their earlier positions).
Another missed opportunity, and another data point rebutting reasonable liberals’ claims that the hysterics are only a fringe.
3/25/2015 11:14 pm
The University, U.Va. men, U.Va. fraternities generally, these persecuted Phi Psi students in particular, really deserved to have the police close this case. Not doing so was a major act of cowardice on the part of Longo.
3/25/2015 11:45 pm
Wemple at Washington Post (who seems to really have it out for Rolling Stone! I am surprised with that columnist’s contempt - that can backfire) called out RS Monday/Tuesday.
Again I don’t have any issue whatever as regards women’s rights, men’s boundaries and safety for everyone. But I have little appetite for false accusations and to me the Guardian plays right into it again. It’s like the gift that keeps on giving - just stay in the hypothetical world, devoid of any facts on the grounds, and come to the defense of the absolutely discredited.
Still I lay everything at the feet of Erderly and RollingStone - they KNEW better than to run the story in the first place. That a false story got taken to heart is probably one of the most disappointing events in journalism in what, now 7 months running?
3/27/2015 6:40 pm
“Looks like the J-School investigation of that Rolling Stone story is going to be quite a doozy”
BY ASHE SCHOW | MARCH 27, 2024 | 1:15 PM
“The highly anticipated review of Rolling Stone’s disputed story about a University of Virginia gang rape was submitted to the magazine this week, the On Media blog has learned, and its contents are apparently quite damning.
“The review, which was submitted by Columbia Journalism School dean Steve Coll, is significantly longer than the original 9,000-word article, sources with knowledge of its contents said. They also said the review offered a blunt indictment of Rolling Stone’s reporting and its violation of journalism ethics. A significant portion of the review is slated to run in the magazine next month, they said.”
3/28/2015 8:43 am
Steve Coll is nothing if not thorough. Seems he knew the stakes: if the premier j school doesn’t set the record straight, who will? Sounds like Erderly career at RS is done for now.
3/28/2015 1:41 pm
Incompetence and gullibility are one thing, but Sabrina looks like she’ll get caught out in more than a couple blatant lies. That’s tough, I wonder what careers are open to a 42 year old failed journalist.
3/28/2015 3:29 pm
Plenty of careers open, maybe even journalism. Depends on the “mea culpa.”
Some news on the police report and Columbia J School report.
Police report: as told by T. Rees Shapiro for Washington Post
“The Rolling Stone account focused partly on what Jackie called a lackluster response from U-Va. officials regarding her alleged gang rape, and the article criticized the university for not alerting campus to the allegations. But the police report shows that university officials were aware of the allegations at least six months before the story published and that associate dean Nicole Eramo had proactively sought police assistance after learning of the gang-rape claim from Jackie in the spring of 2014. Rolling Stone’s account portrayed Eramo as indifferent to Jackie’s allegations; campus sexual assault prevention advocates reacted negatively to that characterization, saying that they believe Eramo is a force for good on campus. […] The next day, Eramo joined Jackie at a meeting with both Charlottesville police and University of Virginia police, which Longo said was the first time his department became aware of the allegations. On May 1, 2014, Eramo and Jackie met with a Charlottesville detective to discuss the alleged sexual assault. But during both meetings with police and Eramo, Jackie would not provide information about the attack, police said. Longo said Monday that Jackie did not cooperate with their investigation into the case.”
Let’s all agree that T. Rees Shapiro has done a great job at Washington Post. He’s gotten to the bottom of everything and someone should commend his work.
Now on the Columbia J School report as told by Politico
“The highly anticipated review of Rolling Stone’s disputed story about a University of Virginia gang rape was submitted to the magazine this week, the On Media blog has learned, and its contents are apparently quite damning.
The review, which was submitted by Columbia Journalism School dean Steve Coll, is significantly longer than the original 9,000-word article, sources with knowledge of its contents said. They also said the review offered a blunt indictment of Rolling Stone’s reporting and its violation of journalism ethics. A significant portion of the review is slated to run in the magazine next month, they said.”
I think it’s fair to guess that Rolling Stone will fire a few people and drop Erderly from their roster of contract writers.
Unfortunately there is a “zero” percent chance that the allegations will not have had their intended effect. I think Virginia’s had more than enough scandal this year - true and false - and deserves a “pass” for a few months. The real tragedy - Hannah Graham’s abduction and murder. Then the real huge problem - the boy getting beat up on the corner for doing nothing! Finally, this debacle calling for the end of the fraternity system for something that no one did.
Give the campus a break.
3/28/2015 5:05 pm
The president needs to be fired and Jackie Coakley has to be nailed with an Honor Code Violation. Then we’ll “give the campus a break”.
3/29/2015 8:42 am
Firing someone who exonerated the fraternities? No. President did something that ensured the fraternity name was cleared beyond all doubt. Look at the Longo release. President did something that ensured fraternities stayed on campus. Their recruiting numbers were fine this Spring.
As for student, the record shows they have been discredited. That is enough and the most to expect. I was hoping for an apology. But that is too much for some people. Besides, they are discredited - the narrative has no legs, that is on the record and it is over.
3/29/2015 12:04 pm
The Longo release is hardly a surprise. He was undoubtedly paid off by the Psi Kappa Psi’s gang-rape insurance carrier……….
3/29/2015 12:40 pm
Firing someone who exonerated the fraternities?
Sullivan didn’t exonerate fraternities, she collectively punished the entire Greek system (including sororities). Sullivan lead the witchhunt even after it was clear there was no witch. A terrible, embarrassing performance which should absolutely lead to her termination.
3/30/2015 2:25 pm
Longo did okay in his press conference, but why did he have to ruin it with the feminist talking point?
Where did he get the ‘something may have happened’ line? Jezebel? Sabrina? Jackie?
It’s not his job to speculate. It’s to report facts. But if he’s going to speculate, he should balance it:
e.g:
‘Either Jackie was too traumatized by something to tell us what happened, or she made up the entire story.’
Erdley could probably get a new job at Jezebel. Or the Guardian.
Maybe the Rolling Stone could get some credibility back by doing a hit piece on the 25% myth?
3/31/2015 7:14 am
Richard —
Would you mind giving us a quick primer on the insurance aspect — should RS be sued, under what circumstances could their carrier refuse to pay, including legal fees.
3/31/2015 8:41 am
IO: You might be better off addressing a question like that to a lawyer rather than to a journalist (no offence, RB!).
Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy tackled the issue of libel law and UVa/RS late last year - google the title “Libel law and the Rolling Stone / UVA alleged gang rape story”. It goes into quite a lot of detail. If you still had questions after reading that, maybe you could send Eugene an email.
3/31/2015 8:42 am
link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/06/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story/
3/31/2015 8:59 am
Tam —
Thanks. I’ve followed that, but I was more interested in the kind of coverage a publication typically carries and what if any grounds for refusing to pay an insurance carrier might have in general. I thought that Richard as an editor would be able to talk about that, but if there any lawyers reading this who have that kind of domain specific knowledge, I’d appreciate their input.
4/2/2024 9:06 pm
Columbia Journalism School is releasing its investigative report on Rolling Stone’s UVA gang rape article on Sunday at 8 pm. It will be holding a press conference on the report Monday at noon.
4/5/2024 12:25 pm
Exclusive: @SabrinaRErdely is expected to issue an apologetic statement tonight. Her first comment about “Rape on Campus” article in months.
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) April 5, 2024
Sabrina Erdely will apologize tonight, Rolling Stone will take down its story, confess to a “systematic failure.” Columbia University’s graduate school of journalism will release findings from its independent review of Rolling Stone’s debacle…
All on a Sunday, Easter night/during Passover, when they hope no-one is going to be paying attention!
4/5/2024 12:26 pm
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/04/05/rolling-stone-will-pull-uva-rape-hoax-reporter-to-apologize-tonight/
4/5/2024 12:56 pm
Its happening!
4/5/2024 2:18 pm
Robby Soave at Reason, who was the second person (after RB) to question this whole mess, has a piece on tonight’s reveal in Reason: “Author of Discredited Rolling Stone UVA Rape Story Will Apologize Tonight —
Columbia’s report will be released at 8 p.m.”
If RB’s not going to be around, Robby might be a good one to check on, as well as the guys at WaPo.
4/5/2024 5:31 pm
So no punishment or firings for anyone involved… Rolling Stone’s readership is unlikely to have gone down since this debacle or going forward, meaning no loss of ad pages, meaning no consequences to Rolling Stone or anyone associated with this piece of journalistic malpractice save for a little bad ink.
The larger question, which hopefully someone will look into, is how pervasive this kind of fraud is among all of Erdely’s work, and indeed among other members of the staff… the only reason this is getting the play that it is is because of all the collateral damage it caused.
4/5/2024 6:49 pm
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405
4/5/2024 6:55 pm
it is out on Rolling Stone’s site now
4/5/2024 7:49 pm
I am sickened by Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s apology. There is no mention of the falsely accused fraternity.
4/5/2024 8:16 pm
I’d say that CJS gave SRE a free pass on completely making stuff up… like her presenting Jackie’s friend as being a self-styled slut-queen, or however she presented it.
4/5/2024 8:23 pm
It’s possible that RS was obliged by their attorneys & liability insurance carrier to avoid the admission of guilt which firings for the egregiously unethical & deceitful malpractice portrayed in the CJR report would no doubt convey to any jury in the almost certain eventuality of multiple civil actions undertaken against them by Erdely’s many victims.
But with Wenner’s refusal to impose firings or any disciplinary action at all on the perpetrators, the real victims of Rolling Stone’s massive fraud - aside from genuine victims of future rapes who have been harmed beyond belief by Rolling Stone’s hoax- may be any legitimate journalists of integrity & self-respect, if they exist, who have written and/or may write for RS in the future.
With Erdely & her grossly derelict editors & fact-checkers still in good standing on the RS masthead, all their other writers’ credibility is instantly rendered suspect merely for the fact they write for a shady publisher of ill repute who tolerates - and therefore tacitly encourages - manifestly shoddy journalistic practices by ‘impact’ journalists who rationalize their malicious defamation of innocent citizens as virtuous because it promotes the self-aggrandizing social change they seek to impose on the rest of us.
Erdely’s reputation is destroyed. She’s a shameless, unapologetic fraud.(Her unrepentant ‘apology’ is appalling.)
But so too is RS’s credibility obliterated now. In the blindly insular world in which Rolling Stone’s editorial offices operate, the ends justify the means & the truth be damned, so every story which has been or ever will be published under Jann Wenner will be deemed a joke by all rational, objective and fair people of any intelligence going forward, and with perfect justification.
After all, if he doesn’t expect better from his writers & editors than massive deceit & wholesale fraud, why the heck should anybody else?
4/5/2024 10:26 pm
An official retraction is pretty impressive on Rolling Stone’s part. Would have been best not to print the story at all, but they’ve come clean.
As for UVa, Sullivan saved the fraternities. Their recruiting is intact and they will make it. They have the retraction - the truth is out and they weathered the storm. That’s what innocence is all about. Their name is intact.
4/5/2024 11:04 pm
Man, Coll’s report is damning and Rolling Stone messed up. I read it. Pretty much ends everything. It will be interesting to see how UVa’s student newspaper reports on this, but for all intents and purposes this story should now be dead - and should have never run!
4/5/2024 11:05 pm
Richard Bradley was named as blogger#1, good job! He is cited as the first to question the story for the right reasons.
4/5/2024 11:51 pm
“I think it’s fair to guess that Rolling Stone will fire a few people and drop Erderly from their roster of contract writers.”
That’s because you mistakenly believed they would be at all concerned about the reputation of their magazine and those who still write for it, the integrity of their profession, and the intelligence & goodwill of their readers.
If they manage to stay in business after this, I suppose they’ll at least be on point re: their readers.
4/6/2024 12:19 am
@JMiL: The President of the Fraternity said tonight they are angry Erdely went out of her way not to apologize to them. I don’t know how anyone can claim they weren’t damaged.Jessica Valenti and others are continuing to perpetuate doubts of their innocence and everywhere you go on the Internet people insist that “something must have happened to” Jackie, just not the discredited specifics of the way the sexual assault was ( what we here now know to be) fraudulently portrayed by Rolling Stone.Across the country this fraternity and others have had their campus activities radically curtailed on the pretext of responding to a rape which never happened.
Read Volokh in the WaPo tonight. Innocent people have been harmed by RS’ ongoing malpractice here [they only tonight took down a story they either knew or should have known was defamatory many months ago] and they have the right of seeking and the probability of receiving a pretty stiff judgment in their favor.
4/6/2024 12:21 am
Rolling Stone manages to make the National Enquirer look respectable.
In a feel-good Hollywood movie, the punishment of the guilty would form part of the happy ending.
But this is like a ’40s film noir. The bad guys get to live happily ever after.
4/6/2024 12:37 am
And another thing,(that was I accidentally anonymously responding to JMIL just above) I don’t see how Rolling Stone can ever report with a straight face on a coverup by corrupt government offals or on a whitewash of misdeeds by corporate bigwigs when, by giving Erdely and her partners in editorial crime on this story a complete pass on their corruption and misdeeds, they have made themselves on of the more ignominious recent exemplars of that kind of sleaze themselves.
4/6/2024 1:48 am
The non-journalist Erdely did not apologize because she thinks she did nothing wrong. She would do it again if she thought she could get away with it and I’m sure she will.
4/6/2024 4:17 am
JMil: “As for UVa, Sullivan saved the fraternities.”
Bullshit.
4/6/2024 4:21 am
Glenn Reynold’s on the despicable Sullivan:
One person who shouldn’t get off the hook here is UVA President Teresa Sullivan. She essentially found the fraternity guilty based on a story in a music tabloid. She could have told the University community that “we don’t convict people based on stories in the media,” that she was going to independently investigate the accusations, and that people named in tabloid stories should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in the American tradition. She did no such thing. She hastily imposed a group punishment on the entire Greek system, and pretty much stood by while angry crowds mobbed and vandalized the fraternity house. (Faculty members didn’t help by staging their own marches; they may want — especially now — to characterize those marches as “anti-rape” or “pro-woman,” but there’s no getting around the fact that they were perceived at the time, and probably meant, as targeting the accused. In this case, the falsely accused.) As I’ve said before, there’s no place in America today where the authorities are more likely to be found siding with (or at least enabling) a lynch mob than on a university campus, and that’s a disgrace.
Well said, that.
Sullivan apologists claiming fantastically that “Sullivan saved the fraternities” are operating in an Erdelyesque state of denial.
4/6/2024 5:29 am
The Columbia School of Journalism report on the U-Va rape hoax is great reading. What a story! Her hunger for accuracy at any cost leads our hero and intrepid journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely to smash through the lies and discover the truth behind the deceitful “A Rape on Campus”. Following the ups and downs in Rubin-Erdely’s relentless jihad for verifiable facts was so enthralling that I ALMOST forgot that Sabrina Rubin Erdely was actually the author of the original story.
Almost…
So back in the day when The Times (of London) demonstrated that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was a fraud, did they tell the story of proving the Protocols false from the point of view of the Czarist intelligence agent who originally wrote it ?
4/6/2024 6:57 am
JMil-
I have trouble with the concept that Sullivan saved the frats… they didn’t do anything wrong to need saving from in this particular case.
4/6/2024 7:56 am
My biggest critcism of the Columbia J-School piece is they didn’t go nearly far enough to show what an obvious hoax Jackie’s story really was. No mention, for example, of the fact that Jackie “catfished” Haven Monahan (“Drew”) into existence with fake texts and emails.
It would not have taken a seasoned investigative reporter to uncover this; just a hack willing to ask basic questions of someone — of ANYONE, really, other than the teller of the outrageous story.**
** other than UVA administrators, who were legally prohibited from speaking.
4/6/2024 8:26 am
Wow, the fraternity VOLUNTARILY SUSPENDED ITSELF! That is NOT the same as Pres. Sullivan suspending it - that the other fraternities followed suit (or were compelled to) was a way of weathering quite a storm! In so far as anyone doesn’t think so is their right and opinion.
If anything Sullivan “followed” the fraternity lead. They (fraternities) came out ahead, dignity intact. Look who didn’t: Rolling Stone (1), the writer Erderly (2) and the student accuser (3). The story is RETRACTED, which almost never happens. A police force CONFIRMED that there is no basis for the accusations.
What more is wanted. While unfortunate that this happened AT ALL (the “story” that never should have gotten a green light or any approval to begin with), and while completely surreal the events that took place next (the on grounds issues, the demonstrations against the fraternities, etc), we are now here at the aftermath and the truth is out. The story is retracted. The fraternity is up and running and all of them are. The student newspaper is doing a bang up job reporting on the aftermath.
The innocent are innocent, the accuser is no longer credible. And the story’s “new story” - that of a mess up - is NOW THE STORY. That will broaden - it changes the dialogue.
I didn’t say the process was fair. Or that people made mistakes. I’m saying there is some justice here, at least more of what should have happened. It’s not perfect but it’s something substantial, solid, real.
4/6/2024 8:49 am
First reaction to the CJR story:
It seems an effort to give events the least damning interpretations they can justify, implausibly in many cases.
In particular the story frames the Rolling Stone retraction as driven internally by Erdely’s suspicions. But this narrative is fundamentally at odds with Erdely’s initial reactions which were (1) to refuse to cooperate with skeptical reporters, and (2) to argue the focus should be on the UVA reaction rather than on what happened to Jackie. This seems an obvious effort to minimize Erdely’s culpability.
4/6/2024 10:28 am
Erdely defamed one of Jackie’s three friends as a slut in the pages of an international magazine - that characterization was presented matter-of-factly - and neither she nor her fact checkers bothered to contact her to see if maybe Jackie’s characterizations of her ‘friend’ were off base even if only to gage Jackie’s credibility?
As someone else here said earlier, even the barest & most minimally professionally responsible fact checking would have stopped this horriffic hoax in its tracks at the get go.
Has Erdely ever accounted for where she came up with those faked lyrics to Rugby Road which figured so prominently as the framework to her discredited narrative?
Sorry, CJR, but there’s quite obviously a lot more here than just “good journalists led astray by a bad story”.
4/6/2024 10:39 am
CJS said they weren’t paid for their review, “only expenses”. Now, a fat per-diem for “incidentals” may mean some nice $$ for the investigators but it’s still only pocket money.
Why wouldn’t CJS negotiate a mid-five-figure payment for their work? After all, they had three people on the case, who were unable to perform teaching or administrative duties during that time. Or is their department rolling in money already?
4/6/2024 10:51 am
Why wouldn’t CJS negotiate a mid-five-figure payment for their work?
It would compromise their independence.
4/6/2024 11:05 am
“They (fraternities) came out ahead, dignity intact.”
Bullshit.
4/6/2024 12:38 pm
Did Erdely fall for a hoax? Or did she knowingly and intentionally help to perpetuate one? We don’t really know from the CJS report. According to CJS, Erdely and RS relied too much on a “single source” (i.e., Jackie). Is that really what happened in this fiasco?
4/6/2024 1:04 pm
@Wahoo. I certainly don’t think it is. Erdely still hasn’t accounted for a lot of the falsehoods & inaccuracies she reported which didn’t depend on her fabulist/’traumatized victim’ for verification.
RS’ editorial staff can’t claim they were being overly sensitive to a self-proclaimed rape victim in order to justify why they didn’t even try to independent fact check so many other easy-to-track down tangentially supporting details proffered in the story which are known to be false (the date of the frat house’s rush party, the stories of her friends, her roommate’s conflicting account of the supposed embedded glass shards Jackie sustained in a separate bottle throwing incident (disputed & now convincingly disproved), the bogus lyrics of suspicious provenance Erdely cites to the fight song which seem to too-conveniently support her preposterously over-the-top thesis of annual ritualistic gang rape at the fraternity.
Verifying much of that stuff wouldn’t have required Jackie’s knowledge let alone cooperation yet it clearly wasn’t even attempted by fact checkers & editors.
Again, the position RS is taking, propped up by the Columbia Report, that this is a simple case of erstwhile good journalists led astray by a bad story just doesn’t wash.
If this is the caliber of professional competency they apply to all their subjects and they contend the only difference is they just had a stroke of bad luck drawing a compulsively deceitful subject for this particular narrative, then all their reporting should be considered suspect. They’ve got a lot more problems with their workproduct than Jackie Coakley.