Biased Journalism from the Daily Beast?
Posted on December 17th, 2014 in Uncategorized | 111 Comments »
On the Daily Beast yesterday, Liz Seccuro published a long account of her rape at UVa in 1984. I have grown a little cynical about Seccuro since, hours before the Washington Post published its first debunking of Jackie’s story of gang rape, she published an article on Time.com explaining why you should never question a “rape survivor“—and has since steadfastly refused to acknowledge just how wrong she was—on -the premise, I suppose, that if you never admit that you were wrong, people will eventually just…forget that you were wrong.
But no matter—her story on the Daily Beast is painful and disturbing to read, and good on her for going public with this traumatic experience. You can buy her book here.
My issue is with the Daily Beast, which set up Seccuro’s story like this:
HISTORY REPEATING 12.16.14
I Was Gang Raped at a U-VA Frat 30 Years Ago, and No One Did Anything
History repeating?
I thought at first that maybe that’s some clever description—a slug, you’d call it in the magazine biz—the Daily Beast uses to introduce personal memoirs. But I searched the site for that phrase and couldn’t find any other usage of it as a slug. It’s possible that I wasn’t able to search the site correctly. It’s also possible that I’m just over-interpreting this.
But…it does appear like “HISTORY REPEATING” is a reference to Jackie’s claim that she was gang-raped at UVa.
If so, that’s an odd bit of editorializing; we still have no idea what, if anything, happened to Jackie. (And more and more, I doubt that we ever will.)
There’s some support for this interpretation to be found in an editor’s note at the bottom of the page:
Editor’s note: Liz’s account of her rape was briefly recounted in the November 17th issue of Rolling Stone, in the story ‘A Rape on Campus’ by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Liz is the author of Crash Into Me: A Survivor’s Search for Justice.
Just so you know, editor’s notes do not typically refer to their writers by their first names; if I wrote something for the Daily Beast, you can be sure that the tagline might say something like, “Richard Bradley is the author of….” It would not say, “Richard is the author of…”
Using Seccuro’s first name suggests a sort of editorial intimacy with the writer —a friendship, almost—that I would think inappropriate in anything other than a teenage girls’ magazine. I can guarantee you that Newsweek, the former owner of the Daily Beast, would not refer to a writer by her first name.
What’s the point? That this is unprofessional behavior on the part of editors because they want to show empathy with a woman who is recounting a story of rape. I understand the impulse, but it’s the same sort of mentality that got Rolling Stone into trouble.
Given what’s happened in the past couple of weeks, one would hope that the Daily Beast would know better. But in recent years, in an attempt to solidify its financial standing, the site has gone into the business of developing conferences aimed at women, and I imagine this kind of “we’re all part of the sisterhood” mentality is part of that financial agenda. Don’t be surprised if “Liz” is speaking on a Daily Beast panel sometime soon….
UPDATE: The word “former” was added to the sentence beginning “I can guarantee you…” to reflect the fact that Newsweek no longer owns the Daily Beast and, frankly, I’m not even sure if Newsweek still exists.
111 Responses
12/17/2014 4:30 pm
Dear Editors of Rolling Stone:
My name is Haven Monahan, and I’m looking for a Summer writing internship. Are you hiring?
Thank you,
Haven
12/17/2014 4:46 pm
I happen to know that Haven Monahan and Hannah Montana have been together for years.
He would never cheat on Hannah for Jackie!
12/17/2014 4:50 pm
I think you may have made an error… I think that Newsweek and the Daily Beast are no longer connected in any way. In any case, given that the Daily Beast was created by Tina Brown, such behavior shouldn’t surprise.
12/17/2014 4:53 pm
Seccuro clearly has her own profit motive in hyping rape on campus at UVa, so it isn’t just the Daily Beast. Somehow Jackie - prompted, apparently, by a sexual assault counselor (Renda?) - ended up fingering the same fraternity featured in Seccuro’s book. Was that a coincidence? If I recall correctly, someone actually took her there and pointed at the frat.
This story gets murkier every day as it becomes evident that an entire group of people who know each other personally had something to gain from Erdely’s article. I suspected as much all along, having made a study of these things over the past five years.
BTW, my wife and I were interviewed by the Daily Beast last year for a story about men’s rights activists, and according to the author (Tod Kelly), it got more hits than any other piece that year. This gender politics issue gets a whole lot of attention online, as you may have noticed recently.
12/17/2014 4:55 pm
I honestly wish someone influential would write an op-ed about the positives of fraternities since the media is only focusing on the existence of “rape culture”
12/17/2014 5:34 pm
Interested-Your’e right, of course. Newsweek shut down its print edition and then the trademark was bought by someone else. Mea culpa.
12/17/2014 5:38 pm
Securro’s situation is sad but she landed on her feet turning her tragedy into a book deal and a tour on the paid speaker’s circuit. She is also the one who tweeted immediately after the :tragedy”:
“#college or #university who needs a #speaker about #rape? http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/liz-seccuro … @RollingStone @UVA”.
It’s a dark tragedy for her anyway and one that she has turned into gold. More power to her but don’t blow smoke at us that this is all about a moral crusade to end sexual violence. Whatever its value,it still rides under the banner of that “S” with the two vertical lines through it.
12/17/2014 5:46 pm
“If so, that’s an odd bit of editorializing; we still have no idea what, if anything, happened to Jackie. (And more and more, I doubt that we ever will.)”
Nay, we know. Just Google (within quotes):
“Haven Monahan”
12/17/2014 6:28 pm
Richard -
I hope you’re planning to address the issues raised in The New Yorker Magazine, also. IMHO, although they call themselves “survivors” — to sound like noble sufferers, I assume — they should refer to themselves as “permanent victims who will never “recover” because victim-hood has become their core identity, and brings with it emotional rewards that true survivors forfeit.”
Not only that, a substantial number of these “victims” were active participants in their own victimization, if you can even call it being victimized. If a man and a woman, who may or may not be virtual strangers, both drink until they are seriously impaired, then disrobe and get into bed for the purpose of sexual activity, all it takes for the woman to become the darling of the “rape activists” (as Dana called them in the RS apology) is to say that she withdrew her consent at some point in the process, yet the brutal rapist continued to assault her. It is TOTAL madness to allow this kind of narrative to drive discussions of sexual assault. The New Yorker article discusses the reluctance of some professors to teach the legal aspects of a situation as I’ve described.
As excerpted from Inside Higher Education:
“In her piece, called “The Trouble with Teaching Rape Law,” Suk argues that increased anxiety among her students and colleagues about discussing complicated sexual assault cases is impeding criminal law professors’ ability to do their jobs well – ultimately at the expense of students and the rape victims whom some of them will eventually represent.
“Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic,” Suk says. “These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might ‘trigger’ traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well.”
Suk continues: “One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word ‘violate’ in class — as in ‘Does this conduct violate the law?’ — because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.”
She says that the environment makes teaching the kinds of complicated rape cases that are worth studying – those involving questions of consent or credibility, for example – so difficult that some professors are “giving up” on the subject entirely.”
End of excerpt-
The similarities to the satanic ritual abuse “believe the children” scandals isn’t far off course.
12/17/2014 6:44 pm
Richard’s point that perhaps The Daily Beast is betraying the “same sort of mentality that got Rolling Stone into trouble” is well taken. The “HISTORY REPEATING” slug reveals more about editorial bias than anything about what might actually have happened during the past 30 years.
Another problem that got Rolling Stone into trouble involved basic fact-checking lapses. The DB’s editorial note incorrectly referred to the publication date of the Erdely piece as “the November 17th issue of Rolling Stone”- the correct date is November 19th. More troublesome details, however, are somehow embedded in Seccuro’s claim that
“The other two rapists hired an attorney and appeared before a grand jury, each pleading the Fifth Amendment to each of the questions asked. When my husband and I asked to see the report, we were told we could purchase the report for $30,000 from the defense. We declined.”
Questions for DB’s fact-checkers?
1. Have “the other two rapists” been identified and provided an opportunity to challenge any of these allegations?
2. Who wrote WHAT “report” and who had or has ownership of it?
3. Who or what is the source for grand jury testimony? In Virginia don’t grand jury deliberations have strict confidentiality requirements? Was this information leaked? Is it contained in any verifiable record?
4. Exactly WHO offered to sell exactly WHAT “report” for $30,000? Two defense lawyers seemed to have been implicated by name in what comes across as some kind of sleazy offer. What is their reaction to Seccuro’s account?
Surely these facts have been checked. They are central to Seccuro’s claim that her rape involved multiple attackers, not just the one who was ultimately convicted of sexual battery, hence “HISTORY REPEATING.”
12/17/2014 6:45 pm
Here’s a question about the widespread analogy of the Rape Culture Hysteria of 2014 to the Satanic Daycare Hysteria of the 1980s: Wasn’t the 1980s frenzy more of a bottom up affair? My vague recollection is that it was promoted by local prosecutors, disparate media outlets, and maybe some ministers.
In contrast, the current madness was inculcated top down by the Administration and the Responsible Media (e.g., the New York Times) as part of the Democrats’ campaigns.
12/17/2014 7:07 pm
@Steve Sailer
The Satanic sex abuse scandals were part of the same long-term trend, so it shouldn’t be viewed as a separate issue. What has happened since then is that the same hysteria has worked its way up the ladder to bigger, juicier targets than downscale local Christian organizations. Keep in mind that the federal assault on the Branch Davidians was precipitated by (long since debunked) claims of sexual abuse as well, so the “top” has been involved for quite some time.
What has happened is that the people involved in these issues have come of age, and are now at the peak of their influence. Back in the 80s they were aspiring local activists or officials; now they have distinguished positions as top-level policymakers. Like Barack Obama, now that I think of it.
12/17/2014 7:25 pm
What is the evidence that Securro’s account of rape is true?
12/17/2014 7:32 pm
“The other two rapists hired an attorney and appeared before a grand jury, each pleading the Fifth Amendment.”
Haven’t we learned from coverage of Ferguson that defendants don’t testify in Grand Jury proceedings?
12/17/2014 7:57 pm
@ One Guy quote: “I honestly wish someone influential would write an op-ed about the positives of fraternities since the media is only focusing on the existence of “rape culture””
I agree! Why can’t we get back to the type of normal fraternity coverage? I remember very fondly when I was an RA at my university in CA how the fraternities carefully dropped off all their underage pledges in front of the dorm, making sure they got home safely after making them drink so much they had alcohol poisoning and we had to call paramedics.
Or the good old days when fraternities held cultural awareness events. Like this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/duke-frat-suspended-hosting-asian-themed-party-article-1.1257624
Or this: http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/20140123asu-fraternity-expelled-over-racist-party.html
Or this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/08/clemson-fraternity-cripmas-party-increases-racial-tension/20083415/
I don’t believe all fraternities are rapists - but that doesn’t mean they are upstanding citizens. Lots of fraternities have tons of problems and cause a lot more trouble than they are worth. Just holding a few “charity” events and fundraisers a few times a year doesn’t make up for the other problems. Also - great story in The Atlantic about how national fraternities leave their local “brothers” in the dust when liability is in play: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/02/the-dark-power-of-fraternities/357580/
12/17/2014 8:07 pm
If you want to see where Sabrina Rubin Erdely and/or Jackie may have come up with “crashing through a low glass table,” just Google
Scream 4 Best Scene
The whole four minutes of the film clip is very Sabrina-ish, but the part where the Jackie-lookalike launches herself through the low glass table to frame her friends comes at 3:20.
12/17/2014 8:09 pm
Good line from “Scream 4:”
“What world are you living in? I don’t need friends. I need fans.”
12/17/2014 8:30 pm
Frankly, if I were Liz Securro, I wouldn’t tempt fate so much.
I might be worried that some enterprising journalist might take a hard investigative look at her own claims regarding her rape.
My guess is that more than a small number of the detailed claims she’s now making would look less than convincing.
12/17/2014 8:45 pm
Liz’s twitter comment after the jackie hoax broke down “But that cannot change what happened to me. My truth is unassailable.”
I remember reading that and instantly saw a red flag.
12/17/2014 8:55 pm
Would a man who fought in Vietnam (say), who later wove a wholly fabricated tale of unbelievable abuse in a prisoner of war camp, for publication in a national magazine, still be considered a “victim of a POW camp,” because it would be wrong to “doubt the victim,” or because something must have happened because other soldiers who knew him thought his personality was altered, after he fought in the war? Or would his actions be considered disgraceful, and an insult to soldiers who had been prisoners of war? Would he be defended by true patriots because after all, he had served his country, or would he be exposed as a fraud, and treated as such?
When is a lie not a lie? When it is a woman falsely claiming to have been sexually assaulted under circumstances that match the “rape culture” storyline, as put forth by some (but not all) feminist organizations. The truth is irrelevant to some; a blatant lie isn’t a lie if it COULD have been true….
Regarding Marta’s remarks: It is hard to imagine Holocaust survivours, or former prisoners of war, demanding that their horrific stories not be taught or mentioned coursework, because of the potential emotional pain and suffering it might “trigger.” Survivours get on with their lives; they do not cherish and embrace their victim status, nor to they expect to be pitied and coddled for decades.
12/17/2014 9:02 pm
One detail I find to be very bizarre in the Daily Beast article is that Securro mentions her friend “Jim” invited her to the Phi Psi party because he’s gay and needed a wingwoman/decoy. However, then “Jim” is never brought up again at all. Where was “Jim” during the alleged attack? Did he do anything to help her afterwards? Did “Jim” end up pledging Phi Psi? Where is “Jim” now and what’s his perspective?
12/17/2014 9:22 pm
One other thing about “Jim”… it seems odd to me, especially back in 1984, that a freshman guy attending UVa that wanted to join a fraternity would come out of the closet to a female friend he’s only known for a few weeks/months (Liz herself refers to him as a “dorm friend”, so doesn’t appear she could have known him for very long).
12/17/2014 9:26 pm
Steve Sailer — I am a senior citizen without much skill when it comes to responding to web articles, so I hope Richard Bradley won’t mind if I use his journal to tell you how much I’m also enjoying your web journal. I’ve had to ask my granddaughter (18) or grandson (21) to explain some of the cultural references to me, but even if they’re not around to advise, I’m getting a real kick out of what you’re writing. Thanks!
12/17/2014 9:27 pm
What is in fact the evidence that Securro was gang raped? From what I’ve read, a man wrote her a letter some ten years later apologizing vaguely for “having harmed her.” What precisely did he admit to? And why weren’t the other two alleged men convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony from at least two individuals, including one of their alleged accomplices?
12/17/2014 9:28 pm
Richard-Thanks for writing, I’m really enjoying your blog.
You write: ‘[W]e still have no idea what, if anything, happened to Jackie. (And more and more, I doubt that we ever will.)”
That frustrates me. Why do you doubt we will find out what happens? With the damage that story has caused at UVA, I think it’s important to find out as much as we can.
Also, at what point does Jackie’s story lose so much credibility that we can find out her real name? Again, the consequences of her story have been very significant and if she made the whole thing up, shouldn’t she be outed?
12/17/2014 9:55 pm
I have to say that among the things I don’t like about Securro’s account is how vague she is on points on which one would expect her to be clear.
She says in her Daily Beast story:
“Beebe was indicted by a grand jury, and, as the investigation continued, it was revealed to me through my prosecutor, Claude Worrell, that just as I had suspected, I had been the victim of a gang rape.
Beebe’s defense team, Rhonda Quagliana and Francis Lawrence, had hired a private investigator. The investigator uncovered the identities of the other two rapists and the details of that night.”
For the life of me, I don’t know what exactly is being asserted here. Is it through the investigation by the prosecutor that these two were discovered? Who on earth would have revealed this information so many years later, and why can’t Securro explain how this information turned up, and why it’s reliable?
Or is it only through the defense lawyers’ investigation that these two turned up? If so, how reliable might that be — especially since, by her own admission, her inability to remember these two was used to put the reliability of her own memory and testimony in doubt?
I just don’t like the vagueness of all this. If it is all just as she stated, why can’t she throw in some detail regarding this that is convincing?
She might just be a very bad reporter of things that went on in her own life surrounding the trial, but it just lacks persuasive detail.
12/17/2014 11:10 pm
Well, presumably something nasty did happen to Securro, because she was able to secure a rape conviction. Boy, I’ll bet that guy is sorry he ever made amends.
Securro’s publicity seeking, and profit seeking, turns my stomach.
The more I read women’s stories of “rapes” the more I side with Roosh V: If she didn’t go to the police, immediately, it didn’t happen. If it wasn’t reported to the police, it’s an attention seeking gambit.
In fairness to Liz Securro, she did go to the police, and I’m not too cynical about her story.
But one story after another that hits the public seems to be constructed almost entirely to receive either attention or redemption. Do women lie about things, including such unassailable topics as Rape? Yes, yes, and yes. It sucks, but it’s true.
12/17/2014 11:52 pm
Shortest Straw,
But do we even know she went to the police?
Here’s what she says later in the article:
“Dean Canevari claims to have no memory of meeting with me. Dean Sybil Todd passed away from pancreatic cancer before she could testify. The IFC president denied meeting with me. I received an email from a friend some days ago after the Rolling Stone article was published, who, without prompting, wrote that he knew something terrible had happened to me when he saw me meeting with the IFC president in the lounge of my dorm. Leonard Sandridge of the University of Virginia wrote to me that records of my meetings with University Police and Captain Sheffield “could not be located.””
So there’s apparently no independent documentation she went to the police.
And did she even go to the hospital?
Here’s her account:
“At the hospital, I was told to wait, and was given some tea by a nurse. No one gave me any paperwork to fill out. There were stares, gestures, and quiet conversations at the desk. I assumed that far more serious cases had come into the E.R. Finally, after waiting for a few hours, the nurse approached me and told me that they could not help me, that I had to travel to Richmond or Washington, D.C. for what I needed. Apparently, I needed “tests.”
I bailed before she even finished her sentence, and began the long, sad walk back to my dorm, where I told my hall mates what had happened to me. Some sympathized, some rolled their eyes, and many simply walked away.”
So, apparently, she didn’t fill out any paperwork (amazingly). Does this entail what it seems to entail, that they too have no record of her visit? Certainly she never mentions such records.
Stuff like this rattles my bullshit detector I’m sorry to say.
12/18/2014 12:05 am
@ candid observer 9:55 These are certainly important details that relate to the nature of the alleged attack and the number of perpetrators. They were NOT substantiated in the DB article. Again my question: Have they been fact-checked by DB? I agree, the account is so vague that it is difficult to discern what is actually being communicated. Has anyone seen a reaction to all of this by either Quagliana or Lawrence?
12/18/2014 12:08 am
Richard is without a doubt providing an invaluable journalistic balance to so many recent stories. Just a small aside that I value this blog as much for its thought provoking exposés as its links and discussions of the best journalism out there.
Don’t forget to keep sending us to to those journalists, and their stories, who are doing great work!
12/18/2014 12:18 am
@candid observer 11:52 I think this her account: She went to Canevari soon after the incident, but he convinced her that it was not a Charlottesville police matter (and now Canevari has no recollection of meeting with her at all). She then went to UVa police (who now can find no records, etc.) She finally contacted the Charlottesville police several years later, after she started receiving messages from Beebe.
I share candid observer’s desire for clarification. I’d also like to know if and when she communicated with Renda, the link to Jackie!
12/18/2014 12:28 am
For good background on the Liz Securrio case & both sides’ account of the events that night, check out the 2006 article from local Charlottesville pub, The Hook, titled “‘I harmed you': 21 years, 12 steps later, rape apology backfires” (should come up within first few Google search results).
12/18/2014 12:56 am
Carrie,
Took a quick look at the account in Hook.
Doesn’t really help all that much, in terms of the account Beebe offered up, other than that at that stage he wasn’t admitting to anything like a violent rape, or perhaps even to rape, though he used the term (at least according to his lawyer.)
Neither is there any mention at that point of the two other alleged rapists-though perhaps the idea is that their existence came up later in some investigation.
But with respect to Securro’s assertion there is this point raised:
“Seccuro says a nurse came and told her that UVA hospital was not equipped at the time to do a so-called “rape kit,” and that she would need to go to D.C. or Richmond to have the evidence collected.
“Eventually, I just left,” she says. “I wanted to be home.”
UVA medical center spokesperson Peter Jump says he can’t comment on Seccuro’s case specifically and what she recalls hearing, but he says UVA was equipped to do forensic rape exams in 1984. “We had the same capabilities as the hospitals in Richmond and D.C.,” he says.”
So it would seem that the hospital rejects the idea that Securro might have been told that they didn’t have a rape kit, which rather undermines Securro’s story about why she didn’t stick around to be seen at the hospital.
The more I read, the less I trust anything Securro has to say, other than that she and Beebe had some sort of unpleasant sex that night — and that I believe only because Beebe admits to that.
12/18/2014 1:27 am
A confession, which Beebe provided, is pretty solid evidence. If a woman is willing, why on earth would a guy feel sorry about having sex with her? Why would he write her to apologize? As for the gang rape, I suppose we’d have to see the court transcripts to know what she’s talking about.
Some people do in fact rape, and I don’t think reasonable people would dispute that fact.
But that doesn’t mean that every time someone makes a rape allegation it’s true, and that’s where Seccuro loses me. Her mistake is extrapolating from her personal experience and applying it to every he-said-she-said case. It would be the same as if I said that all divorcing women who complain to the court and child protective services are lying to gain an advantage in a custody dispute because that’s what happened to me. Sure, it happens (far too often), but in many cases they are telling the truth.
As a personal aside, I wonder whether these feminists think rape is worse than losing one’s children. I’ve asked the question before in the form of “if someone in a position to do so said they’d take your children if you refused to have sex with them, what would you do?”, but encountered such fury over it that even I withdrew it. Nevertheless, I think it’s a fair question, as so many men do in fact lose their kids in divorce in the US (most other countries are far more humane in these matters). I, for one, would submit to rape rather than lose my children, and I think most women would do so as well.
Kind of puts things in perspective in these gender wars, I think.
12/18/2014 1:41 am
In many important ways, the afterstory of Securro’s rape is strikingly similar to that of Jackie.
She goes to the hospital, and they ignore her, despite her being bloodied and bruised. She goes to the University police, and they ignore her. She’s ignored by the UVa administration. Everybody ignores her.
But there’s not a single independent document or record to back any of this up. And woven into her story are accounts of why others didn’t have those records, or intimations of underhandness because they don’t.
Doesn’t inspire confidence.
12/18/2014 2:05 am
Pretty good summary by Cathy Young entitled “Rolling Stone Fiasco Should Prompt a More General Reexamination”. An excerpt:
“Obviously, corroborating a story on so charged a topic can be difficult. But the one-sidedness betrays an ideological bias as well. In a New York magazine article on campus anti-rape activists published in September, author Vanessa Grigoriadis pauses midway through the story to admit that, especially without the men’s perspective, she cannot say whether the women’s accounts are fully truthful — but then adds, “A woman who doesn’t support other women’s rape accusations is an ugly thing.”
One may debate whether or not that statement is good feminism (personally, it smacks more of sexism to me). But it certainly makes for bad journalism. If you’re a counselor or a victim advocate, it’s certainly not your role to question a woman who says she has been raped. If you’re a journalist, it’s your role to question everything — especially an account that you believe supports a good cause. The implosion of the Rolling Stone story is a reminder of the pitfalls of taking even compelling accounts at face value.”
If you want to be an authentic progressive feminist these days you need some sort of badge. A lesbian fling? That might do it. Interracial dating? Nice, but too mainstream. Rape? Now *that’s* the ticket.
Of course you need a proper villain. A prime perpetrator from the patriarchy. That’s why Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey aren’t just victims. But getting raped by a Republican? That proves you’re open minded AND a victim. Score for Lena Dunham. Getting gang-raped by white-privileged fraternity? Score for Jackie.
While Securro and other feminists are quick to point out that rape victims can misplace details or suffer from PTSD (which is it?), I think the first step in digging themselves out of a hole is to concede that not every rape story is, on face value, true. This will be a huge step in not only necessitating standards of reporting from “victims”, but also properly justify the movement of feminism by keeping in mind ramifications of false accusation on the part of their male counterparts/agencies.
12/18/2014 2:23 am
In addition to the previous article I mentioned, if you go to The Hook’s website and do a search for “Liz Seccuro”, there’s quite a few more archived articles that have pretty in-depth details about the case and the aftermath. In some of them you can still view the reader comments and there’s a decent amount of skepticism about her credibility/motives.
12/18/2014 5:57 am
A reader has transcribed the email “Randall”/Ryan received from the purported Haven Monahan five days after the gang rape. You can find it by Googling:
Transcribed: Haven Monahan’s Glitch in the Matrix Email Proclaiming Jackie’s Love
12/18/2014 6:35 am
Razor - in your comment, you say: ” If you’re a counselor or a victim advocate, it’s certainly not your role to question a woman who says she has been raped.” On one level that seems to be proper, but on a deeper level, I wonder if it’s a bit too basic.
Counselors who worked with children during the satanic ritual abuse scandals actually implanted false memories of horrific abuse in the children, in order to support a cause many counselors actually believed had occurred. It seems certain that a substantial number of children came to see themselves as victims, when in fact nothing had ever happened to them.
Isn’t it possible that a similar phenomena could happen to college age women, when the “counselors” (professional and peer) are agenda driven, anti-male, rape-culture believing activists? The counselors we’ve been hearing about recently seem to me to have a lot in common with the counselors who felt it was their mission to expose widespread satanic ritual abuse at daycare centers around the country.
12/18/2014 11:56 am
DB “editor” Tessa Miller @ TessaJeanMiller tweeted on 12/16, “Very proud to have worked on this piece with the *braver than brave* @ lizseccuro: I Was Gang Raped at a UVa Fraternity….”
More celebration today: “In a shocking turn of events,” Miller tweeted, “I have quite a bit of freelance budget left for the month. PITCH ME. [email protected].”
My pitch: Transfer the funds to FACT-CHECKING. Or LEGAL. Braver than Brave’s story is starting to fall apart. A shocking turn of events, indeed.
12/18/2014 2:28 pm
Thanks, Carrie, for the suggestions about looking at the accounts of the Securro case on the Hook.
Those accounts really do reinforce my sense that Securro is not to be trusted in her account of what happened.
There is already her claim that she went to the hospital the day after the incident and was told they didn’t have a rape kit, when the hospital asserts that they certainly would have had one (really, why wouldn’t such a hospital have one?). By far the most sensible explanation of that discrepancy is that Securro is simply making that fact up, because it would explain why she wasn’t seen by anyone at the hospital.
And reading through the Hook accounts, Securro also asserts in a “correction” that she has “some” memory of the purported two additional rapists:
“The Hook ran the following clarification on this story: The March 22 article on William Beebe’s sentence, “Final sentence: AA apologizer gets time,” should have stated that Securro has “some” memory of other sexual assaults that occurred the same night Beebe assaulted her.”
Yet in her most recent account on the Daily Beast, she says:
“It was shocking to find out that the rape by Beebe was actually the last one of the night. I had no memory of the other two, and that information was used to discredit my recollection of what had happened to me.”
Uh, she had “some memory” of the additional two rapes, but then she had “no memory” of them?
This is not someone who has a firm grip on truth and reality, or even on the importance of consistency in a story.
All of which makes one speculate that she may have panicked when Jackie’s story fell apart, because it might — rightly it seems — cast her own story in a dubious light.
It’s also worth noting that this entire legal procedure seems to have been conducted contemporaneously with the Duke Lacrosse rape case, with the attendant hysteria.
As best I can make out, the prosecutors appear to have brought up the supposed additional rapes while the Duke Lacrosse case looked like a big, convincing, juicy case of gang rape, and dropped it like a hot potato after it came unraveled and the prosecutor was disbarred.
Also noteworthy is that it at least seems that William Beebe never granted that there were other sexual assaults that night, despite what one would think would be a great deal of incentive to do so in terms of leniency on his sentence.
The Hook reports this:
“Although Beebe’s plea agreement recommended a two-year sentence, which might have allowed his parole after just a few months, Worrell [the prosecutor] asked the judge to impose a harsher sentence: 15 years, with 13 suspended. The plea, he said, was based on Beebe’s offer to help with the continuing investigation. But while Beebe readily met with prosecutors, “he wasn’t helpful,” said Worrell.
“He can’t tell things that aren’t true,” retorted Quagliana [the defense lawyer], who said Beebe has shared what he knows”
I think it’s pretty obvious what the additional things were that the prosecutors wanted “help” with.
12/18/2014 2:37 pm
Check this out http://jacobinism.blogspot.com/2014/12/instrumentalising-suffering.html?m=1
12/18/2014 2:42 pm
Marta, actually that was not my comment, but an excerpt from an article by Cathy Young which you can google to find. Apologies if it was confusing but I did try to place the excerpted portion in quotes.
While I do agree that such behavior on the part of counselors is too basic, I disagree that counselors are “implanting false memories” in “victims” either consciously or subconsciously. On the whole, I would shy away from labeling counselors as ” agenda driven, anti-male, rape-culture believing activists” and would not rush to stereotype them as such. Quite a few of them do have training that qualifies them for the job.
I do feel that there is a place for counselors for victims to confidentially talk to without being judged. However, I feel that both victim advocacy groups and counselors should outline a proper plan to move matters to the police authorities and move this outside an academic investigation. A clear plan should be given to the student and a plan of action should be provided with adequate support infrastructure in place so that individuals are able to navigate these areas to properly deal with rape. I wish that Universities would streamline this procedure so that they do not come under scrutiny for shying away from prosecuting for embarrassment reasons by placing adjucation of the matter confidentially in the hands of an independent body that is better equipped to deal with it.
12/18/2014 3:27 pm
I think the public record pretty well confirms that the rape occurred. But a few things which strike me as odd, given that I started UVa in 1987, when Ms. Securro would have been graduating.
First, and I cannot say it could not have happened, but I find ti surprising that six or so weeks into the first semester “Jim” would have acknowledged being gay to a potential “obligatory” date. Grounds were not the most gay friendly place then and such an acknowledgement would have been pretty extraordinary.
Second, I find it surprising that Dean Canevari would have indicated that University Police had jurisdiction over Phi Psi or any other fraternity. Factually, they did not, and my experience a few years later was that the administration was equal parts frustrated that they could not exercise more control, but also at times, relieved that they did not bear the responsibilities which would attend to such control.
Like 2/3 of the student body, I was not in a fraternity or sorority, but typing today, I cannot fathom how ANYONE could have spent four years at UVA and not understood that the fraternities were not on “Grounds”, but, instead, were subject to the City of Charlottesville, including the Charlottesville Police. Even if Dean Canevari (who I recall to be a straight shooter) misinformed Securro, surely Securro’s later activities would have cleared things up.
12/18/2014 3:43 pm
Just listened, after procrastinating to the DoubleXGabfest on Slate by Hanna Rosin, Norren Malone and June Thomas. Felt a little bit like I was eavesdropping on a pajama party of a chick flick with some annoying commercials, but was actually worth it to listen to feminist critically analyze this issue.
Link (55 mins): http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/doublex_gabfest/2014/12/rolling_stone_s_story_of_gang_rape_at_uva_the_aftermath.html
One nugget from Emily Yoffe who talks about studies that are used for statistics, “Its very clear very few people who use these studies actually read these studies [in their entirety] because the limitations are written in the study… weak and problematic studies are being used as the basis on which to make sweeping changes in sexual conduct codes and punsihment at schools because the assertion is this problem is so epidemic it requires a very draconian solution… the studies don’t support that assertion”
Also talks about some reporting tendencies via Margaret Talbot in the New Yorker. Maybe Richard could give his thoughts at some point.
12/18/2014 4:41 pm
candid_observer
I stand corrected. I had only skimmed the article. I guess she claimed to have gone to the police. Who the hell knows.
12/18/2014 7:30 pm
And alcoholic frat boy has sex with a drunken coed. Sixteen years later she gets the obligatory AA “I’m sorry” letter from said frat boy.
Hell, I got an AA “I’m sorry” letter from a girl (21) who I fooled around with when she was 18, in which she apologized for the fuss she stirred up when we did some drinking, heavy petting and arguing.
Sending the letter seemed weird to me, but apparently she was encouraged (as part of the AA ritual) to “atone” by apologizing to everyone she could remember for all her drunken behavior. Meh.
But, given his AA letter saying “I’m sorry”, the guy was guaranteed to go down for rape. Could he remember all the details? Probably not, given that he was likely shit-faced drunk, 18, and it was 16 years in the past.
The other guys (that Liz sneers at) made the smart move. When Liz’s PI started getting names and going around talking to all the other frat members, they pleaded the fifth — for good reason.
Imagine being asked this question at age 35: “Sir, could you tell me what you were doing on September 28, 2024 at 10:45 PM at your drunken fraternity party sixteen years ago? Do you remember staggering up the stairs with a bottle of tequila?”
Nah.
I have no idea what Liz or frat boy experienced. They probably don’t remember either. But since he said, “I’m sorry”, he went down for the count.
12/18/2014 8:09 pm
“Unassailable truth”?
No record of a visit to the UVa hospital ER after LS spent 5 hrs there with “broken bones” (see Richard’s Time link). No paperwork? [Has anyone ever visited an ER and not had to begin with all kinds of paperwork (insurance, etc.)?]
No rape kit at one of the state’s largest medical centers? Told by a nurse she had to go to DC or Richmond?
No record of contact with Dean Canevari? Read the accounts in the DB and Time-Canevari as portrayed by LS is a caricature of insensitivity and manipulative dishonesty. I (like uva1991grad) also knew Canevari…this only strikes me as a smear, pure and simple.
No record of meeting with the UVa police (who never even kept their promise to contact LS by phone)?
No record of a presumably significant series of meetings with the IFC head (who like Dean Canevari has no recollection of meeting with LS at all)? Yet conveniently later verified by an email from a friend of LS’s after the RS story appeared…the only “corroborating” evidence I can unpack from all of this.
No record of an incriminating “report” containing specifics about two other participants in a brutal gang rape that was offered for sale (by who knows whom?) for $30,000? No record because LS righteously “declined” the offer.
12/18/2014 8:18 pm
Excellent points, Razor.
Perhaps I lack imagination, but I can’t imagine why so many “rape survivors” appear to think it is to their advantage, and the advantage of others, to cling to their status as victims, often decades after the incident occurred. In my book, true “rape survivors” don’t capitalize on, or make capital (money) of, their (often self-described) victimization, for the rest of their natural lives. Some women can’t even remember what happened to them, but that doesn’t stop them from calling themselves “rape survivors.” They’re black-out survivors, and that’s all that seems certain. Blaming the man means they don’t have to accept full responsibility for their own actions — “I blacked out and when I came to he was on top of me, RAPING me.” How does she know it was rape, if she can’t recall what happened before she “came to?” Maybe the guy can’t remember either, but no one calls him a victim. Label it “drunken sex” and you’d be closest to the truth!
12/19/2014 6:45 am
“Liz’s twitter comment after the jackie hoax broke down ‘But that cannot change what happened to me. My truth is unassailable.'”
Right, except for the vague and changing details and recollections and a convenient excuse for every instance in which there is no record for your claimed contact with authorities and administrators. Other than that, it’s “unassailable.”
When you assert your claim is “unassailable,” perhaps you should consider whether or not it is, in fact, unassailable. It may well be true, but “unassailable” it’s not.
12/19/2014 9:58 am
The sheer delight of the proving of rapes false that most of your commenters are displaying, Richard, saddens me. While I’m not in agreement about their theories/stats (and have no wish to argue this aspect in this forum) I’m finding the jubilance intolerable and, frankly, unseemly.
Yoffe isn’t going in this direction, nor is Hanna Rosin. While you profess you aren’t heavy handed in moderating the comments, and repeatedly stress just how horrible rape is, the delight you’re encouraging feels shameful to me.
The peanut gallery here may say that this reaction to this topic stems from their disbelief of rape culture (again, not getting into this debate), but it feels more like triumphant finger-pointing. I can’t imagine the journo pros you say you stand with on this issue come even close to veering toward joy, so why are you?
12/19/2014 10:27 am
[…] from richard bradley’s blog: […]
12/19/2014 10:31 am
Lilac:
I can’t imagine the journo pros you say you stand with on this issue come even close to veering toward joy, so why are you?
Who wouldn’t be overjoyed about one less gang rape on our college campuses, about the exoneration of innocents, and about derailing a terrible injustice?
What the hell is wrong with you?
12/19/2014 10:46 am
You missed my point completely.
What’s wrong with me is that I’m seeing some people jump up and down like 12 year olds, screaming “She’s a liar, this proves they’re all liars! Hah, they were never right!” And then do a happy dance.
12/19/2014 11:45 am
I’d rather celebrate rape not happening than rape happening, ie. Jezebel.
12/19/2014 11:55 am
Lilac,
Excuse me, who exactly is saying “She’s a liar, this proves they’re all liars!”?
The problems with Securro’s story are evident from the articles that have been written about her, and the inconsistencies in her own accounts.
I had no particular reason to doubt her story at first (other than that it seemed in certain respects suspiciously over-the-top). But examining the articles and her own accounts made it clear that there were many points where her account seemed just strangely convenient (apparently no records of ANY of the number of things she claimed she did immediately after her incident?) or just flat out contradicted by other people (no rape kit in the hospital?).
Now these sorts of things bother those of us who are interested in the truth. We are not going to look the other way — as you and others seem to think everybody should — and pretend that they don’t cause some real doubt.
You really should ask yourself the question: do I really care about the truth? Does it mean anything to me anymore whether an accusation is true or false?
I’m guessing you, and most of those promoting the “rape culture” theory, care a lot less about that than you all will admit to. Your coming over here to scold Richard merely for hosting skeptical comments is the certain proof of that.
12/19/2014 12:09 pm
Lilac — Are you serious? A horrible gang-rape was presented and through the the hard work and his ballsy ability to stand against the prevailing social tides; Richard inspired journalistic investigations that — fortunately — proved that the terrible events in fact never happened. That is certainly something to celebrate — loudly and proudly.
What is however horrifying was how many Rape Crisis Feminists were openly despondent at the fact that there were not seven + two vicious rapists on the loose violating other young women.
And stop thrashing that ol’ straw-woman about people saying this case now proves ALL women are liars. That is just as stupid as saying NO women are liars.
12/19/2014 12:14 pm
Just to be clear, I should say that I don’t doubt that something bad went on that night between Beebe and Securro. But what it amounted to, exactly, I just don’t know at this point.
What I’m very skeptical of are the many further details claimed by Securro are true — such as her accounts of her injuries, how she was treated by the hospital, the police, and UVa administrators. And I’d need a lot more convincing evidence than I’ve seen regarding the two supposed additional rapists before I’d accept their existence as well.
12/19/2014 12:38 pm
Lilac:
What’s wrong with me is that I’m seeing some people jump up and down like 12 year olds, screaming “She’s a liar, this proves they’re all liars! Hah, they were never right!”
Point me to a single comment on this blog suggesting that all reported rapes are false.
And then do a happy dance.
We should all be doing a happy dance. To wit: There is one less gang rape on college campuses, innocents are being exonerated, and a terrible injustice has been derailed.
Maybe you need to take a hard look at yourself.
-Anonymous
12/19/2014 12:48 pm
The UVA student newspaper paper needs more scrutiny in how it has reported the Rolling Stones article and the fall out from its debunking. Here is KC Johnson’s take at mindingthecampus.com:
The actions of President Teresa Sullivan’s administration—joined by an array of professors and, most disturbingly, by the student newspaper—have provided an almost textbook example of a campus culture gone awry, with a massive rush to judgment compounded by an inability to admit error.
(I)t does not appear as if anyone in her administration performed any fact-checking of Erdely’s work. Sullivan took this action, we now know, based largely on the claims of Jackie, a UVA student who appears to have been involved in a catfishing scheme in which she plagiarized lines from the teen drama Dawson’s Creek to her intended paramour.
The lesson sent to students by the leader of one of the nation’s finest universities: It’s OK to accept as true a story presented by a single source, and then take significant action based on what this single source said, provided that the single source conforms to the president’s ideological preconceptions.
That message has been clearly received. In perhaps the single most shocking item (of the many shocking items) published on the UVA affair, the assistant managing editor of the UVA student newspaper defended the paper’s rather one-sided coverage of the case. Julia Horowitz said that she believed Jackie’s story because it “rang true,” and because Erdely’s article “struck a chord” in her. Horowitz admitted that Erdely seemed to have made factual errors, but apparently didn’t see her role—as a student journalist—as seeking the truth. Instead, as Jackie’s story collapsed, Horowitz worried about letting “fact checking define the narrative.”
Sabrina Erdely couldn’t have said it better herself.
12/19/2014 2:03 pm
Lilac, what saddens me is seeing people like you hurl accusations at a peanut gallery without participating in a discussion. I’m not getting any sense of jubilance, not have I exhibited any. Instead, from the evolution of comments the majority of readers have increased their understanding and awareness of the issues at hand and have even talked about next steps.
The Rolling Stone article prompted me, and quite a few others to be more enlightened on the issue and how it is being treated on campuses. I went back and read about stories of Yeardley Love, Liz Seccuro, Annie Hylton, and Kathryn Russell (reported UVA rape history). While I think some of Seccuro’s actions are circumspect, I definitely don’t think a healthy dose of skepticism equates to joy. What is I’m sure frustrating is that alot of these proceedings are confidential, so what is reported is either points of view or outcomes. However that is part of the problem that Richard highlighted that was originally wrong with Erdely’s piece in Rolling Stone in that balanced accurate reporting should drive the narrative.
I’m curious to know what you think Yoffe is actually saying. While she isn’t jubiliant either, she is definitely refuting the belief of rape culture and simultanouesly advocating more rights for the accused in the event of false accusations. However, she’s not as heavy handed as Ann Coulter (see One in Five People Who Write for Rolling Stone are Morons) , thank god for that. And Hanna Rosin actually explores how to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in interviewing rape victims. You may have noticed that, had you listened to her podcast (which I linked above).
While I don’t think we should be delighted in proving something wrong necessarily, I wonder if you read what Kat Stoeffel had to write in NY Magazine, “Meanwhile, the journalist backlash is putting feminists who believe in believing women in the uncomfortable position of hoping Jackie told the truth about her gang rape. Not because we want to confirm our biases about monstrous men, but because we’d hate to see confirmation for sexist biases about lying, attention-seeking women. In other words, we’re backed into the corner of hoping someone was gang-raped on broken glass — and how can that possibly constitute a happy ending? If anything, we should hope that Jackie is lying. Then exactly zero lives will have been ruined in this story.” If anything, as commenters above have lamented, we may as well be happy if rapes did not occur but it is important to discuss because an allegation of rape has far reaching consequences for all parties which was evident in the fallout of the UVA Jackie story.
If you by any stretch of the imagination are calling people here 12 year olds, I urge you to look at the comments section from articles in WaPo, Slate, Wonkette and Jezebel to name a few. Some will truly make you vomit in despair. In contrast, quite a few of the commenters try to elaborate their points of view and parse issues. Granted, some have a more hardline approach than others. While I’m not a huge fan of comment moderation on posted links because they delay real-time discussion, I am glad that comments overrall are not heavily-moderated. Why should an active discussion be stifled?
I don’t think Richard is encouraging any delight and I find your comment truly below the belt. Try participating in a real discussion of the issues instead of throwing rocks at invisible houses. We won’t bite.
12/19/2014 2:15 pm
Fact-checking seems to always get in the way of unassailable truth.
This blog was largely about the “History Repeating” slug, presumably linking two gang rape allegations. I found Richard’s point to be well-taken. This is not about any kind of Happy Dance.
12/19/2014 10:09 pm
A QUIZ
Think back to the old “Let’s Make A Deal” game show, where the object of the game was to have contestants chosen from the audience select the “best” prize, from two or three choices offered. This is an updated version….
An audience member named LILAC is selected as a contestant, and told she must choose one of two doors, without knowing what’s behind either. After vociferous advice and cheering-on from her friends and other audience members, she selects what she hopes is the winning door — the door with the biggest payoff, as it were. The non-winning door, Lilac is told, is the creation of the game show producers, i.e. it’s not real.
#1) Door Number One opens to reveal a pretty freshman, described as an intelligent young woman, with a vivid imagination. She’s a lifeguard, and has a desperate crush on another freshman she’s just met; he wants to be her friend, but nothing more. She appears troubled and vulnerable, but physically undamaged by anything more than unrequited love.
#2) Door Number Two opens to reveal 9 “hot” but vile and drunken fraternity brothers. They’re swigging beer, smoking pot, and calling each other names like Armpit and Blanket. Two of the men are older frat boys, who are urging 7 pledges to perform a vicious sexual assault on a young woman, as part of their fraternity’s initiation ritual. Using a beer-bottle when one member’s member won’t perform properly is encouraged.
Question:
Which door would Lilac consider to be the preferred (i.e. winning) door?
12/19/2014 11:36 pm
There is no winning door, Quinn. So, straw-man. Nobody wins.
You (the general you, so not one in particular) say to come back and engage, that you “won’t bite.” Disagree, as I have just been bitten. This is not a sandbox I play in. (Metaphor, not saying you are children.) So maybe you win, because I’m choosing to leave the park.
Honestly, remove my post. I cannot argue this when I feel attacked. You will say I attacked you. Well, bully for you.
I do not have the energy to explain that I am in no way the angry feminazi type you’ve concluded I am. Really, my blood pressure to too high, I should never have engaged.
For what it’s worth, a few things before I button my coat (not that anyone is listening): while often hilarious, I think Jezebel is crap. I love that Richard broke this story, perhaps I forgot to say that, i just loathe the direction of the comments (or any of the comments on any of the piece by Yoffe or Rosin). I am infuriated that this entire topic of assault has come down to two sides, it’s just not that tidy.
So rip this apart, I’m going to sleep. Night.
12/19/2014 11:57 pm
Your problem, Lilac, is that you would rather believe there was a horrific gang rape, than believe that at the center of a story that turned out to be false was one troubled young woman. You WANTED it to have happened the way Jackie claimed. Why? That’s what most of us are asking. Why do you prefer the Jezebel approach? They’re forced to admit Jackie lied, but after admitting it, they continue on as if her story had been true, because they claim it could have been true. What people are saying here is that the story Jackie told, and Erdley “reported” could not have happened THE WAY THEY TOLD IT. Gang rape has happened. A three hour gang rape with the woman and 7 men wallowing around in broken glass for 3 hours COULD NOT have happened — not without any sign on Jackie’s body, the moment she “escaped.” But you and others aren’t happy it didn’t happen, you’re outraged that it was proven to be false…. can’t you tell us WHY?
12/20/2014 1:26 am
I was really happy to find out there was no gang rape! First I thought it was all true - it never occurred to me that somebody could invent such a story. Next I thought part of it was true - something must have happened even if Jackie made mistakes on some details. Then I realized it was all false.
Bias is the mother of denial.
We see the same thing with the big “racism” stories in the news from the last few years. Trayvon Martin, the kid who stole the cigars, etc. I am sure there are cases of actual racism by cops and wannabe cops against African Americans, as there are cases of actual gang rape against women, but why must horrible, bogus cases be used to push their agenda?
It’s ironic that Jackie wasn’t a victim of bad men and a great case for a great cause (stopping violence against women). Rather, she was desperate for a man. This must make true feminists extremely aggravated, most of all Sabrina, the radical feminist. I bet that still really makes her blood boil. A good feminist should be able to spot women who need men and aren’t really feminists.
12/20/2014 1:43 pm
The hope that feminists have harbored that Jackie was actually gang-raped is repeated in macrocosm in their attitude toward the prevalence of sexual assault in the larger world.
They have claimed that one-in-five women in college have been subjected to sexual assault-based, as we know, on a very dubious study. But the Department of Justice conducts a rigorous study, and determines that the actual figure is more like 2% — one in fifty.
One would think that feminists would heave a huge sigh of relief, seeing that the true number had gone down by a full factor of ten — a reduction that would be almost inconceivable to achieve by any measures we might adopt, had the original number of 1 in 5 been correct.
By any reasonable reckoning, we are now at a far better place than we could ever have expected to be with regard to sexual assaults — and indeed the report also shows that even those numbers are in significant decline.
But feminists will have none of that, of course.
It really is hard not to conclude that the true purpose of their effort on sexual assault is not to reduce the numbers, but to claim the perks of victimhood. Because the higher the number of sexual assaults, the more victimhood points feminists score.
For that reason, they hope that Jackie was gang raped, and hope that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted.
12/20/2014 2:04 pm
“Given what’s happened in the past couple of weeks, one would hope that the Daily Beast would know better.”
I think some of the same problems plague the History Repeating narrative. (To put it mildly.)
“Gang Rape”?
“No One Did Anything”?
If these topics are explored in a fair-minded way…by examining the 2 articles linked by Richard, together with the Hook reporting cited by Carrie (12/18…2:23), some troubling patterns emerge. E.g. two “known” but uncharged at-large Phi Psi rapists in the RS account, and now two “known” but uncharged at-large Phi Psi rapists in the DB account…. Recall that there is no statute of limitation for rape in Virginia.
Also what about the uncaring, corrupt UVa allegations? “Nothing has changed over the past 30 years”? Both Erdeley and Seccuro are deeply invested in that theme…but does it hold up to any kind of critical scrutiny?
I hope this discussion has not ended.
12/20/2014 4:53 pm
Lilac, I think what you mean is “Fuck all of you,” Jessica Pressler’s parting twitter comment before going dark. Everything you’ve said is as ridiculous and hysterical as Jessica’s classy and now infamous twitter meltdown. Your self-righteousness and condescension is emblematic of the whole SJW activist movement behind this disgrace, whose goal all along was always polarization and politicalization of the manufactured “sexual assault on campus epidemic.” And no, SRE and Jackie’s little Dawson Creek psychosis will not put so-called rape culture “change” back by decades; the whole farce is going down for good. Like another commenter said, it’s you who needs to take a good, long look in the mirror.
12/20/2014 8:46 pm
History Repeating…
More on the connection between the 1984 and 2014 Phi Psi gang-rape allegations:
This according to a “witness”:
“…George Allman allegedly asked one of the brothers, Peter Melman, to call his father and arrange for personal insurance policies for each member of the fraternity ‘in the event that this should ever happen again.’ This story led my team to wonder if gang-raping a freshman was part of some rite of passage during rush at Phi Kappa Psi: a tradition of sorts. Peter Melman was approached by police on a number of occasions at the gated community where he now lives…. When they would ring his buzzer, he would simply repeat the fact he did not have to speak with them. According to Worrell [the prosecutor], it was Melman whose testimony could have provided the most information about what happened to me that night. Worrell wanted to get his hands on the purported insurance policies.”
-Liz Seccuro
Crash Into Me (p. 122 on Nook)
So I presume that a premeditated gang rape as a pledge initiation isn’t so far-fetched after all. Then, again, isn’t this some kind of urban legend?
12/21/2014 4:54 am
Someone wonders why William Beebe might have admitted to more than he actually did. I would suggest the possibility that he became beholden to a culture of guilt that some adopt from 12-Step programs. At some point, for some people, self-flagellation becomes a sort of cathartic, purging activity, and people have been known to construct all sorts of fables-the better to impress others in the program, as well as to satisfy a certain neurotic need of their own.
Does this mean Beebe isn’t guilty? Hardly. I certainly have no idea about his guilt. But I don’t take his (new) testimony at face value, not without being critical at least. Just as I’m not convinced by Liz Seccuro’s, which seems to have more holes in it each time I read it.
12/21/2014 3:04 pm
History Repeating
I Was Gang Raped at a U-VA Frat
Thirty Years Ago, and No One Did Anything
What nobody did at the Daily Beast was basic fact-checking and critical thinking. They didn’t even fact-check their own headline!
The slug will soon be discussed largely in terms of irony.
But let’s just start with the facts.
Beebe was convicted of aggravated assault. Both Beebe and his lead attorney Rhonda Quagliana expressed satisfaction with the verdict; it fit the crime, they maintained.
Quagliana mounted a vigorous defense against the rape charge. It is clear that the defense strategy relied heavily on inconsistencies in Seccuro’s own prior statements. This is obvious with only a mildly critical examination of the ER narrative (no rape kit, etc.) More on this later. Seccuro’s inconsistencies also emerged as a problem for the prosecution.
From the Beebe/ Seccuro email exchange:
LS-“I don’t care how much or little you remember. But I clearly have an impression of this being either a gang rape or “spectator sport” for the rushees.”
Beebe- “There were no other men present. I was the only one.”
Beebe stuck to his story from beginning to end, resisting incentives from the prosecution to “cooperate” with its investigation.
At sentencing the prosecution asked for two years. Beebe got 18 months. He served a little less than six months.
Seccuro’s pre-trial recollections, impressions, etc. led to a prosecution investigation of the entire fraternity. The defense then hired it’s own investigation. Supposedly a separate “police investigation” was also being considered.
It gets murky at this point in the narrative, but the result is a matter of record:
Beebe was convicted of the lesser crime of aggravated assault. No one else was charged with a crime. Not only were no charges filed against any of the other Phi Psi members, the prosecutor didn’t even convene a grand jury and the police investigation was shut down.
Recall that all of this occurred during the glare of national media attention at exactly the same time as the Duke Lacrosse hysteria.
Yet we’re supposed to accept Seccura’s ever-changing impressions without even considering alternative (and more plausible) interpretations?
[See candid observer at 12:18…2:28 pm. for more on inconsistencies in what Seccura claimed to remember]
Again more later on the ER discrepancies.
PS-“spectator sport” for rushees? Do the quotation marks refer to another statement. Or to…….what?
12/21/2014 7:13 pm
I know from personal experience that AA can be a life-saver, but the way it is applied, as Mike Conrad and RCane point out, isn’t always good.
The two Steps William Beebe was responding to are shown below. It should have been clear to Beebe that if his intention was to fulfill the recommendation in Step 9, he did not have the right to purge his own conscience, since doing so might (and in the end did) cause harm to others. If I robbed a gas station with 2 of my buddies a decade ago, it would not be proper for me to turn myself - and ultimately them - in to law enforcement, as part of my personal recovery process. Beebe may have tried to limit his confession to himself, but he should have been able to foresee dragging others down with him. A responsible sponsor would have helped him find a way to make amends without harming others; using the gas station robbery analogy, a charitable contribution equal to the amount stolen would be one possibility.
Not only that, despite what many people believe, the founders of AA referred to the 12 Steps as recommendations to be considered, not hard and fast requirements. It’s the willingness to make amends that counts — many people can’t comply with Step 9, for countless reasons (like the death of the person one has harmed).
8) Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9) Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
12/22/2014 12:25 am
I ‘m hoping Lilac will rejoin us. Although I disagree with her on some points, on further reflection I think that her words about tone and the appearance of triumphalism are well-advised, especially in this age of so much mistrust and misunderstanding.
12/22/2014 2:52 pm
History Repeating
Search for Frat Gang-Rape Insurance Policies Renewed
History Repeating
UVa Faces New Allegations Over Lost Medical Records
History Repeating
Journos Call for Better Sourcing, More Legwork
12/22/2014 3:41 pm
Didn’t that wrong baby foul up of a few years ago happen at UVa? I also read about an interesting case on Wendy Murphy’s cite…about records being altered/ lost in a Title IX case. Something about a nurse undermining a survivor’s fight for justice, can’t remember. “Anonymous Wahoo” describes this, I think.
12/22/2014 8:50 pm
Granted, sometimes proper attribution can be complicated. But if it’s ignored to the extent we see with SRE and LS, it certainly raises suspicions. This is only magnified in agenda-driven journalism. Consider, for instance, a paragraph from the RS Jackie story…near the end, beginning with
“The few stories leaking out of the UVa present-day justice system aren’t much better….”
The source for this, according to SRE, is supposedly a “student publication” but it looks to me like it’s actually the Murphy shop (see above). A few sentences are identical quotations… “They said that they believed me. They said that UVa was my home and that it loved me. Yet, how could they love me and let him go completely unpunished….”
Why say this was leaked out of the UVa justice system when it obviously came from Murphy?
Difficult to determine how this should be properly attributed; perhaps Anonymous Wahoo (2012), perhaps Murphy (2014)…perhaps a distinction w/o a difference.
The sourcing of numerous “reports” throughout the LS narrative is even more troublesome…starting with one that supposedly was offered for sale! Still curious about that.
Maybe these challenges were discussed by SRE and LS in the hours they spent speaking with one another, according to LS, “from July through November….” Time 12/4.
12/22/2014 11:22 pm
Given that the stated reason for LS’s decision to pursue rape charges was Beebe’s refusal to acknowledge the “viciousness” of the attack, it would be no surprise that Quagliana would focus close scrutiny on LS’s improbable ER accounts. If there were these variously described injuries…”broken bones,” “broken toe,” “cracked ribs,” bruising, etc., then let’s see the records. After 5 hours at the ER…nurse directs the victim toward Richmond or DC because a rape kit is unavailable…then the victim subsequently “bailed”? Then the hospital either lost or destroyed all relevant records? It’s possible, of course, that Quagliana would overlook all of this, but not likely. Not at all likely. Probably a major factor behind a plea to a lesser charge, and the avoidance of a trial.
12/23/2014 3:14 pm
There’s a ton of stuff on the internet about that UVa switched baby case. The most notorious case like this in the U.S. Led to a huge law suit in Nov 2013. Just google the babies names-Callie Johnson/ Rebecca Chittum. UVa seems to be fouling up records all the time. I’ll bet this mixup cost them a bundle.
I thought it was interesting to find out how often the switched baby drama is used as a literary device, even going all the way back to the Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas….
12/23/2014 3:27 pm
It’s doubtful that a term like legwork (viz above) retains much currency in “journo” circles these days, that is other than as a reference to standing in line for the latest iphone.
12/23/2014 6:27 pm
I detect more than a trace of bitterness from Oldtimer. Yes, there is a need for old-fashioned legwork, but you can’t deny that important contributions can be made in the Public Sphere. As Habermas noted, the Information Society poses many unique opportunities as well as challenges. Why don’t you get over your cynicism and join us in a more constructive conversation, why don’t you risk taking a role in creative problem-solving. Much good can be accomplished in the Public Square.
12/23/2014 6:29 pm
Because you are incoherent, that’s why. Which is it, Public Sphere or Public Square?
12/23/2014 6:32 pm
Macht nichs.
12/23/2014 9:40 pm
What about Court Square? I was over there in Hookville recently, just stumbling around really, eavesdropping mostly. Lots of drinking around this square, I picked up on that right away. Also a lot of sarcastic laughter. Everytime I brought something up that I thought was important, the answers seemed to drift toward, I need another drink or I can’t really deal with this sober. Who’s this Habermas guy, anyway. Does he have anything I’d want to know?
12/23/2014 9:41 pm
Nein.
12/23/2014 10:32 pm
@ RCane
According to Worrell [the prosecutor], it was Melman whose testimony could have provided the most information about what happened to me that night. Worrell wanted to get his hands on the purported insurance policies.
If true, wouldn’t the prosecutor have had Melman and the documents subpoenaed?
12/24/2014 3:33 pm
Frankly, I couldn’t really get past the “could have….” part. Yes, it could have…but apparently for whatever wasn’t.
I interpreted the last sentence to mean something like, “If anyone came up with the policies, he’d sure like to see them.” Like if you know about a bank robbery that’s planned tomorrow, I’d certainly like to know about it…doesn’t mean I think one will or is even likely to occur. At any rate, what I think is being communicated by that last sentence above is “If anyone knows anything about them, he’d like to know.” Did he think there was any chance that they would turn up? Of course, he might have. But I haven’t encountered anyone who thinks this was the case.
According to my “research,” Worrell’s interest in finding anything incriminating against these evil, elusive Phi Psi’s started to wane after his trip to Austin TX to interview retired dean Sybil Todd. Described in Crash….
I don’t know much about the law, but it seems that there was no grand jury after the Beebe conviction. So Melman could never have been subpoenaed for anything. You can’t just subpoena some one to come by your office, can you?
Unless you might think that the prosecutor “knew” Melman was a rapist and decided to just drop the inquiry anyway. This would seem to me to be a very damning statement to make about a prosecutor.
Worrell, I gather is now a judge…can’t or maybe shouldn’t be saying anything for the record.
Richard was right, this is a very troubling book to read.
12/25/2014 8:08 am
@ Journalist
“If true, wouldn’t the prosecutor have had Melman and the documents subpoenaed?”
If true or if false, isn’t this newsworthy?
Are the insurance policies still in force?
12/25/2014 12:41 pm
I’ve been called a lot worse than incoherent. Nevertheless, brace yourself. My fellow travelers will soon enter this fray. Some of the topics are irresistible to us, especially to the postmodernists with their task of deconstructing Grand Narratives. “Confirmation bias” at a cultural level needs to be unpacked.
Max Weber’s major project, the irrationality of rationality, is far from completion. We are often slow to a scene, but occasionally worth the wait.
12/27/2014 9:47 am
Weber’s concept of verstehen will also be discussed extensively from a research/ analytic standpoint and as a guide for evaluating evidence.
12/27/2014 9:54 am
According to the text, although the interview took place in Texas, the exact location was not disclosed. “Austin” should therefore be deleted.
12/27/2014 10:26 am
Here’s what I can’t understand. Maybe I have the wrong info, but as far as I can tell the plea deal presented to Beebe was for two years, possibly reduced if he cooperated with the prosecution investigation. By all accounts, Beebe provided no useful evidence pointing to the guilt of anyone else for sexual assault (meaning he didn’t cooperate from LS’s point of view, meaning he did cooperate by simply telling the truth from the defense point of view). He ends up being sentenced to 18 months. If the LS position is correct, that Beebe didn’t cooperate with the prosecution investigation in spite of incentives to do so, then how come he seemed to have had his sentence reduced anyway? Am I missing something? Seems like the court felt that he did cooperate by simply telling what he’d been saying all along. No subsequent grand jury was convened. How then could anyone make an evidence-based claim that a gang rape occurred?
12/27/2014 3:25 pm
Hope someone takes a close look at what is said about the victim impact statement that clearly Worrell didn’t want read at the conclusion of the Beebe trial. Starts around p. 139….”Worrell had some devastating news. I would not be able to read my victim impact statement….. Richard should find this to be of special interest.
12/28/2014 6:44 pm
I detect bias in the “No One Did Anything” part of the story. This charge is leveled principally against the UVa administration, and applies to events in 1984 and 2014. Does the Daily Beast support this position? If so, why? Because of Rolling Stone? Aren’t we learning more about this as this whole story unfolds?
Seccuro ends her essay with this: “The current administration has refused to speak with me about making change. They have refused to apologize, which is all I have ever wanted.” Should UVa officials apologize? It seems they were wise to keep Erdeley at a distance.
12/29/2014 1:11 pm
From the Seccuro DB essay:
” A dorm friend…begged me to accompany him as his date to a rush party at the Phi Kappa Psi house on Oct. 5, 1984.”
The citation of an exact date struck me as an odd detail. Might this be of some significance?
12/29/2014 3:36 pm
@ Anonymous [12/23]
“…comic operas.”
As a long-time amateur lit twit, I have always been a great Gilbert and Sullivan fan….
Quickly…from Wiki-
“Gilbert, who wrote the words, created fanciful “topsy-turvy” worlds…where each absurdity is taken to its logical conclusion-fairies rub elbows with…lords, flirting is a capital offence, gondoliers ascend to the monarchy, and pirates turn out to be nobleman who have gone wrong. Sullivan…composed the music, contributing memorable melodies that could convey both humor and pathos.”
Looking forward to richly deserved treatment of countless absurdities.
12/30/2014 12:23 pm
It turns out that the precise notation of “Oct. 5, 1984″ in the DB story may indeed be significant. That was a Friday….
Will look for relevant info on the “date night” v. “party night” issue in Chapter 9, “Cross-Examination and Redirect.” Sorry, for some reason I’m having technical difficulties with getting the right page numbers to show up with the text…. Anyway, I think we need a researcher or textual analyst to figure all this out. Gets complicated.
12/30/2014 3:26 pm
@ candid observer 12/17
“…I wouldn’t tempt fate….”
I anticipate analyses of embedded temptation as well as flirtation, ultimately yielding a more nuanced deconstruction of implosion. Accessible, moreover, to much of the meme and trope cyber-space traffic.
12/30/2014 3:30 pm
By far the best remark I’ve heard about this shitstorm:
“If Mr. Jefferson were alive today, he would turn over in his grave.”
12/31/2014 11:24 am
“The Phi Psis of Penzance”?
12/31/2014 11:39 am
Although Hunter S. Thompson does cast a somewhat integrative shadow over various escapades, he is no more central to the main tragedy than is Rolling Stone. The pivotal figure (of course) is Thomas Pynchon.
1/1/2024 11:48 am
Picture a guileless Frederick, an innocent outlier in The Land of the Brand, an outrageous and comical source of micro-aggressions; an irresistible target for the earnest and entitled Patriarchy Smashers. And we will never forget Dean and Deaner.
1/1/2024 12:03 pm
A souped up Klown Car, equipped with tinted windows, trigger filters, and Title IX bumper stickers swerving out of control…. Risky intrigues, hoaxes and counter-hoaxes, a hyperreal retreat, deceit upon deceit, pathetic conceit…. Running commentary provided by a trio of anti-social and sardonic macaws.
1/2/2024 2:24 pm
Kangaroo Courtiers.
1/2/2024 2:25 pm
Keystone Cops.
1/3/2024 2:30 pm
The “whole nine yards” signifier at the conclusion of the DB story is an obvious clue. Equally significant for avid Lot 49ers are
0811/12, and 0815.
1/4/2024 11:03 am
As a Durkheimian I’d favor casting an even wider net. I’d also like to see a, shall we say, more equitable division of labor…. Anyway, I’m wondering if anyone is familiar with Durkheim is Dead! (by Arthur Asa Berger). It’s a textbook/ mystery novel-readers join Sherlock Holmes and Watson at a conference in London. The conference is on social progress. Great way to introduce students to practical applications of theory. Especially interesting parts on Marianne Weber and Georg Simmel. Simmel is receiving a lot of attention these days from the postmodernists because (not in spite) of his lack of a unified grand theory…. Incidentally, Berger also produced a very useful book on Media Analysis Techniques.
1/4/2024 11:11 am
Social Progress-as opposed to History Repeating.
1/4/2024 9:25 pm
Ever more Goffmanian Mania….
1/4/2024 9:27 pm
A crumbling Wall of Stone.
1/5/2024 4:00 pm
Wonder if this has anything to do with Max W.’s strange cage, or his warnings about “a sort of convulsive self-importance”?