UVa gang rape accusations

[Buehrle>Wood]

So I'm sure you heard about the story last month in Rolling Stone last month that ended up making news headlines pretty much on every show. Well anyways, Rolling Stone came out and changed their tune today...

 

To Our Readers:

 

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

 

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

 

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

 

Will Dana

Managing Editor

 

Nice work guys.

 

 

Washington Post has a lot, lot more damning details about Rolling Stone:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/educat...abdc_story.html

 

A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are sex assault awareness advocates at U-Va., said they believe something traumatic happened to Jackie but have come to doubt her account. They said details have changed over time, and they have not been able to verify key points of the story in recent days. A name of an alleged attacker that Jackie provided to them for the first time this week, for example, turned out to be similar to the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

 

Reached by phone, that man, a U-Va. graduate, said Friday that he did work at the Aquatic Fitness Center and was familiar with Jackie’s name. He said, however, that he had never met Jackie in person and had never taken her on a date. He also confirmed that he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

[Kyyle23]

Didnt UVA pretty much shut down all Greek activities after this came out?

[EvilMonkey]

Didnt UVA pretty much shut down all Greek activities after this came out?

Well, the narrative called for that. Guys, bad. Rape, bad. Punish guys for rape they didn't do because, guys! And women wonder why other women are afraid to come forward with rape allegations. it's because of all the fake s*** out there that various SJW's, or just messed up people, keep trying to pass off. Like the Bush military records, 'fake, but accurate'. Bulls***.

 

Turns out that the rape allegations in Lena Dunham's book are either completely fake or she changed so much s*** around and pointed to a completely innocent individual. When a conservative website tried to get in touch with various people at Obelin, they were told that the truth didn't matter, rape matters, and that they weren't going to help.

[StrangeSox]

Rolling Stone failed pretty badly here, and they had to know how much damage a single high-profile instance of false or arguably false rape allegations can do. The effect of this is that we'll be hearing "UVA" as an excuse for rape allegations like we've been hearing "Duke LaCrosse" for about a decade now.

[Jenksismyhero]

Rolling Stone failed pretty badly here, and they had to know how much damage a single high-profile instance of false or arguably false rape allegations can do. The effect of this is that we'll be hearing "UVA" as an excuse for rape allegations like we've been hearing "Duke LaCrosse" for about a decade now.

 

And fairly so.

[StrangeSox]

"Duke LaCrosse" does not actually prove that false rape allegations are widespread, but that's the effect that story and this one will have. It harms actual rape victims and makes them that much less likely to come forward.

[EvilMonkey]

"Duke LaCrosse" does not actually prove that false rape allegations are widespread, but that's the effect that story and this one will have. It harms actual rape victims and makes them that much less likely to come forward.

No, but it proved that these cases need to stop being tried in the media and court of public opinion, because all they do is screw things up. It messes up the people wrongly accused and messes up people in the future that were actually raped by making it harder for them to come forward and/or be believed.

[southsider2k5]

Kinda sucks when a few are used to sully the whole, right.

[Y2HH]

Kinda sucks when a few are used to sully the whole, right.

 

Well done. You've won the Internet.

[EvilMonkey]

Kinda sucks when a few are used to sully the whole, right.

touche'!

[StrangeSox]

Kinda sucks when a few are used to sully the whole, right.

Systemic failures of our justice system aren't few.

[Y2HH]

Systemic failures of our justice system aren't few.

 

In the grand scheme of rate of occurrence, I'd disagree. There are tens of thousands of crimes committed on a daily basis in our system, there aren't nearly that many fraternity rape accusations.

[EvilMonkey]

“I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better,” Erdley told the New York Times. “I am also not interested in diverting the conversation away from the point of the piece itself.”

 

So the reported admits that it is all about the narrative. What the f*** happened to journalism. And that hack should never get another writing job, ever.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-uva-ra...-180722194.html

[bmags]

I reported on a home invasion/rape case when I first started. The father, who we started to realize had some imbalance, was pushing his daughter to talk to the media. We decided to not interview at the scene, I got a victims rights advocate and interviewed later. Ended up cutting it from the story and focusing on the other family members information and police info.

 

But, basically, every step in that story was hard and a huge "newsroom" decision. The reporter is right in a lot of sense but wrong in the whole. I didn't read the article, but read hannah rosen's critiques which were spot on.

 

But beyond that, I understand the journalist and her explanations. The editor is an absolute idiot for running this.

[greg775]

There are two sides to every story. The frat should have had a chance to deny or say no comment. It's just one person's allegations, apparently. You can't run the story without contacting the frat's lawyer or dig a little deeper.

[Texsox]

No, but it proved that these cases need to stop being tried in the media and court of public opinion, because all they do is screw things up. It messes up the people wrongly accused and messes up people in the future that were actually raped by making it harder for them to come forward and/or be believed.

 

This makes so much sense. However, taken to the extreme is just as wrong. By "sweeping" these things under the rug it allows people to perpetually commit crimes without being called out on it. Rape victims have always had a hard time coming forward. For a long time here it became blame the victim for the way they dressed, where they were, being drunk, having had sex with other men, etc.

[EvilMonkey]

This makes so much sense. However, taken to the extreme is just as wrong. By "sweeping" these things under the rug it allows people to perpetually commit crimes without being called out on it. Rape victims have always had a hard time coming forward. For a long time here it became blame the victim for the way they dressed, where they were, being drunk, having had sex with other men, etc.

Nice strawman Tex, but nobody said anything about sweeping them under the rug or not treating them seriously. Two wrongs don't make a right, right? So why deny accused rapists of their due course. A mere accusation can ruin someone for life. Colleges throwing people out of school, their name spread around as if they did it. If the allegation was false, then the false accuser should be messed up as much as possible legally for it. If the person is guilty of the rape, then punish them as much as you can.

[Balta1701]

Nice strawman Tex, but nobody said anything about sweeping them under the rug or not treating them seriously. Two wrongs don't make a right, right? So why deny accused rapists of their due course. A mere accusation can ruin someone for life. Colleges throwing people out of school, their name spread around as if they did it. If the allegation was false, then the false accuser should be messed up as much as possible legally for it. If the person is guilty of the rape, then punish them as much as you can.

The reason why this is such a complicated issue is spelled out right there.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is accusing a person or perhaps even a group of people of something improper. It's her word at best against one person, maybe even against that of several people. It's probably a traumatic experience, so memory isn't exactly going to be the best thing anyway. Basically we're talking about something on the verge of PTSD for the victim. Now you want to add a penalty of significant jail time if the accuser cannot prove her case.

 

That would be practically the last time anyone in this country ever is prosecuted for rape, because no one would ever dare to accuse someone again even when it happened.

[EvilMonkey]

The reason why this is such a complicated issue is spelled out right there.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is accusing a person or perhaps even a group of people of something improper. It's her word at best against one person, maybe even against that of several people. It's probably a traumatic experience, so memory isn't exactly going to be the best thing anyway. Basically we're talking about something on the verge of PTSD for the victim. Now you want to add a penalty of significant jail time if the accuser cannot prove her case.

 

That would be practically the last time anyone in this country ever is prosecuted for rape, because no one would ever dare to accuse someone again even when it happened.

No, I want to add the penalty if you can prove she made the whole damn thing up. Not being able to prove they did it is one thing. but when it can be shown that you just plain outright lied, because the guy didn't call you back, you saw deep pockets or some feminist group convinced you you had repressed memories, you are the one deserving of punishment, not the person you FALSELY accused. And FYI, being wrongly accused is also pretty traumatic, I can attest from first hand experience back in 1987. I am just glad they didn't have the kangaroo court s*** back then that they do now, even though I was still not allowed in any dorm except mine and was suspended from my sports teams. I was able to show that I was with other people the night in question and even out of town the next two days, justin case she had her days messed up. (She had made the claim saying it happened the prior weekend, so I can't imagine her messing the days up that badly) I had stopped dating the person over a month prior, and she had tried to get us together again more than once, with me saying no each time. I guess she just got mad or something, I don't know, was never allowed to ask or know what her replies were when shown proof that I wasn't there any time she claimed I was, or even near it. But I still got a lot of weird looks the rest of my junior year and even the next. I did nothing wrong, yet my senior year dating was pretty much non-existent and I still heard whispers at parties.

[greg775]

No, I want to add the penalty if you can prove she made the whole damn thing up. Not being able to prove they did it is one thing. but when it can be shown that you just plain outright lied, because the guy didn't call you back, you saw deep pockets or some feminist group convinced you you had repressed memories, you are the one deserving of punishment, not the person you FALSELY accused. And FYI, being wrongly accused is also pretty traumatic, I can attest from first hand experience back in 1987. I am just glad they didn't have the kangaroo court s*** back then that they do now, even though I was still not allowed in any dorm except mine and was suspended from my sports teams. I was able to show that I was with other people the night in question and even out of town the next two days, justin case she had her days messed up. (She had made the claim saying it happened the prior weekend, so I can't imagine her messing the days up that badly) I had stopped dating the person over a month prior, and she had tried to get us together again more than once, with me saying no each time. I guess she just got mad or something, I don't know, was never allowed to ask or know what her replies were when shown proof that I wasn't there any time she claimed I was, or even near it. But I still got a lot of weird looks the rest of my junior year and even the next. I did nothing wrong, yet my senior year dating was pretty much non-existent and I still heard whispers at parties.

 

That's rotten you got falsely accused. And awful it ruined your senior year as well. I'm not trying to be insensitive to women, but yes, some will make the s*** up to get even with a guy who breaks up with them when they don't want to break up. If it's proven the woman is lying, yes she should face consequences. Your case proves not all allegations are true.

[Balta1701]

Link

Friends of Jackie's are now coming forward to elaborate on those discrepancies. The Washington Post got in touch with a UVA student identified in the Rolling Stone article as "Andy," one of the friends who met Jackie near the frat houses after her alleged assault. "Andy" -- who said he never spoke with Rolling Stone -- told the newspaper that Jackie said she was forced to perform oral sex on multiple men, but didn't specify a fraternity where it happened.

 

Clark couldn't offer such specific details about the alleged assault's immediate aftermath, but she described in detail Jackie's withdrawal into severe depression by December of 2012.

 

"While I cannot say what happened that night, and I cannot prove the validity of every tiny aspect of her story to you, I can tell you that this story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme," Clark wrote. "Something terrible happened to Jackie at the hands of several men who have yet to receive any repercussions."

So there's now corroborating witnesses that are saying "something terrible happened to this girl, she withdrew into depression as a result, and now we're judging her based on whether her memory of the incident is strongly accurate."

 

These folks could be making stuff up as well, but this should illustrate the problem. It's now out there as a standard assumption that she is making the whole thing up and falsely accusing them for whatever reason, but it sure looks like this is your standard, complicated story.

[EvilMonkey]

Link

 

So there's now corroborating witnesses that are saying "something terrible happened to this girl, she withdrew into depression as a result, and now we're judging her based on whether her memory of the incident is strongly accurate."

 

These folks could be making stuff up as well, but this should illustrate the problem. It's now out there as a standard assumption that she is making the whole thing up and falsely accusing them for whatever reason, but it sure looks like this is your standard, complicated story.

So no remorse for the frat being accused of this with no evidence? If she can't remember, or isn't clear, then that sucks for her. But needing closure doesn't give her the right to just pick details out of a fuzzy memory and screw potentially innocent guys. You, and the media, are judging these guys on something someone SAID they did, which they may or may not have done. I actually blame the writer of the story more than I blame that woman. She has a history of embellishing her stories and stuff. She wrote of a military rape, also in Rolling Stone,. and if I recall that story as well was torn to shreds.

[Buehrle>Wood]

I thought part of the draw of the original story was that she was sober and her memory was very clear.

[Balta1701]

So no remorse for the frat being accused of this with no evidence? If she can't remember, or isn't clear, then that sucks for her. But needing closure doesn't give her the right to just pick details out of a fuzzy memory and screw potentially innocent guys. You, and the media, are judging these guys on something someone SAID they did, which they may or may not have done. I actually blame the writer of the story more than I blame that woman. She has a history of embellishing her stories and stuff. She wrote of a military rape, also in Rolling Stone,. and if I recall that story as well was torn to shreds.

Note the highlighted.

 

I keep coming back to this in several threads. You are demanding that people have a standard of accuracy in memory that the human mind is simply not built to do. People cannot recall exact details of important things, let alone things that happen during exceedingly traumatic events. If someone attempted to do a full, honest investigation of the case, they'd probably find that the memory of everyone involved was equally fuzzy, because that's how memory works.

 

Again, if you adopt that standard, you are right on the verge of making rape legal because everyone will have an inconsistent story. The only one who has no inconsistencies in their story is probably the one telling the boldest lie. Is there a solution? Well, I'm totally not sure and I have no good answer on this one.

 

I do agree with you on one point though. The Rolling Stone seems like they have a good chance of actually having written an article about a rape victim on the UVA campus. However, once the magazine published that article, they began relying on the assumption that this particular person's memory is fully accurate, which is the same mistake you're making in demanding that standard of accuracy. They're putting their reputation on the line for the memory of this person and whatever details they were able to confirm 2 years later, and so yeah, they deserve some significant criticism for that.

 

So yeah, in those shoes, I can say I almost certainly would not have published that article, but not because I don't believe the person, but instead because I don't believe a participant in a tragic event will be able to give accurate enough testimony to stand up to the scrutiny of the entire world.

[StrangeSox]

Jackie had asked RS not to include her in the article.