Posted on 12/07/2014 10:58:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Before a writer for Rolling Stone ever made the mistake of believing an alleged gang-rape story told by a student named "Jackie," she bought an alleged multiple-rape story told by a former altar boy named "Billy."
On Nov. 19th, Rolling Stone published an article claiming that "Jackie," a student at the University of Virginia, had been allegedly gang-raped by seven men at a fraternity party. ["A Rape on Campus; A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice At U-VA."]
The fraternity was tried in the media and found guilty. Bricks were thrown through the windows of the frat house, the cops in Charlottesville were called in to investigate, and the university president shut down all fraternity and sorority events on campus.
Then, The Washington Post, citing factual discrepancies, cast doubt on the victim's story. Rolling Stone rolled over almost immediately, issuing an apology that said their trust in Jackie had been "misplaced."
There's lots of irony here folks for readers of this blog. The writer of the story in question, Rolling Stone contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely, is from Philadelphia. Before she bought Jackie's story, she fell for a story told by a former altar boy dubbed "Billy Doe" by a grand jury.
In Rolling Stone, it seems rape is bigger than rock. On Sept. 15, 2011, Erderly wrote a story for Rolling Stone that accepted as gospel Billy Doe's fantastic claims about being passed around as a rape victim among two priests and a school teacher. [The Catholic Church's Secret Sex-Crime Files.] In Erdely's defense, she, like many other members of the media, made the mistake of relying on an intellectually dishonest grand jury report containing more than 20 factual errors.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigtrial.net ...
SFL
A Grand Jury consists of between 12 and 18 people. So everyone can accept that a Grand Jury can deliver "an intellectually dishonest grand jury report containing more than 20 factual errors" over a rape indictment, but no one accepts that 20 women claiming a particularly hideous form of rape, that would silence a powerful critic of the Black Democrat Plantation System, offering no evidence, decades after they admit they offered themselves for private, intimate relations, with a man who everyone admits already had all the women he could want without any effort, could possibly be lying.
So much for critical thinking. We should just defund the entire criminal justice system and forward all cases to The View.
Is anyone surprised by this “astonishing” turn of events?
That’a 3 stories now by this “most careful journalist; “ all with the right perps and victims to give her a blank check to lie.
Perhaps if Rolling Stone reported on actual crimes like those of peodophiles Bryan Singer, Garth Ancier and David Neuman in Hollywood, they wouldnn’t have to fabricate stories. Rolling Stone will not report on sexual abuse crimes within the film, tv or recording industries although that seems to be the areas where it is most under-reported. There’s no abuse to report about in the world of the talent-free musicians that they gush over?
What does this have to do with a grand jury?
Remember when Misic mags like Creem and Circus just wrote about music?
This liberal rag of a magazine has been doing this kind of irresponsible bomb throwing for years...it’s what liberals do. This Piece of $#!t is the same fish wrap that celebrated the death of Andrew Breitbart.....I hope they are sued into oblivion.
What would you expect from a magazine whose most esteemed journalist was Hunter S Thompson?
LOL, don't worry about it.
Even the desire to read Rolling Stone makes you suspect of being a moron..
You are lying, both about Cosby's politics, and his victims offering themselves to him.
You then put the icing on your post by saying that Cosby didn't need to rape, as though rape is a valid act for when a normal man is having trouble finding willing girls.
Hunter S. thompson convinced me that he was such a fun writer to read, because he just made up things, when he wrote about going shooting with Soldier of Fortune magazine staff.
He described them with all the cliches, and topped it with them being so drunk that when they shot at the wrecked jeep with the explosives fixed to the front of it that they were using as a target, that they couldn’t hit the explosives from a close distance.
It was terrible writing, like something from Rolling Stone, or Stephan Glass of The New Republic.
Nope. you are lying, and bald-faced at that. Cosby is RENOWNED for his get-off-ther-plantation politics, far and above any other famous black person on this subject.
In addition, while rape is generally agreed to be an act of violence and not that of sexual conquest, these allegations against Cosby are made within a heavy air of sexual promiscuousness - i.e. the Playboy mansion and its parties and social milieu. Therefore to get a really goos look at the extremity of these charges, one must consciously subtract any and all need for sexual conquests of any kind whatsoever, because he was fully immersed in alll of those types of successes. What is left, according to these allegations, is a specific kind rape perversion requiring drugging - that's it. Supposedly, Cosby wanted that specific thing and nothing else, even though he was making all possible alternative, legal, effortless sexual conquests becaue of his fame and wealth.
That changes things - a lot. That's actually a charge of insanity - and it is made with zero evidence and decades in the past, against a man who has pursued a career based on healing the race divide, acclimizing white people to the normalcy of black people, refusing to use even mild swear words in a business that has become based on the filthiest of talk, and supporting specifically family-oriented values - for a half-century.
But now, because some women are now slandering him, we're supposed to throw out his entire life and accuse him of absolute vileness, deny the massive political realities he lives and represents, destroy his character utterly, literally from the highest to the lowest.
What someone chooses to "believe" in this situation, as it stands, lacking any evidence let alone proof, says FAR more about them than Cosby.
You are pretending that Cosby is a political conservative and supports republican positions, and you claim that I am lying about his politics?
You also claim the rapes are all Playboy mansion related, how many are actually claimed to have happened at the Playboy mansion, one?
They took place in the women’s homes, at meetings at Bill’s homes in various states, on the beach, in restaurants, at parties, at studios where they worked with him, in the green room of the Tonight show on and other places than the (one?) at the Playboy mansion, and hotel suites.
You then revert to your argument that rape is for the guys having trouble getting girls, which is absurd. The married bill cosby did not rape to get sex, but raped for the act of the rape, and the control and the same reasons that other serial rapists perform that criminal attack on women, they aren’t doing it because they can’t get a date, or afford a call girl.
When do you think the first police report was filed and the first rumors appeared? How about the late 1990s and 2000.
And what plantation did Cosby leave?
Cosby is a big Obama supporter, a lifelong democrat, despises republicans and has called them racist, and was a promoter of the Tawana brawley rape hoax.
From newsbusters: Bill Cosby Rants Against Republicans, Compares Them to Segregationists for Not Applauding Obama
By Matthew Sheffield | March 5, 2013
Unless he had just eaten a bad cup of Jell-O pudding, it would appear that actor and comedian Bill Cosby seems to really, really hate Republicans.
The veteran entertainer made that very clear Monday morning when he claimed that Republicans not applauding President Obama’s State of the Union address in unison with Democrats were “as bad as the people who were against any kind of desegregation.” He also wondered aloud about whether or not Republicans today are upset that slavery is no longer legal.
Cosby made these remarks on the CNN morning show “Starting Point” after soon-to-be-former host Soledad O’Brien referenced how much better things have gotten for those of African ancestry inside the United States since the 1960s civil rights movement.
The famous comedian and longtime Jell-O pitchman rejected her statement.
“I don’t think so,” he said. “Not when you look at the president’s speech recently. To see people sitting down and then they there are others standing and cheering. I don’t think it’s difficult believe. I think that we have people sitting there who are as bad as the people who were against any kind of desegregation.”
(snip)
I think it’s dumb to say is it time when we stand and say the pledge of allegiance, for which it stands. Where are you going with this? Where are you going with the promise of what the United States of America really is?
It’s also interesting that this Republican Party is not the Republican Party of 1863, of Abraham Lincoln, abolitionists and slavery, is not good. I think it’s important for us to look at the underlying part of it. What is the value of it? Is it that some people are angry because my people no longer want to work for free?”
Still, they get the headlines whenever they spout out a pseudo-story. Sad but the internet bloggers and tweeters used these idiots for their "news" and even sadder, the legitimate news outlets are doing so too. The shoddy work of Rolling Stone is no surprise. It should bring suspicion upon all their other hit pieces.
One that particularly comes to mind was the attack on Gen Petraeus. The left hated him ever since the surge worked in Iraq. They desperately wanted to smear Gen "betray-us" for that. What they can't counter in fact they destroy in personal attacks and the useful idiots suck it up.
A rolling stone gathers no moss, but it collects and awful lot of crap....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.