Posted on 10/27/2016 10:05:21 AM PDT by outpostinmass2
When Rolling Stone published a brutal account of a fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia, the magazine relied on the recollections of the young woman who said she was assaulted.
Quoted by the nickname “Jackie,” the tale of her assault was used to exemplify the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses and was the crux of an argument that university administrators who handle such claims can be indifferent to them.
Jackie told Rolling Stone in explicit detail aspects of the night she described as the worst in her life: Sept. 28, 2012, when she said she was assaulted by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi house adjacent to campus.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
At this point I don’t know why they keep calling her “Jackie.” We know her name. She doesn’t deserve protection anymore since she made up these stories and defamed the young men in doing so. The press needs to drop the Jackie and use her real name and picture more.
I believed it to be true at the time. Or, I have watched Hillary and learned how to lie my way out of jail time.
Chick is making it up using PST as an excuse to lie
Chick is making it up using PST as an excuse to lie
Pacific Standard Time?
Yes she was speaking three hours prior to actually thinking... Really screwed up my typing as well. If PST is a problem see a chronologist ASAP or before.
She is a Pissy, Sniveling Twat.
So yes, “PST”.
Except she wasn’t.
And this was used to plan all sorts of college campus protests and a ton of mational media idiocy.
And it was all fake
And they knew it.
Its high time this fraud, Jackie Coakley, had her name used out in the open. This is all fake. It also is a disgrace to real rape victims.
There used to be a medical syndrome identified as ‘Triple P’. She may suffer from that.
P*** Poor Protoplasm.
“Jackie” was supposedly thrown onto a glass coffee table. The glass broke, and seven frat boys, she claimed, raped her in the broken glass.
She says she left the frat house after the rape, where she encountered 3 friends, and told them she had been raped, but she refused to report it to police or go to the hospital to do a rape kit.
Her friends did not see any blood or cuts; they saw no evidence of lacerations on her back.
(Seems like the “rapists” would have cut their knees, too.)
IIRC, both Sabrina Erdeley and the RS fact checker ignored or did not even question the issue of no lacerations, nor did either of them make any fact check call to the fraternity house to question whether the events claimed even occurred.
The most basic rules of journalism were violated—egregiously. Get both sides of the story, allow the accused to speak, being Número Uno.
NO ONE should learn they are accused of a crime by reading it in a magazine.
Question every discrepancy is equally important, and even one major discrepancy is cause to toss the entire story. The source is not trustworthy.
“Jackie’s” claim that she was raped in broken glass —and then, didn’t even go to hospital—does not indicate the incident was “brutal.” It indicates it was BS.
I have worked as a fact checker.
I knew the RS story was a hit piece a few paragraphs in, when Sabrina Erdeley says she felt intimidated when she first visited the campus, by UVA students who she claimed were “overwhelmingly blond” in a context implying Aryan, or Nazi.
No unbiased reporter would make a statements like that, and no competent fact checker would let them stand.
PS: Another tidbit: highly paid magazine reporters who are on contract to get paid X dollars for X number of stories—as apparently Sabrina Erdeley was—usually have hefty “kill fees” negotiated into their contacts.
The magazine must pay the kill fee —which can be almost as high as the payment for publication —if the finished story cannot be published, due to libel concerns or whatever.
The reasoning is that the writer still needs to be compensated for her good intentions and hard work, even if the story did not survive the fact checkers.
Magazines hate to pay kill fees.
Thus, the editors will often attempt to salvage a story by re-writing and moving facts around in the narrative, leaving out discrepancies, or working around them by clever re-wordings that attempt to make falsehoods appear more true (thus, not *really* false) by placing them in a slightly different context.
I’ll bet Rolling Stone did this.
Maybe I just don’t understand this generation and their thinking...
So you have a student who claims to have been gang raped. She tells all her friends, the school, dean, her parents etc. She even openly discusses her “rape” during rallies, giving the same speech over and over again. Has one of her friends go before the U.S. Congress and tell her tale. She then tells a magazine reporter her story in detail and is excited after the publication. She obviously is not afraid to be on campus or embarrassed seeing that 1/2 of UVA already have heard her story. But she is too scared to go to the police and tell her story. Why isn’t that the red flag?
Excellent question.
Ping
It is a red flag — one that was deliberately ignored to maintain the desired “narrative”.
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.