The Rolling Stone rape hoax story at UVA is still unfolding. This case is one for the history books.
Watchdog reports:
Rolling Stone rape hoaxer ordered to comply with second lawsuit
“Jackie,” the woman at the center of a debunked gang-rape claim sensationally published by Rolling Stone magazine, will have to “substantially comply” with a subpoena from attorneys representing the fraternity named in the article.
Jackie, whose last name is not included in court documents, told Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely she was gang raped by seven members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity when she was a freshman at the University of Virginia. She claimed she had gone on a date with a member, who took her to a party at the fraternity house and lured her into an upstairs bedroom where he directed other fraternity members to rape her.
The original story was published in November 2014, but within a month doubts began to emerge, leading to a retraction from Rolling Stone, an investigation of what went wrong from by Columbia Journalism Review, and three lawsuits. The most well-known of those lawsuits was filed by University of Virginia dean Nicole Eramo, who was the only named villain in the article.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Thank you, Aleister, for this update.
Eventually, the courts are going to loose all trace of ?tolerance?empathy? for “Jackie”.
Continual refusal to co-operate with the police investigations and the courts orders, sends a real clear message.
I followed the links. It looks like this was a deliberate character assassination of the University and the fraternity.
The publisher and the owners need to be taken to the cleaners. Its the only way they will learn.
Justice will be served in the end.
Please understand that rape victims stories often do not depict the correct details of the crime they suffered due to trauma. If this is the case she is not a malicious liar. Let’s not judge her.
“Let’s not judge her”? But we SHOULD judge all those whom she wrongfully accused? And what’s the difference between being a liar and being a malicious liar? The result’s the same. Her “story” lacked that pesky little detail our laws still require: evidence. Any evidence at all. She lied; people were harmed by her lies; she should be punished and UVA should own Rolling Stone magazine, for whatever it’s now worth.
Having read the original charges and all of the follow-up information I’m quite comfortable judging her. Her story was a lie that seriously damaged the lives of all those she accused, precisely because we give instant credibility to those who claim to have been raped. The stigma that attaches to the “rapists” never completely goes away, even when the accusations are proven false beyond doubt, as there are always those who harbor the feeling that the charges were true and the accused somehow “got away with it”.
Having worked several sexual assault cases as a LEO and many violent assault case, I agree Patricia…but to ‘suffer trauma’ there has to be ACTUAL trauma to suffer.
There is not only NOT a scintilla of evidence that ‘Jackie’ was sexually assaulted, there is a boatload of evidence that her entire story is a lie.
Victims of violence struggle with recalling the the minor details of an assault – They remember it being in the evening, but it actually occurred late night; They remember it happening in room “A”, but it actually happened in room “Z”, They remember their attacker wearing a maroon shirt, when they actually wore dark blue, They remember being attacked by five different people when there were actually 2 attackers, etc. They do not struggle with remembering the gross details – like that it happened at all!
Propping-up such an obviously false story, supporting such an obviously false accuser, or attempting to justify either, hurts actual victims.
Jurors will remember this story for decades and will be less likely to believe actual victims when evidence is limited and memories are fuzzy. This is not the result any rational person wants.
An intelligible statement of what has been ordered would be nice. The hoaxer was “ordered to comply with second lawsuit.” What does this mean, from a legal perspective?
Later, it is stated that the hoaxer “will have to ‘substantially comply’ with a subpoena. Again, legally, what does this mean? A SDT for production of documents? A depo subpoena? A trial subpoena to a witness?