Rape

Rolling Stone Retracts Key Part of UVA Rape Story

|

UVA
Wikimedia Commons

Virtually all details of the horrific gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity detailed in an engrossing Rolling Stone article last month are now either disputed our outright debunked. A terrific Washington Post investigation—which includes an interview with Jackie, the accuser—casts serious doubt on the narrative Jackie told to Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the original Rolling Stone piece.

In light of these developments, Rolling Stone is no longer standing by its story. In a statement to readers, Managing Editor Will Dana wrote:

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.

The "affected" parties include many at the University of Virginia. The college administration, which had assumed the allegations were true, responded to the story by suspending all fraternity activities and promising more vigorous policing of the campus's party scene.

But according to The Washington Post, Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity that Jackie insisted hosted the party where she was raped on September 28th, 2012, will assert that no such event took place and that none of its members worked at the university's swimming pool that semester—a detail important to the story, since Jackie had claimed that her date to the party, a key perpetrator in the assault, was a co-lifeguard.

According to WaPost, Jackie's friends no longer believe that she was truthful about what happened to her:

A group of Jackie's close friends, who are sex assault 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.

Emily Renda, a friend of Jackie's and survivor of sexual assault who was quoted in the initial story, now tells WaPost that she feels misled:

Renda said on Thursday that Jackie initially told her that she was attacked by five students at Phi Kappa Psi on Sept. 28, 2012. Renda said that she learned months later that Jackie had changed the number of attackers from five to seven.

"An advocate is not supposed to be an investigator, a judge or an adjudicator," said Renda,a 2014 graduate who works for the university as a sexual violence awareness specialist. But as details emerge that cast doubt on Jackie's account, Renda said, "I don't even know what I believe at this point."

"This feels like a betrayal of good advocacy if this is not true," Renda said. "We teach people to believe the victims. We know there are false reports but those are extraordinarily low."

There is much more of this in the full Post story.

In light of all this new information, it's impossible to say what exactly happened to Jackie. But it's clear that her story, as told to Erdely, is false. Not slightly false, or partly false, but false. And if Rolling Stone had done its job, the magazine might well have determined that before such a journalistic catastrophe unfolded.

Read my previous report on the UVA situation—one of the earliest stories to express skepticism of Rolling Stone—here.

NEXT: Some Information from Garner Grand Jury; Cop Needed to Know There Was "Substantial Risk" of Killing Garner

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The key part being all of it.

    1. and on a Friday, hoping no one will notice.

      1. Learning from the Obama admin.

        1. Yeah, moron, because it’s so different from W. and WMDs.

          Get a fucking clue

          1. Oh look, someone picked on this guys hero and he had to defend him. “Boo hoo. Leave Obama alone!”

            Guess what dipshit, we were saying the same thing about W.

            1. Bullshit you were not saying the same thing about “W”. All of a sudden with a black guy he is the fucking anti-Christ to you in-bred losers. But guess what “dipshit” all politicians lie, we demand it of them, we would have it no other way because we don’t vote for peole who tell the truth. Even Rand Paul, who I think is one of the more honest politicians out there, back-tracks and spins. But the shit with Obama is fucking ridiculous, all the birther crap, and the Barak the magic Negroe shit…it really highlights how Mental illness goes along with racism.

              1. poguemahoney|12.6.14 @ 8:49AM|#
                “Bullshit you were not saying the same thing about “W””

                New here, or just a fucking ignoramus?

          2. LOL. Our guy is only as bad as your guy. Wait, who’s your guy?

    2. In light of all this new information, it’s impossible to say what exactly happened to Jackie.

      At the moment, there is exactly zero reason to believe that anything happened to Jackie.

      1. Absolutely. Before we had this allegation, there was zero reason to believe it happened.

        Now we know, not just through deductive logic, but through investigative journalism, that many parts of the story are likely false.

        For anyone with integrity, the proper belief about UVA and their frats at this time should mirror the beliefs which were held prior to hearing the allegation.

        Of course I’m awaiting the Twana Brawley defense, that even a complete lie proves something, but without further evidence, there’s really no reason to believe she even had a traumatic experience, much less that rape occurred.

      2. I found that statement troubling as well: Shouldn’t the default be that nothing happened unless there is evidence for it. The trouble with “advocacy” groups is that they don’t necessarily care about the truth.

        1. I gave the Jackie the benefit of the doubt that something happened, though certainly not the story as described in RS. Now, I don’t even believe that. RS torpedoed all credibility to the story.

  2. Schadenfreude for Robby found here: http://jezebel.com/rolling-sto…..329573/all

    from the comments:

    MissAndryAnna Merlan
    11 minutes ago
    Follow missandry
    Flag

    This is really bad, but a few things worth remembering:

    Sexual assault victims often have trouble remembering various details of their attacks. Discrepancies don’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen. If that were true, we wouldn’t have grounds to believe anyone about anything, which is clearly not where we want to go considering most of our criminal justice system operates off of eyewitness accounts.

    I find this to be a failure on the part of Rolling Stone, not on Jackie. If you’re going to run that story, you should do enough fact checking to find the type of discrepancies that apparently could be found over the course of a couple of weeks and explore them and see if they are discrepancies which are fatal to the story or not. To me, this looks like Rolling Stone didn’t follow up in the ways it could and is now throwing Jackie under the bus.

    This doesn’t mean we should stop believing victims. False rape allegations aren’t any higher than the number of false allegations for numerous other crimes.

    Also, wouldn’t it be great if universities investigated rape as diligently and swiftly as they investigate rape accusations.

    1. Also, wouldn’t it be great if universities investigated rape as diligently and swiftly as they investigate rape accusations[?]

      Does anyone have a clue as to what she’s trying to say, here?

      1. she’s complaining because the University in this instance banned all fraternity activities in the wake of this ‘accusation’. Jesus, they don’t even like it when they get what they want, why does anybody even bother with these trolls.

        1. I read it as she’s saying that universities spend much more effort investigating accusers and victims than they do investigating rapists and rapes.

          1. So Randy Soave is employed by the university now?

            1. No, I thought you were answering Tonio’s question?

            2. Does Robby make you Randy, baby?

            3. Oh wait, I got you. The ‘they’ in that last sentence references all the Soave media types, and not back to the ‘universities’ in the same sentence.

              OK that makes a little more sense, but is still incredibly retarded and terrible writing.

              1. I read the “they” as referring to the universities. And maybe, in her head, she meant journalists, but that’s not what she wrote.

      2. I doubt that SHE knows what she’s trying to say.

        1. It doesn’t matter what she says, only what she feels.

          You othering, mansplaining, bastard!

      3. What interesting is that she doesn’t actually want the accusation investigated, she wants it believed on it’s face and she wants people put in prison. It’s only when you investigate that she has a problem.

    2. The Nile.

      1. That’s just a river in Egypt.

    3. Amanduh agrees with that.

      Amanda Marcotte ?@AmandaMarcotte 49m49 minutes ago

      The shifting the blame onto the alleged victim in the RS article instead of taking it for themselves is so gross.

      1. Demanding veracity of criminal accusations is SO patriarchal.

      2. The overuse of the descriptor “gross,” by adults, is gross.

        1. also “ick” and “creepy”

      3. Amanda will double down and say they we guilty of something, so they should be convicted of anything. Just like Duke.

      4. In other words, it’s not the woman’s fault for lying, it’s RS’s fault for believing her.

        That is pathetic.

        1. I thought we were not supposed to blame victims.

          1. I think people being falsely accused should count as victims.

            1. Me too, where do they go for their apology?

          2. Who’s blaming a victim? There’s no reason to believe Jackie is the victim of anything at all, so blaming her doesn’t count.

            1. No, he’s saying RS is the victim of Jackie’s lies.

              1. Got it. Hard to keep score when everyone’s a victim.

        2. And an ironic bit of victim blaming.

      5. So Amanda’s a rape denialist now?

      6. If Jackie told the truth, it wouldn’t matter if Rolling Stone fact-checked or not.

    4. Sexual assault victims often have trouble remembering various details of their attacks.

      If this is actually true, I’d wager that most of the time the reason for their lack of clear memory is due to alcohol usage. Here, Jackie claims to have been sober.

      1. I can understand how someone being tortured might forget certain details. But it sounds like, in this case, these were not some mundane details.

        1. which is why we should never rely on victim eye-witness identification to…

          oh wait

          1. If she’d been raped by 7 guys on top of broken glass the physical evidence would’ve been incredibly obvious.

            1. I agree. She changed her story to say she was raped on a thick carpet.

      2. Hmmm. Actual victims of crime (general crime, not rape specifically) typically remember many details of the event because they experience an adrenaline rush and their senses are heightened. Now, they might not notice the kinds of details cops wish they would: clothing, height, etc. They may notice other useful details, though. If they’ve been hit on the head or they’re drunk – well, different circumstance.

        So, when a victim says they can’t remember that always should be a red flag.

        1. and this notion that rape victims are reluctant to report out of fear of being stigmatized might be the single greatest indictment of feminism I can conjure. That may have been true 50 years ago, but I do believe the stigma exists with being a rapist. We put those folks in jail, often for long periods of time. Victims, not so much.

      3. Yeah, she seems to have forgotten the attacker, the place, and the time and date. It’s almost like she fabricated the whole thing, but of course we know better…

    5. I find this to be a failure on the part of Rolling Stone, not on Jackie.

      Um, if Jackie made stuff up, it’s her failure. And it’s also RS’s failure for not fact checking.

      1. YEah, Rolling Stone’s failure was believing a liar. I am not seeing how that gets the liar off the hook.

      2. Oh, there’s plenty of blame on the part of RS. Apparently the frat in question didn’t hold a party on the night in question. How much fact checking would that have taken? A phone call? Were I king of RS, I’d fire every. single. one. of. them.

    6. She has a masters in journalism. Soave never reported anything in his life.

        1. Yeah, Robbie is a good looking dude.

        2. She’s got the punk look, but not the ethos (well, okay, the DFW late-90’s punk ethos). Lame.

          1. She needs to wipe off the ‘resting bitch face’

            1. ‘resting bitch face’

              Good band name (especially the DFW, late 90’s punk bands)

              1. I believe the term is “bitchy resting face”

      1. And she hasn’t apologized for that cheap shot, not that I expected her to, but a person of intellectual honesty and moral integrity would have done so.

        1. She should have apologized for it before Soave was proved right. It was unwarranted.

        2. In fairness, and despite her use of scare quotes for “discrepancies”, this seems pretty sincere:

          This is really, really bad. It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave’s doubts about the story and called them “idiots” for picking apart Jackie’s account, I was dead fucking wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize.

          1. That’s actually pretty good. Of course it would be better if it were a more agonizing and public display of groveling of some sort, but that’s just revenge fantasy talking.

    7. “This is really, really bad. It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave’s doubts about the story and called them “idiots” for picking apart Jackie’s account, I was dead fucking wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize.”

      1. I was not expecting that. I don’t think Rico Suave was either.

        1. Do you suppose it will remind her why actual journalists must remain at least someone impartial? If you’re going to be an advocacy journalist, you should be sure the story you’re standing on is true.

          1. Nice mansplaining there, FOE.

            1. It’s what I do, darlin’.

          2. She must have missed that part during her Columbia education.

          3. Advocacy journalist is a contradiction in terms.

            1. Not really. You just have to do it honestly. Which seldom happens.

              1. I would consider Baily’s journalism on environmental issues advocacy journalism. This is not a dig or insult. And while I disagree with the fundamental principle on which he writes (that climate change is anthropogenic and real) I believe he advocates for action in an unbiased and fair way. He lambasts popularly backed unscientific solutions and takes a hard look at costs vs. benefits. If it were real I would want Baily writing about the best ways to solve it so I consider him an advocacy journalist in good faith.

                1. Wait until the Maunder Minimum bites his ass.

              2. You can do the journalism, and then do the advocacy afterwards. You can’t do both at the same time because one will interfere with the other.

          4. If you’re going to be an advocacy journalist a rational human being, you should be sure the story you’re standing on is true.

            FIFY.

      2. This is an acceptable apology.

        1. Yes, it is, and I was honestly surprised at that. I was expecting a non-apology in the passive voice and qualified with lots of “buts.”

          1. I think that was what should be said, right? If it really was, can I have a link??!!

            1. It’s in the link at the very top of this thread.

        2. Apologies are not terribly important. If she changes her approach to similar incidents in the future, then that will be apology enough. If not, her words ain’t worth shit.

          1. BINGO.

            “I apologize. Can I do it again?” doesn’t cut it.

          2. THIS IS WHAT A JOURNALISTIC CORRECTION LOOKS LIKE!!!!

    8. “We shouldn’t stop believing victims. We should just fact-check them.”

      OK.

      1. That seems like the right answer. Not sure why it wasn’t obvious before they admitted the story was poorly supported by actual facts.

      2. “We shouldn’t stop believing victims. We should just make sure accusers really are victims.”

      3. “We shouldn’t stop believing. We should just hold onto that feeling.”

        1. You are the worst human, ever.

          Are you really Nicki?

      4. I guess they’ve never heard of “trust but verify”.

    9. This woman’s initial article was so ridiculous. She actually bragged about her 1 year degree from Columbia and 2 years of j.v. experience as some sort of indicia of professionalism while she mocked the Reason writer for reporting statements as if that wasn’t journalism and her editorial piece was.

      She should probably be fired. Not that Jezebel is some paragon of legitimacy.

      Rape is a serious problem on campus of that there can be no doubt. The costs of reporting a rape/assault are disproportionately borne by the victim. But supporting facially absurd claims with religious fervor is doing a dis-service to the reform effort.

      1. She should probably be fired. Not that Jezebel is some paragon of legitimacy.

        odds are, Jezebel will hire Erdley

      2. But supporting facially absurd claims with religious fervor is doing a dis-service to the reform effort.

        More than that, it makes the costs of reporting a rape/assault even higher for the victim.

      3. Rape is a serious problem on campus of that there can be no doubt.

        Ummm. Rape is a serious crime wherever it occurs. Statistically, college campuses are one of the safest places in the world for a college aged woman to be.

      4. Since accusations of Rape on campus keep,turning up in the news as unsubstantiated, bogus, etc. I’d say there was considerable room to doubt that it is a bigger problem on campus than elsewhere.

      5. The costs of reporting a rape/assault are disproportionately borne by the victim.

        Reporting?

        I’d need to see some evidence backing that claim up. Currently an accusation has all costs borne by the accused.

        1. Really? The accused lawyers up, denies it, and attacks the credibility of the victim. Who already had to actually be raped and, of course, gets all the fun societal judgment that comes along with it. The only real benefit to the victim is preventing the next person from getting raped. I have been quite surprised to learn that a number of women that I’ve known for over 30 years were straight up date raped and never did anything about it for these very reasons. And the guys act like, hey, whatevs. Bullshit accusations can do a lot of damage. But put yourself in the shoes of the victim and tell me really what is in it for you unless the perpetrator is rich and you can at least sue him.

      6. For an website called “Jezebel”, they aren’t exactly a barrel of fun.

        1. As someone noted before (so this seems like an appropriate place to repeat it) does Jezebel not realize that they named their site after a woman who was turned into dog shit?

        2. The person the site is named after was shoved out a window by her servants, and her body eaten by dogs.

          She orchestrated the government theft of private property, which makes her the original “eminent domain” wench. Remember that.

          1. Jezebel is said to have […] fabricated false evidence of blasphemy against an innocent landowner

            Then the website is well-named, because they like to fabricate false evidence against innocent men.

      7. Rape is a serious problem on campus of that there can be no doubt.

        Can’t there?

    10. So, we’ve gone from, “Given how detailed this description is we know it must capture reality.” to “Sexual assault victims often have trouble remembering various details of their attacks.”

    11. Any word on if she apologized for all the name-calling and whatnot?

    12. “False rape allegations aren’t any higher than the number of false allegations for numerous other crimes”

      And her proof of this claim is what, exactly?

      1. It’s on the internet; in fact, it’s right there in her story. I guess you didn’t read that part.

    13. This doesn’t mean we should stop believing victims. False rape allegations aren’t any higher than the number of false allegations for numerous other crimes.

      The Bush/Cheney strategy.

    14. “…Discrepancies don’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen. If that were true, we wouldn’t have grounds to believe anyone about anything…” This kind of logic really bothers me, it tends to presume guilt and puts the burden on the accused. “Discrepancy” can also be a euphemism for a lie…and that is what appears to have happened here.

  3. I relied on this story to segue into deploring the sexual culture on campus. Burn on me.

    Fortunately, when commenters started linking to skeptical articles, I grew skeptical myself.

    So if I can’t claim credit for opposing the story from the beginning, at least I had a Kronstadt moment and backed off from this dubious narrative.

    1. PARIETAL RULEZ

      1. Infanticide!

        1. LOL you’re stupid.

          1. You mean you *don’t* want to legalize infanticide in certain cases?

          2. Did you misread “parietal” as “parental” or “prenatal,” Eddie?

          3. Fuck off, Cytotoxic.

            1. More angry snoconez.

    2. So, you’re a party pooper and a sucker.

      1. Not in so many words.

  4. The American liberal media in all their shining glory, ladies and gentlemen.

  5. JujyMonkeyAnna Merlan
    9 minutes ago
    Follow jujy
    Flag

    Anna, I realize that you’re trying to be gracious here, but the Bradly/Soave article(s) were incredibly dismissive and elitist. Your response was warranted more than their “it couldn’t possibly have gone like that” tone.

    Wow.

    1. It didn’t happen that way, but that doesn’t mean you can say that it couldn’t have. Is this what post-modernism means?

      1. More or less. Post-modernism basically says ‘reality isn’t real’. ‘Will to power’ kind of thing.

      2. It just means after modernism.

        1. Modernism is the high point of Late Western Civ

      3. Look Warty, take your elitist standards of integrity and honesty and somewhere else. Stop being elitist and expecting this poor things to tell the truth and do their jobs. Okay?

      4. Maybe we should just call it post-Enlightenment. Or post-Logic.

    2. translation: even though it didn’t happen that way, the people who acted like it did were right, even though they were wrong, and the people who acted like it didn’t were still wrong, even though they were right.

      1. If anything, the people who acted like it didn’t happen are even wronger!

    3. the Bradly/Soave article(s) were incredibly … elitist.

      As opposed to dragging out your degree from Columbia.

      1. “Libertarians are hyperrational, intellectually elite snobs, so it’s okay to sneer at them.”

    4. Anna, I realize that you’re trying to be gracious here…

      Bare minimum half-assed apology = gracious. Got it.

  6. This just proves what a problem rape is. That’s what I’ve learned from a quick look at Marcotte and her clones.

  7. And if Rolling Stone had done its job

    I thought its job was to toe the lion? It appears to me that it excelled at its job.

    1. TOW the lion!

      Report to SugarFree’s dungeon for “reeducation”

      1. for all intensive porpoises he should be shot for begging the question.

  8. The immediate retraction in the face of widespread public skepticism is telling

    What did Rolling Stone “not know” before they ran the story that they know now? Nothing really. They had plenty of time to screen what was already a sketchy story.

    What changed was the public willingness to swallow the narrative.

    RS was perfectly happy to try and sell a popular lie. It is only when the actual cost of sticking to that lie became ‘excessive’ did they suddenly become concerned with ‘fact’.

    It was OK to run with ‘somebody said that’ as the basis for rape-claims… before. Now? Suddenly their standard for ‘truthyness’ has risen.

    Its completely mendacious. If they’d waited until the police said it was fishy, they’d have been able to claim that they were duped = but they panicked. Now the same second-hand claims that convinced them to run the piece are the same things that make them wonder how they ever fell for it.

    1. This is an example of the internet really working in favour of truth.

    2. I will stand up for Rolling Stone here. You have to remember that print media is dying. They don’t have the money or the resources to fact check or edit their articles anymore. So they run whatever their reporters give them. So what Rolling Stone knows now that they didn’t know before is likely everything.

      1. “They don’t have the money or the resources to fact check or edit their articles anymore.’

        Oh, please.

        This isn’t WMD level ‘fact checking’. This is simply calling a fraternity and asking if there was a party on a given date. Rolling Stone has far more resources than your local newspaper and yet failed on the most basic due diligence. Name one “fact” they may have under consideration now that was unavailable before they ran the piece?

        1. Gilmore,

          They only fact check things that don’t fir their narrative.

          1. That was the shortest “Standing Up for Rolling Stone”-Defense I’ve ever seen.

            1. Someone had to and there is only so much to be said in their defense, which isn’t much.

              1. It wasn’t anything.

                Remind me not to hire you as my defense atty.

                1. You hire John to defend your enemies. He charges $3500 an hour, and he’s really good at what he does.

          2. “A story too good to check” predates Rolling Stone by a quite a while.

            1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and…”

      2. I will stand up for Rolling Stone here. You have to remember that print media is dying. They don’t have the money or the resources to fact check or edit their articles anymore. So they run whatever their reporters give them. So what Rolling Stone knows now that they didn’t know before is likely everything.

        That would almost be understandable if they had framed the article as being an account told by Jackie and only Jackie–then it would be up to the reader whether they found her story credible. But phrasing that section of the article in simple declarative statements as if they were reporting on an undisputed and clear series of events when they actually hadn’t fact-checked anything was absolutely reprehensible.

        1. and it’s gone.

          Shorter reply: Why should I ever trust someone with a shitty business plan?

          1. And employees who lie?

  9. I guess even an “idiot” can get it right occasionally.

  10. Why wow? that’s the mindset

  11. Whatzis? The reality-based community was so easily led astray by such a tall tale?

    Are they sure that they’re based in this reality?

  12. “Read my previous report on the UVA situation?one of the earliest stories to express skepticism of Rolling Stone…”

    I know memories a fallible, but I thought Robby believed the RS report and it was Reason commentators who expressed initial skepticism & disbelief.

    1. That’s how I remember it too.

    2. Robby believed it at first, then grew skeptical.

      1. He wrote a deferential article at first. Who knows what he really believed.

      2. Robby reported on the story and then reported on the skepticism.

    3. ” I thought Robby believed the RS report and it was Reason commentators who expressed initial skepticism & disbelief.”

      He swallowed it initially, and we busted his balls mercilessly

      To his credit, he DID have a point in his actual initial response

      “I didn’t question the incident itself, because my point stands regardless. Making universities investigate and adjudicate rape?something that both federal and state governments are pushing?is the wrong approach, and what happened at UVA is just one example of why that’s the case.”

      We busted his balls mercilessly the second time anyway.

      Then – to his further credit – when the jezemonsters et al then attacked him as a Rape Denying Patriarchicy-Enforcer for daring to question the narrative, he doubled down, said “Go fuck yourself”, and consequently wins Reason’s = ‘Radley Balko: Balls of Steel‘ prize for 2014

      Wear them with pride, Robby.

      1. I think Robby should get a free rape with this award.

        1. you left out “whistle”

        2. Why? He doesn’t deserve to be raped.

          1. what if he wants to be?

      2. ok then

        1. Finger,

          Who do you nominate to rape him? A privileged frat rat? I’m told they are experts.

      3. As long as he doesn’t start using the Balko award as an excuse to nutpunch the commentariat every Friday afternoon.

      4. The Balls of Steel are wonderful for when you want to wear your magnetic codpiece – and nothing else – down to the local liquor store.

  13. This is really, really bad. It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave’s doubts about the story and called them “idiots” for picking apart Jackie’s account, I was dead fucking wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize. It means that my conviction that Sabrina Rubin Erdely had fact-checked her story in ways that were not visible to the public was also wrong. It’s bad, bad, bad all around

    While still seeming to try to push the “fake but accurate” meme in the rest of the article, this is better than I expected.

    1. “Soft bigotry of low expectations” indeed

      1. Jackie is just a girl. Girls can’t be expected to remember facts.

        1. Math is hard!

        2. I don’t care so much about Jackie’s motivations. The supposed journalist has the responsibility to do some follow up to confirm the story.

        3. Patriarchy! Er, or should that be Matriarchy!?

          Now I’m confused who’s the sexists and who isn’t.

  14. I’ll admit it. Those of you who saw the holes in the story were right.

    1. good on you. For the record I was so sure in my convictions this morning I thought for sure I would be the one eating crow.

      1. In my defense, my position was that it was best to wait for more facts before saying it was a hoax. Those facts are now emerging.

        But I also said I thought the story was believable, and most here saw it and said, no, it doesn’t compute. And you guys were right on that.

        1. No defense needed, I would normally agree with you for most things. In this instance I ‘m just unprincipled when it comes to these SJW type cases because it seems more often than not the people selling these stories seem more than any other group willing to sell out their integrity to push a narrative that they believe is true.

          1. That has bitten me in the ass too. Having been on the wrong end of SJWs I tend to disbelieve absolutely everything they say.

            It works pretty ell 80% of the time, but that isn’t really good enough to prevent having egg on my face.

    2. Lynchpin,

      Shows integrity and guts to admit an error. Everyone misses a shot now and then. Even Einstein was wrong a few times.

      1. Hey, I fessed up, too!

        1. respect for you integrity, too

        2. Good on both of you.

      2. The speed of light is only a speed limit if you are using the light carrying medium to accelerate. I don’t believe Einstein ever said it was a universal speed limit per se. But I still count him wrong on it because so many people think he said it was.

        /Relativity rant over.

        1. Huh? “The light carrying medium to accelerate”? What does that even mean? Their is no light carrying medium – see Morley and Michelsen interferometry experiment. If you’re referring to Einstein-Rosen-Podulsky (EPR) objections, that makes more sense. But I can’t see what acceleration has to do with entanglement.

    3. Don’t feel bad. I thought for sure the cop in the Garner case was going to get indicted. We all have our blind spots.

    4. I’ll admit it. Those of you who saw the holes in the story were right.

      My husband and I discussed this story yesterday. He was completely willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her while I never did.

      I suspect the way some people are raised contributes to belief in victim stories. Regular, decent people believe this stuff because the cannot believe someone would lie because in their personal experience they haven’t encountered lying scumbags on a regular basis. Basically, they’re naive. People who grew up rough get it. They’ve seem the horrible shitty things people do and are cynical about behavior.

      All this to say, the reason you probably believed the story is your likely a pretty decent human and cannot fathom this level of b.s. in people.

      1. On the other hand, as a decent human being I also had a hard time believing the story.

        1. I never believed it Zeb. But I am a total asshole.

        2. This calls into question your status as a decent human being not my theory.

          1. Lady,

            Nativity is not a necessary precondition of decency.

            1. I disagree = Nativity Scenes are an absolute precondition of any decent Christmas display

              Anything less is just kids whining about not getting a BB gun.

              1. You’ll put yer eye out, Kid!

          2. I mean Naivety

            1. It’s just a kind of naivety. They think the world for the most part reflects their own experiences which are relatively benign. If they’re ever a victims themselves or falsely accused then their world view shatters. Affluent and middle-class people are like this a lot – that’s my observation anyways.

              1. That is an intelligent observation

              2. The biggest mistake most people make is assuming that most people are basically like them. That’s why progs think everone else java racist, selfish, authoritarian. That’s why liars think everyone else is lying to them, and con men think people are always trying to cheat them. It’s projection all the way down, but I think people also project their virtue onto others too.

                1. Just to be clear, I don’t think I ever said “I believe this story”. I said “I don’t find this story unbelievable”. I appreciate the implication that I’m a good person, but I’d rather be a dick than a sucker.

                  1. I appreciate the implication that I’m a good person, but I’d rather be a dick than a sucker.

                    “In this world, you can be oh-so smart, or oh-so pleasant. For years I was smart, but I recommend pleasant.”

                  2. but I’d rather be a dick than a sucker.

                    Why can’t you be both? At the same time?

                    1. I don’t swing that way. NTTAWWT.

            2. There were protests when our town tried to put up a Naivety Scene this year.

          3. I see what he’s saying, I too was inclined to believe many aspects of the story individually but not together. What really made me start disbelieving was the when she said that her friends made her hush it up IMMEDIATELY afterwards, when if you take the rest of the story as true, she would have been in a horrible state.

            Any belief that a someone wouldn’t make up something so horrible was outweighed by my belief that nobody would be that shitty to their so called friend, never mind three of them at once.

            1. see what he’s saying, I too was inclined to believe many aspects of the story individually but not together.

              Exactly that. The biggest mistake that people make when judging credibility is they don’t view the story as a whole. And you can do that both ways. You can talk yourself into believing an unbelievable story because each part taken in isolation is believable. And you can also talk yourself into disbelieving the truth because pieces of it viewed in isolation don’t seem credible, even though the totality of the circumstances point to it being the only reasonable explanation.

            2. For me, it was the mother. What kind of a monster would let her daughter’s rape go unanswered?

            3. I was actually in a fraternity. It was quite the party house in the sense we held awesome parties (23 kegs in one night). And I was skeptical because in EVERY CASE ate every party, whether our house or not, I never once saw women being put into dangerous positions. Brothers looked out for each other and the girls. Do you know what happens to your parties when the reputation (even unfounded) gets out that your house abuses girls, gropes girls, or god forbid rapes girls? You no longer have girls at your party. Seriously, if NOTHING ELSE, then this is the single greatest reason that institutional female abuse is not tolerated in fraternities. Dudes want chicks to come over so we are nice to them…and ply them with alcohol.

              Side note, I dated a GPB and an AGD, both ok girls but DZ was ALWAYS on our side, not the best looking house but when the snooty bitches decided we weren’t good enough DZ would still come party. They even backfilled a mixer at the last minute…like 30 minutes. That was awesome.

              1. To clarify, “women put into dangerous positions by brothers”. we all had our share of “randoms” at our parties and we dealt with their poor behavior in a most indelicate manner…once involving a brawl with lacrosse sticks.

              2. I was a member of the animal house fraternity in the early ’80s. The most licentious period ever on college campuses – 18 drinking age, pre-AIDs, and that ’70s sex-and-drugs vibe was still hanging around.

                There was zero forcible rape. And, of course, zero gang rapes. Plenty of drunkfucking, plenty, I’m sure, of pressure to have sex, vast amounts of crudity, and lots of regrets on both sides.

                If there was ever a group that would adopt a gangbang as an initiation ritual, it was us. Having been to the belly of the beast, I can tell you: not even close.

                And, yeah, we went to UVA frats once a year. What a bunch of pussies they were.

            4. To be fair, these people probably weren’t really her “friends” they were, most likely, just fellow freshmen she just met who happened to be also interested if going to frat parties and getting wasted.

          4. A decent person has to believe horrible things about other people on the basis of a pretty much unsourced article?

            Maybe I am naive in thinking that there is no way that that sort of thing could go on in fraternities at major universities without people knowing about it and that not one member of the frat would turn his brothers in for that shit, or that after being horrifically attacked like that the victim would worry about getting invited to the cool parties. I hope not.

            1. A decent person has to believe horrible things about other people on the basis of a pretty much unsourced article?

              No. That’s not what I said. I said decent types tend to believe these stories because they tend to trust people based on the general trustworthiness of the people they encounter in the lives. That’s it.

              1. Well, my point was that decency goes both ways. I don’t want to believe that someone would make up a story like that. I also don’t want to believe that the large number of people who would have had to have acted completely immorally for the it to have happened the way it is portrayed in the RS article could possibly have done so. Yeah, people do horrible things, one has to accept that, but I’m just not prepared to believe that every single person in the story is such a total piece of shit.

              2. But wouldn’t a decent person be equally, if not more so, inclined towards being skeptical of the act itself?

                As I see it, a decent human being (which I am not so will not claim to understand such thinking) who believes in the general decency of others can either a) believe one person fibbed about an incident in order to serve a broader narrative that she felt was important or b) believe that there are 9 monsters gang-raping girls routinely.

                Seems to me that believing one “well-intentioned” lie would be attributing more decency to the world than believing nine men are comfortable gang-raping women on a semi-regular basis.

                1. I tend to believe in the general decency of individuals, but I also go back to the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment, or WWII era Germany (not Godwining!). When placed in the right hierarchies, otherwise decent people can do some pretty awful things. So it didn’t seem like an impossible leap to me for 7 young guys who want to fit into a certain social scene to do something horrific.

                  1. When placed in the right hierarchies, otherwise decent people can do some pretty awful things.

                    The Frat is a fairly narrow hierarchy and functions as a subset of a larger hierarchy above it. Meanwhile, the campus rape narrative is the dominant paradigm of contemporary discourse. Which hierarchy has more sway and which behavior is a more readily identifiable jump?

              3. No. That’s not what I said. I said decent types tend to believe these stories because they tend to trust people based on the general trustworthiness of the people they encounter in the lives. That’s it.

                I know these people. They aren’t rational. They are the definition of the term “tool”.

                As such their decency is in whatever minimal function they serve. A wrench is decent at tightening bolts. A megaphone is decent at making things louder.

                A human uses their brain. A decent human is able to believe someone is 100% full of shit and still treat them with respect and good faith. A decent human being is able to recognize a tool and refuse to use them improperly and/or recognize when they themselves are being a tool and being used improperly.

                Erdely is/was a great megaphone and a shitty advocate.

      2. Regular, decent people believe this stuff because the cannot believe someone would lie because in their personal experience they haven’t encountered lying scumbags on a regular basis. Basically, they’re naive. People who grew up rough get it. They’ve seem the horrible shitty things people do and are cynical about behavior.

        This is so true…. in my experience, when my ex lies, the more advanced a degree the person she is lying to, the more credulously her lie will be received. The first guys to call her a liar were cops, followed by lawyers.

      3. your likely a pretty decent human

        Well I haven’t had my 23andme test done, so I can’t be sure.

        1. Let us know and we’ll plan accordingly. 😉

        2. I am decent for a Neanderthal. 2.9% Neanderthal baby!

      4. I think it requires some cynicism either way. If you believe the accuser, then you believe somebody did something wrong. If you don’t believe them, then you assume they are lying. I think it’s ideal to take a middle ground, between assuming that the accuser is telling the truth and telling a lie. If they actually are telling the truth, investigation should reveal that, or show plausibility. If there isn’t enough proof to say it actually happened but enough to say it could or probably did then I feel that maybe they are telling the truth (but it wouldn’t be enough to punish the accused). In this situation, it seems that there is not only enough evidence to say it was plausible. Rather the entire foundation of the accusations are falling apart. While normally I wouldn’t fault an accuser if they weren’t able to prove their case, that is only if I felt they may have actually been right. I don’t respect outright lies though.

        Though I have to say the stronger the accusations, the more I want to believe the accused because I see the harm of being falsely accused as much greater.

    5. Your penance is to blow Warty.

        1. But first , ru-ru!

  15. earliest stories stories, not commentator blather

    1. right. i see now

  16. And shame on Ederly. This will only make it harder for real victims to get support. Lies are never justified.

    1. That is what the Jezebelians should be outraged at. Ederly did a huge disservice to the cause of improving how rape is dealt with and how victims are perceived.

      1. You guys are working on the assumption that feminists actually give a shit about rape. That isn’t clear to me. The evidence I’ve seen to date suggests they give about exploiting the existence of rape as a means of gaining power.

        1. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all people – male and female – cared equally about justice?

        2. I think that they give a shit about rape and want to use it as a tool to gain power. It’s not like rape can be completely eliminated, so they will always have something to go on.

        3. The feminists certainly never cared about Bill Clinton’s victims.

          1. I think you might be overgeneralizing just a bit. And who are we certain that he forcibly raped?

        4. The evidence I’ve seen to date suggests they give about exploiting the existence of rape as a means of gaining power.

          Unless you honestly think an all out gender war is actually raging, rape and rape allegations are just opposite sides of the same coin. If the word rape starts to mean ‘full of shit’ rather than ‘forcibly subjugated sexually’, the ability to weild it as a weapon is significantly lessened. When women have to tell other women what they experienced wasn’t really a rape (seemingly like Jackie’s friends)

          See also; alarm fatigue, Newtown.

      2. That is what the Jezebelians should be outraged at. Ederly did a huge disservice to the cause of improving how rape is dealt with and how victims are perceived.

        I went over and read the comments, and a good number of them are.

        1. Of course, a good number of them are taking a “But UVA’s rape investigation system still sucks” tone. Which takes us back to why UVA is doing that and not the police.

          1. Yes. Perhaps part of the problem is that colleges are trying too hard to be full fledged communities and not sticking to their actual supposed purpose of being schools. You don’t expect the person who runs your apartment building to investigate rapes, why would you expect colleges to?

    2. This.

      Feminist bullshit like this causes FAR more harm to actual rape victims than indifferent college administrations could ever cause.

  17. So various persons say that they know a “jackie” – but the story is fake from top to bottom. In cases of religious hysteria, one should adopt the biblical scholars’ minimalist criterion of doubting every single detail in the story unless that specific detail is backed by some physical evidence. Until an actionable name is associated with “jackie” and the person is in the docket, the default hypothesis is that the “jackie” character is fictional.

    1. Everyone knows a fake rapee, just like everyone knows a fake child sex slave.

  18. OT from TurdPushers

    http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..plication/

    On Job Application, Cop Who Killed 12-Year-Old Listed ‘Under-The-Table Jobs’ As Prior Employment

    “He was not mentally prepared to do firearm training,” Pulak wrote, adding that during firearms qualification training Loehmann was “distracted and weepy. He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal. After some talking it was clear to Sgt. Tinnirello that the recruit was just not mentally prepared to be doing firearm training.”

  19. pbs.twimg.com/media/B4HWKsVCYAA2XvA.png:large

    Frat statement released.

    1. Copy and paste the link above to see it. Don’t know why hyperlinks don’t work.

    2. super-me’d.

      1. Fine. Links work. I’m just too stupid to figure out how.

        I ADMIT IT OK!

        1. [a href=”http://www.yourlinkhere.com/”]Link title text[/a]

          Substitute [] for angle brackets

          1. err…substitute angle brackets for the [] brackets.

  20. I think an appropriate follow-up piece would be to do a round-up of the people who asserted before the retraction that “the facts of the case don’t really matter”…

    …so that we can ensure that their journalist-credentials are asterisked forever

    1. Their credentials should be forever revoked.

      1. You say that like their credentials ever meant anything in the first place.

  21. Expect another implausible sex assault allegation published soon. Some prominent person will take the bait, saying it sounds fake…but that story will by “true” e.g. backed up by some evidence. Then, the backlash against misogynistic “doubters and deniers” can proceed apace.

    1. I don’t know, it took Ederly over a year to find someone who would make up a good story. I doubt they have true accounts sitting on the publishers desk.

    2. Bill Cosby ought to be shaking in his boots right now.

      I think he is going to become the rebound scandal for these folks. I honestly haven’t paid much attention to his scandal, but it seems like there may be something there for the SJW-ers to glom onto.

      Cosby has to worry that they will double down on getting his scalp to make up for this fiasco.

  22. Oops! Is this what’s known as “Narative Collapse”?

    1. More of a “Narrative Realignment” I’m sure.

      1. Narrative Change?

  23. The “affected” parties include many at the University of Virginia.

    They cancelled the staff Holiday party in favor of a discussion forum. I wonder if they’ll go back to the party.

    1. lol. bet that would be a fun event

  24. The question is, what will Merlan do with her Masters in Jooornalism at Colooombia University now?

    She can’t rub it in ‘ole Roberto’s face. She’s already done that to mixed results. Might I submit she wipes her ass with it? Or perhaps use it as a tissue to wipe a derpy tear or two?

    1. How dare you impugn Columbia U aka “the best minds of my generation”

    2. apparently, she still has that degree from UC Santa Cruz on layaway. Go slugs!

    3. There’s always freelancing for the NYT.

    4. Are we sure it wasn’t a Masters from Colombia University?

  25. ?Rolling Stone Retracts Key Part of UVA Rape Story

    Then hopefully at some point, YouTube will retract this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

    1. Vomit.

    2. That was truly awful.

    3. This video currently has 325,961 views. Probably most are backlinked to reason.

    4. Fuck you for posting that.

  26. Kudos to Soave for ignoring Merlan in his post. She isn’t really worth further discussion. (Except in the comments, of course.)

    1. HE burned her on the twitter

      1. All’s fair in love and tweeting?

  27. Apparently women lying about sexual assaults is also part of “rape culture”

    1. The scary thing is that approximately 40% of all rape and sexual assault accusations are completely false.

      Always be very careful about simply taking these accusations at face value.

      1. When I wrote that, I was specifically thinking of the two “child sex slave advocates” who were outed a couple months ago.

        It’s a bad year for sexual assault advocacy.

      2. The scary thing is that approximately 40% of all rape and sexual assault accusations are completely false.

        Wait, am I horribly misreading sarcasm here, or do you mean that? If the latter, what is your source for that?

        1. Probably his ass, similar to the place that feminists get their “20% of rape college women are raped” statistics.

          1. Probably his ass, similar to the place that feminists get their “20% of rape college women are raped” statistics.

            That was my thought. After all, 67% of statistics are just made up on the spot.

            1. “”67% of statistics are just made up on the spot.””

              LIES! It fails to account for the rotation of the earth

            2. There is no more an epidemic of false rape allegations than there is of rapes.

        2. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985).

          The work of Eugene Kanin, Ph.D. Purdue University backs him up as well.

          1. Everyone knows Airmen are all a bunch of rapists anyway

            I mean, ‘scarves’. Come on.

            1. In the military, women who make a rape accusation can legally be ordered to take a polygraph. Between 25 and 30 percent of the women who are ordered to do so recant the accusation immediately rather than take the polygraph.

              1. Not to belabor the ‘shitty statistics about shitty statistics’ issue…

                …but how accurate are polygraphs? and how many people are willing to risk their careers and credibility being forced to take one on the off chance that if it comes up ‘wrong’ they’re going to shoot themselves in the face for ‘lying'”?

                I’m just pointing out = bullshit data is bullshit. Its simple enough to say ‘a significant proportion’ without needing to resort to weak claims of exactness.

                1. …but how accurate are polygraphs?

                  The proportion is eerily consistent across government departments and methods;

                  A 1996 Department of Justice report documented that “in about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI?the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing”. In other words, the DNA found on the accuser didn’t match those accused.

                  A significant number of accusations involving a DNA match are false as well, meaning that more than 25% of the cases referred to the FBI in the 1996 DoJ report were false accusations.

                  But, you’re right, we should be belaboring the point that the narrative is that women are victims while more men die, are raped or assaulted, and are falsely accused in the service of their country.

                  1. “But, you’re right, we should be belaboring the point that the narrative is that women are victims while more men die, are raped or assaulted, and are falsely accused in the service of their country.”

                    You misunderstand me entirely.

                    My point was that this game of citing statistics as unassailable proof is one which the Panic-Mongers love, because ginning up numbers is easy. See the NIH/CDC studies which dumb down the definitions of ‘sexual assault’ to ‘looked at me funny’ or ‘sent unwanted emails’ in order to get their desired effect.

                    The point is that claiming ‘40% of all rapes’ are lies is literally begging to be debunked because the source data is iffy by its very nature. it doesn’t matter that there are corroborating sources that might ‘ballpark’ affirm it.

                    Better to simply say, “Data shows a significant amount of rape-claims turn out to be false”

                    Am i splitting hairs? yes. Because if you pretend to have unassailable #s you’ll get owned and then people will claim *the underlying idea* is (pretended to be) debunked.

                    I made a similar point recently when Ed claimed black males were “21 times more likely” to get shot by cops than whites. Its bullshit.

      3. 87.5% of statistics are just made up on the spot

        1. In my case it is a number approaching 100%.

      4. In my personal experience, ie the accusations that have touched people I know personally, the number is closer to 60%, with only 3 being truthful. (I know I’ve said 1 in the past comments, but in thinking about it I realize that two relatives who were raped in the 60’s and early 70’s had slipped my mind. There are another 25% or so where I can’t tell for sure who is being truthful.

  28. Don’t get too quick to compliment Anna Merlan. When Robby tweeted that he was happy that the crime hadn’t happened, because it was horrific, she replied:

    @robbysoave Sure you are.

    1. that’s the mindset

    2. What a pathetic human being she is.

      1. Psychotic. Since Robby was skeptical of the story he must have actually hoped that it happened?!!

        That is Mary levels of crazy.

        1. The arrogance and snobbery, combined with her bragging about having a Master’s degree in Journalism, is plain awful.

          Her graduate degree in journalism is worth jack.

          1. Such is the credentialism culture, where credentials replace actual thought.

    3. Petulant. That’s the only word that properly describes her.

    4. What a cunt.

    5. “trying to be gracious”

    6. Cunt.

  29. Robby Soave, you had some serious nerve sticking your neck out to question the story. You were badly criticized for merely suggesting a dispassionate examination of the facts during a period of emotionally charged outrage. Keep up the good work.

    1. I understand the outrage, but no way can I support a state institution suing a private company. UVA didn’t do their due diligence, and neither did Rolling Stone. One of those didn’t waste taxpayer money.

      1. oops, meant for comment below.

  30. I hope UVA sues Rolling Stone out of existence. The article was so broad sweeping, I’m thinking I might be able to be a plaintiff. Pretty much everyone at UVA is some kind of rape apologist per the article.

    1. Indeed. Jackie’s story was only a part of the article. It indicted broad swaths of the University and fraternity system.

      But something tells me the University won’t sue. Phi Kapp Psi, on the other hand, suffered actual property damage, and the whole Greek system was shut down.

      1. Fuck UVA, they shouldn’t be suing anybody. I’m OK with Phi Kappa Psi suing Rolling Stone out of existence.

        I’m in favor of Phi Zappa Crappa taking over.

        1. The fraternity absolutely should sue Rolling Stone. I can’t imagine someone at RS hasn’t already started calculating a settlement offer.

          1. “3 cases of stones and a bong of your choice from the $150 shelf. And a signed photo of Dylan from back when we were relevant.”

          2. They should also name “Jackie” as a co-defendant.

    2. It might just cover the lawsuit costs of UVA after the fraternities get done with them.

  31. I wonder what did actually happen? WaPo interviewed Jackie several times, so she clearly is a real person. Did she make this up wholesale? Did she embellish something less sensational? I wonder if we’ll ever find out.

    1. Here’s my totally unsupported speculation:

      She went out on a date with someone, sometime, to the frats. It didn’t go as well as she hoped, but there was no rape (and no, I don’t count drunkfucking as rape).

      She had regrets, and these combined with other issues in her head to lead her to claim victimhood, and to do so in as spectacular a fashion as possible.

      1. According to WaPo, she is 100% sticking to the date of Sept 28, 2012. They also say that she now identified someone by name who did in fact work as a lifeguard, but was not a member of the frat she is accusing. She sort of backpedals on the location a little bit. So it should be easy to see if this guy belonged to some other frat, and if that frat or another that is located close to the one she accused had a party on that night. If so, you could maybe say that she got confused on the location, being nighttime and a first year and all. It’s probably giving more benefit of the doubt than is warranted, but maybe. But if none of *that* checks out, then its hard to see any other conclusion than making the entire thing up.

        1. Has anyone come forward as or otherwise identified any of the three friends who supposedly convinced her not to go to the police?

          1. I saw an interview on local TV with other friends of hers (or they said they were). But to my knowledge no one has identified the three sociopathic ones.

            1. My guess is she didn’t know them too well – freshman year, first people you meet, just someone to walk with while you’re roaming the streets looking for parties.

              Also, quite possible they witnessed some of the action and believed it to be consentual.

        2. That part of the article stuck out to me as well and does not make the journalist look good. She said she only knew the location because a year later someone pointed out to her, as you said that could be understandable but not decent journalist would take that to print. I’m very interested in what she actually said vs what was printed.

        3. How many times does a person have to lie to you LP before you stop believing ANYTHING THEY SAY!

          1. There’s a difference between not believing somebody and spinning and equally unsubstantiated story about what might have happened that’s flattering to your own preconceived notions about other people.

            1. That was my point all along.

              But to respond to pulse, what I was getting at is that it would be fairly easy to fact-check an alternative scenario where she got the house wrong. I’m still curious to know what precipitated her story. But yes, her credibility at this point is pretty low.

        4. Doesn’t change the fact that UVA frats pledge only in the spring, and the rapists all had some conversation about how this was part of their hazing for pledges. The whole thing is a steaming pile.

          1. True. That is not some mundane detail, Michael.

        5. As I write below, my guess is that she may have been raped, but that it wasn’t premeditated, or in any way part of an initiation.

          If it happened, it was something a bunch of horny drunk guys thought up on the spur of the moment.

      2. She had regrets, and these combined with other issues in her head to lead her to claim victimhood, and to do so in as spectacular a fashion as possible.

        It’s shameful, but not shocking. The left in particular has been pushing this idea that it’s okay to wear your handicaps and pathologies on your sleeve like a badge of honor, as if they somehow make you more honorable and just than someone who had the luck to be a completely regular person. This sort of psychosis has been magnified on university campuses were intellectual inbreeding is the norm, not the exception.

        I’m not surprised at all that “Jackie” bought into this culture hook, line, and sinker, because the left has taught her and others like her for years that being a victim increases your credibility and social status. Maybe she WAS a victim of rape, but she didn’t just report a rape–she portrayed it as some sort of gang-rape initiation rite straight out of a teen horror flick, something that was an insidious and accepted annual ritual in fraternities. Of COURSE she’s going to go with the latter, probably because in her mind the increased brutality of the story would increase her social status.

  32. this is worse than when they trashed ‘layla’……almost.

  33. I’m interested in knowing what actually happened to her (if anything). Everybody still seems clear that she’s traumatized about something. Probably will never know.

    Rolling Stones has no excuses whatsoever. If anything that Wash Po story and interview makes them look even worse.

    1. Everybody still seems clear that she’s traumatized about something.

      Of course, what SJW rape activists count as “trauma” probably includes many, many things that the rest of us call “life”.

      1. This.

        I’ve slept with some women in my times that I’ve regretted the next day. I wasn’t raped. I was fucking dumb.

        Incidentally, I still am dumb. But still trauma free!

    2. Chances are she is just a nut looking for attention or she was actually raped by someone very close to her and can’t face up to the fact that they did it and has dealt with it by making up this story.

      Or maybe someone at that fraternity house did something shitty to her and she figured lying to a gullible reporter was a way to anonymously throw a rock through their window not realizing the whole thing would eventually blow up.

      1. Definitely could be, makes it all the more interesting. The other possibility that was floated, that she was raped and nobody paid attention so she made up some grand story to get attention, remains a possibility. Who knows, I’m just going to sit back and eat some popcorn.

        1. More likely: She was (still is) obsessed with a certain individual who she consensually fucked but he never called her back after the first time. She’s too obsessed to actually hurt him, so she wants to accuse another guy she wanted to fuck but who faithfully followed the “never stick it in crazy” rule.

          (I’m mostly remembering the Webb-Dotson story, and “crazy” defined Webb pretty well, God rest her soul.)

          1. I don’t see how it’s more likely. Let’s just see what happens instead of making up new narratives.

            1. Look, some of us are busy putting together a portfolio for RS.

            2. Turn your snark-o-meter on. I don’t think it’s too soon for snark on this.

              Cathy Webb was willing to taker her lie all the way to conviction. (At least she claimed it was a lie, some people think it was a case of regret.) Jackie, et al, want to play/feed the “rape culture” game and deserve snark. Even if Jackie were sexually abused by someone, it’s a pretty horrible thing to do to bring so many more people into a web of lies; sexual abuse doesn’t OK that.

      2. My money says she’s crazy and really thinks it happened.

        She’s the kind of crazy that loses track of what really happened and what she imagined.

    3. She’s away at college. She’s depressed. She’s unhappy with her life. She doesn’t like hanging out with her friends. This is not traumatic.

      There is no reason to believe any part of the story. Once someone lies twice to you, their credibility is zero. ZERO.

  34. Who forget this famous (well, locally famous anyway) fake rape:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathleen_Mae_Webb

  35. Best tweet on this subject was something to the effect of

    “So I guess now Aticus Finch is a villain because he didn’t believe a woman’s rape allegation”.

    And lets not forget that not 20 years ago Juanita Broaderick accused Bill Clinton of raping her and the good people in the leftist media saw no problem with blaming the victim then.

  36. Always remember:

    When anyone, anywhere, at any time, tells you that “X don’t lie!” it means that you are about to hear a bunch of lies. Anyone who says that to you is attempting to do battlespace preparation to overcome your defenses against lies.

    “Child don’t lie about being abused!” Bullshit. Kids lie all the time.

    “Women don’t lie about rape.” Bullshit. Women lie all the time.

    “Cops won’t risk their pensions by lying on reports!” Bullshit. Cops lie all the time.

    People lie. All the time. About important stuff, and about trivial stuff. For big reasons, and for trivial reasons. Lie lie lie lie lie. That’s what people do. Never believe otherwise.

    1. ^^THIS^^

      If what was to follow was the truth, there wouldn’t be any need to vouch for it.

      I will add another one.

      Scientists wouldn’t ever lie to further a pet theory.

    2. Oh yeah? Why should I believe you, Fluffy? That’s probably not even your real name.

  37. Everyone realizes that Jackie will now commit suicide and her death will be entirely our* fault?

    *mostly Robby’s

    1. I was thinking the same thing.

      Depressed, probably a bit psychotic young fool is humiliated in public and treated badly by the University community. She might kill herself.

      Sabrina’s fault if she does. As much as anyone can be blamed for someone else’s suicide. Sabrina went for the Pulitzer and failed. Jackie takes the blame.

      1. I agree wrt the RS writer. She smelled street cred for life in the SJW club.

        1. I see what you did there.

            1. it can all still be true in the movie version. Or law & order.

    2. Everyone realizes that Jackie will now commit suicide

      And y’know what? Good riddance to liars who seek to destroy the lives, freedom, and good reputation of others.

  38. Hopefully everyone here has read dinesh d’souza’s “Illiberal Education.” Anyone who has knew this story was a hoax from the beginning just like every serious racial incident, or frankly any other incident representing a liberal cause that occurs on a college campus.

    He lists tons, with great primary and secondary sources, of things exactly like this. They all turn out to be bogus.

  39. I was pretty neutral on the case at first, though I thought the skeptics had a point such as SIV’s questioning of the “grab its motherfucking leg” line, but I knew something was up when Erdely responded to the hoax allegations by immediately backtracking with some pathetic rebuttals.

  40. Also, if I donate to Reason, will these obnoxious ads that almost make me never want to view this site again go away?

    1. Ad Block Plus

      1. Bluehell Firewall

    2. Key word – almost. That means they’re the right level of obnoxious.

  41. whoa, infighting at team jeze…

    TyrannosaurusBataarXyzzy
    Today 2:10pm

    Seriously. I was “affected.” In that between the UVA story and Jez’s interview with the other survivor from UVA, I ended up having a borderline panic attack/breaking down into sobbing bringing back memories of my own sexual trauma because it resonated with me so much.

    Poredefender TyrannosaurusBataar
    53 minutes ago

    Has it occurred to you to avoid stories like this if they affect you so deeply? It’s hardly the media’s job to make sure you aren’t triggered. I don’t go see any movies without checking to see if there’s a rape scene because I don’t want to be triggered.

    I think it’s a little ridiculous that you’re making this about you when it directly impacted a lot of other people much more directly.

    1. Holy shit. Wow. You should print false rape stories because printing rape stories at all upsets past rape victims.

      You could not make these people up if you tried.

      1. They’re self destructing, but unfortunately, it seems like there’s an infinite supply of idiots in the world.

      2. They are in their own bubble. And I want nothing to do with it.

        1. They are the most spoiled self absorbed people on earth. They are utterly incapable of having any empathy for anyone else.

    2. What is with this “triggering” stuff, anyway? When did this get to be a thing? Trigger what?

      1. It’s all the rage with proggies these days. Basically, it’s their latest and greatest attempt at shutting down free speech.

      2. It’s their own language. Rosetta Stone should put out a dvd.

    3. I think I’m going to drown in all the proggie tears. Awesome.

    4. I’d heard of Jezebel, but never strayed there. Just did. Unbelievably stupid group of people. Unbelievable!

  42. But according to The Washington Post, Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity that Jackie insisted hosted the party where she was raped on September 28th, 2012, will assert that no such event took place and that none of its members worked at the university’s swimming pool that semester

    Some people on the WaPO comments section were claiming this and it turns out to be true.

    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.

    This is the sort of thing Erdely should have been doing in the first place. It looks like Drew was made up. I suppose he could be lying about not meeting Jackie and not dating her but her credibility has taken a serious blow.

  43. RSs sniveling comment, they trusted Jackie too much is pretty weak.

    How about ‘We didn’t do our job. Sabrina will be fired, as will the editor who approved the piece.’

  44. Kudos for helping debunk this lie, Reason.

  45. One thing I find kinda funny about the radfem claims that fake rape claims are rare.

    They claim that only 10% of rapes are reported and of those reported only like 2 – 4% of them are fake.

    The obvious explanation being that a very significant portion and possibly even a majority of those 90% never reported to the police are never reported because the women in question know that their claims will never stand up to any scrutiny.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean they are lying about having been raped, they might honestly believe that they were but their belief doesn’t make it so.

    Also the reason so few fake rape claims are reported to the police is that in many cases the victim does not need to go to the police to effectively ruin the guys life. Since we actually live in pretty much the opposite of a rape culture in most cases even a hint that a guy is a rapist is enough to turn him into a social pariah and cost him his job, friends, and possibly even family.

    So if some unhinged harpy wants to get revenge on a guy she just needs to start running around telling everyone he raped her but always be too “scared” to go to the cops. Cost to her – nothing and his life is impacted pretty hard. He could sue for libel but what are the odds he could win that case in court? He’d pretty much have to prove her claims false.

    So yeah, fake rape claims reported to the cops might be rare by they are MUCH more common than that

    1. It is worse than that. Let’s grant them that only two to four percent of rape accusations made to the cops are false. These people want men to be convicted on the word of a woman alone. Even forgeting that setting that standard would probably encourage more false allegation, in no other context would a two to four percent error rate of a process that resulted in convicting an innocent person of the most serious crime short of murder and sending them to prison for years or perhaps decades be acceptable.

      What if George Bush had decided to hang every prisoner at GUITMO on the assurance that only two to four percent of them were innocent? I doubt these people would find that figure comforting.

      1. It works well for paternity claims. Matt Welch spent lots of time on that subject a few years back – an accusation is all it takes to ruin a man’s life, and the more absurd the accusation the more likely the state will back it up because they won’t do any goddamned due diligence. Nothing has changed in that section of “justice”.

        There should be no surprise that this shit was going to be applied to rape accusations next. People will take their notions of morality as far as they can; there’s more money in morality than there is in honor.

    2. If the pink-shirts were really serious about catching rapists, it would be the stupid mysandric shit like “just teach men not to rape” or lower the burden of proof. No, they would be doing that which is necessary to achieve a conviction: Evidence. The pinkshirts would be teaching rape victims the necessity of collecting and preserving evidence.

      Did you get raped? Don’t take a shower. Don’t douche. Don’t wait. Go straight to the police a soon as possible. Don’t wash your hands. Don’t change your clothes. Record your memories as soon as possible. The fucking smart phone you always have your pie-hole buried in has a voice recorder option.

      But pinkshirt really aren’t interested in helping avoid rape victims.

      1. Would not be* Jesus, I can’t type 15 words without fucking something up. And yeah, I know I misspelled mysandryic or whatever the fuck.

      2. I had an idea the other night for an app that would immediately send out your GPS location to a group of well trained, volunteer, and armed citizens. If you are in danger of any kind, press the button, and within a short period of time 2-3 individuals will be there to assist you. In a better world, the police would already do this, but…yeah.

  46. I know a woman who in order to gain some sort of solidarity with the person she is talking to will say whatever happened to the other person happened to her. Your husband hit you? Mine does too. You were raped. (Looks down. Looks really, really sad…) I was too.

    I’ve seen women in a group talk themselves all into believing they are suffering in some like manner.

    1. It is not just women, that is human nature. I think it was George Will who pointed out how much street creed being a self proclaimed victim gets you on campus. We are teaching people to be victims. Doing that makes heroes out of liars and keeps actual victims from ever getting over their experience or not letting it define who they are.

      1. no dude, its a pretty woman-specific thing to take it that far; ALWAYS act like you’re suffering the same or almost the same and co-miserate

  47. Rolling stone is lefty “journalism”….autotuned.

  48. And if Rolling Stone had done its job, the magazine might well have determined that before such a journalistic catastrophe unfolded.

    But doing one’s job is HARD!

    1. One too many apostrophe’s leads to journalistic catastrophes.

  49. A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are sex assault advocates at U-Va

    That’s the problem right there–her friends. What kind of sickos advocate sexual assault?

    1. solid

  50. You know who has a believable rape story: mattress girl. She named the guy and went to the administration. She also has a realistic encounter… it started out consensual, then turned into rough forced sodomy all while saying no. And apparently there are multiple women saying the same thing about the same dude. Yet the law didn’t act to remove the predator from society. That story deserves more traction.

    1. Who is mattress girl?

      1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Sulkowicz

        Maybe local law enforcement never investigated it. It’s hard to tell. But the school had a hearing and decided not to expel the student. She should have gone to the hospital and gotten a rape check immediately.

        Now she carries a mattress all over campus. It’s performance art but effective.

      2. An attention seeker from Columbia. She claims she was have consensual sex – then the guy stuck in her bum and she protested. Months later she reported it and was appropriately laughed at by the school and police.

        So she started carrying around the mattress she was “raped” on – to make a point or something.

        1. Well, shit, maybe she’s just making lemonade from lemons.

          She went through the formality of a hearing. And two other women made similar statements about the same person. It’s not unbelievable.

          1. It’s also not punishable. She admits to banging him multiple times, but he liked it rougher than her. This didn’t bother her until well after they broke up. Then it became a flamboyant attempt to ruin his life.

            1. Um, yeah, because when you consent to sex, you consent to do anything the person who “likes it rougher” wants to do?

              1. What part of “this didn’t bother her until well after they broke up” don’t you understand?

  51. “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.” Translation: The story TOTALLY conformed with what we already believed, so we didn’t see any reason to waste our time with anything that even sort of resembled journalism or fact-finding or basic fairness.

  52. “And if Rolling Stone had done its job, the magazine might well have determined that before such a journalistic catastrophe unfolded.”

    Is there any evidence that Rolling Stone was not already in the tank re: this story? Maybe I’m wrong but it seems that they probably reacted with glee when they were first approached with this story.

    I think the more interesting aspect of this story is Rolling Stone’s timeline of events.

    1. “My daddy always said to me, “You can’t trust a man whats made of gas”.

      No, not you zaxxon,…you’re one of the good ones

      Get me another space beer, Gleep Glop”

      1. Busted 🙂

        1. I’m probably one of a very few people who’d have caught that.

          I’ve memorized most of the mr show episodes

    2. “I think the more interesting aspect of this story is Rolling Stone’s timeline of events.”

      Agreed. I pointed out above that the fact that they’ve ‘retracted’ the story after such a short period of time between their initial “we stand behind our writer” statement suggests that they knew it was horseshit from the get go and that the decision was more ‘political’ than actually any kind of journalistic process where they ‘suddenly’ recognized that their sources were unreliable. There’s no single ‘uh oh’ data point that seems to have triggered the retraction, despite their claims; because there was so little in the way of ‘proof’ to begin with.

      Meaning, the sources were never “reliable” enough to print… and they ran with it *knowing that*.

      And there’s evidence pointing to the fact that the writer went LOOKING for an ‘ivy league rape story’ from the get go. Which isn’t really journalism so much as creating a narrative then hanging whatever details you can find from it.

      The fact that the ‘journalist’ didn’t even confirm that the primary actor in the case (“Drew”) was actually a member of the claimed fraternity is a sign of how little actual ‘reporting’ they did on the case.

      1. Assuming your description is accurate (and I believe it is) why on Earth would they go through with the story?

        I guess I’m wondering how the cost/benefit ratio calculation was arrived at. The “benefits”, e.g. the SJW Accolades are easy to posit but what about the costs?

        1. ” why on Earth would they go through with the story?”

          I made a point a few threads back about the steady stream of ‘rape epidemic‘ stories being run the major media, starting in earnest around March/April 2014.

          Its not a new topic, but Obama’s DoE has made the subject a priority. Ginned-up data was used in testimony in congress (the ‘1-in-4’ nonsense) and subsequently allowed everyone to hang their own pear-clutching stories around it, as well as the ‘affirmative consent’ issue.

          Rolling Stone was on the bandwagon. They thought they’d had the pi?ce de r?sistance with this thing. Why risk it? I suspect that they miscalculated that the pressure to ‘accept’ at face value/ ‘listen and believe‘ was overwhelmingly in their favor, and that critics would be viciously ‘shamed’ into silence.

          Whoops.

          As noted by many here = the thing with progs? is that they always go too far. they are so drunk with their own sense of self-righteousness that they fail to see what asses they look like to average people.

          1. “”pearl””-clutching…

            although pears are hot

        2. if you worked there, you would not want to be the guy who asked “Wait, is she lying?”

          You would MUCH rather be saying, “Huh? She was lying? gosh! I guess since I *always trust and believe all women* that possibility never even crossed my mind.

          I guess I should try to be more skeptical of such stories but, for deeply committed male feminist like me, that will be a near impossible challenge…

  53. Now that the gangrape story has been abandoned, it kinda undermines the backup story that UVA does a terrible job of policing sexual abuse.

    How does a non-investigation of something that never happened tell us anything about UVA?

    1. Oh, they already knew that anyway.

    2. R C Dean|12.5.14 @ 4:30PM|#
      “Now that the gangrape story has been abandoned,”…

      So has “The Population Bomb”, but that hasn’t stopped various ignoramuses from pushing it.
      I predict this story will have long legs, with crutches constructed of lies such as:
      ‘Well, they got the details wrong, but in general, it’s TRUE!’

    3. Wasn’t there some accusations in the story about how some Dean didn’t really take the accusations seriously?

      I find it hard to believe that on a modern-day campus this would be the case. These types often self-select and are on board ideologically and to accuse them of simply not acting seems somewhat unbelievable.

      1. People said that, but when I read it, the Dean actually seemed supportive. The criticism seemed to be that she didn’t advocate for any one particular response (going to the police or one of several university disciplinary actions), when she should have encouraged going to the police.

      2. Wasn’t there some accusations in the story about how some Dean didn’t really take the accusations seriously?

        Why should we take those accusations seriously, at all?

        And, if he got the same story we did, why should he have taken these obviously incredible fabulations seriously?

        1. In my experience, administrators at universities are quick to judgement.

          I’m surprised there hasn’t been more vitriol aimed at administrators who did not “get on board” early.

          The “Gang of 88” at Duke have not seemed to suffer any ill effects from their advocacy.

          I’m not saying you are wrong but there seems to be precedent for going berserk without any consequences.

  54. I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link Try it, you won t regret it! … http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  55. so to be sensitive to women and rape and whatever you have to believe insane nonsense? Da fuck?

  56. At least some good came of this.

    I found out about this.

  57. I thought the story was fabricated from the very first time I read the article, and I said so, in an eatlier reason thread, a couple of days BEFORE the Richard Bradley piece started making the rounds. (Feel free to check).

    That said, the earlier point that the alleged victim may not remember things correctly does stand. I’m willing to believe that she was gang-raped – but it’s quite possible that she got the frat house completely wrong and I also suspect that she wasn’t sober, and it wasn’t premeditated. She had only been at UVA one month, so it’s plausible she wasn’t too familiar with the campus and got the name of the frat and it’s location mixed up with a different house. She also had just met the guy and maybe didn’t remember which frat he said he was in.

    If we were to be generous and assume that she wasn’t completely making the whole thing up, it was probably more like a bunch of really wasted guys at a frat party, spontaneously raping a really wasted girl, and not some sort of premeditated, orchestrated, initiation thing.

    1. If there were some corroborating evidence (and there may be as you state) wouldn’t the statement by Rolling Stone be a bit premature? If I were them, as soon as I heard about the possibility of the story being sketchy, I would have tried to get additional facts and at least try to salvage the story.

      That Rolling Stone quickly put out a statement tells me that there probably is nothing here, although it may simply be because the person in question will not talk.

      Your scenario may very well be 100% true but unless we hear otherwise, it’s impossible to tell.

      Sad all around…

      1. “wouldn’t the statement by Rolling Stone be a bit premature? “

        See my initial comment.

        The timing of their ‘retraction’ so soon after their recent ‘standing behind their writer’ suggests they never had any particular confidence in their sources, and probably didn’t go looking for evidence they already suspected they were never going to find.

        I thought they’d be smart and wait for the cops to disclose that there was something fishy; but the media actually held their feet to the fire long enough to make them squeal.

        I think people should keep the heat on the media (particularly those who screeched “RAPE APOLOGIST”) to make clear that this kind of Demagoguery has a real cost associated with it. As in ‘credibility destroying’. As noted = i think there’s a follow-up story here beyond just the RS retraction.

      2. If there were some corroborating evidence (and there may be as you state)

        There isn’t, and can’t be at this point.

        Plus, there are inconsistencies in her story that are simply not explainable by confusion or whatever.

        The biggest problem with her story is that it is simply inconceivable that anyone could be forcibly gangraped for hours on broken glass, including with a beer bottle, and just walk out and go home.

    2. Or possibly the guy lied about which frat he was in.

      1. Entirely possible…but again, you would think that RS would investigate this possibility before issuing a retraction.

      2. My wife and I were just looking at the list of UVA frats and locations. Chi Psi is pretty close to Phi Kappi Psi,the houses look similar, and the names sort of kind of are similar. So *if* you’re looking to salvage the story, that might be a place to start. Did they have a party on Sept 28, 2012? Was the guy who was finally named a member?

        But like I told my wife, at that point you are trying to find excuses for getting details wrong.

    3. So, two years after it happened, Jackie still has no idea where the alleged rape occurred, but you’re crediting some number of other details as being correct?

      I have no idea how you can arrive at this selective a reading of the story, other than wanting it to be true. Generosity has nothing to do with it.

  58. More denial.

    Only one commenter even thinks it might possibly not be true.

    1. From the link:

      “resident_alien says

      December 5, 2014 at 1:40 pm

      What Improbable Joe said.
      Sorry to Godwin, but when Holocaust survivors after WW2 were testifying against their former tormentors
      and would-be murderers, many of them got the odd detail and minutea wrong.
      Trauma (and your brain’s attempts to deal with it) will do that to a person.

      NateHevens. He who hates straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men (not really) says

      December 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm

      The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. I feel really bad for Jackie right now. It’s good thing that’s not her real name and she was kept anonymous, because she’s already being dragged through the mud.

      Fuck you, Rolling Stone. Fuck you, MRAs. Fuck you, society.”

  59. I’m reminded of how when Dorner went on his killing rampage, the usual crowd spun a narrative about him avenging the racial injustice he suffered at the hands of the LAPD – before any of the facts were investigated.

    And Brian Banks was told by his black lawyer he should just plead guilty because the jury would find him guilty just because he’s black. And the “victim” who lied sued the school. Before anyone could argue FACTS in court.

    In a way, it was a good thing that RS never contacted the alleged rapists. Even if the whole thing was (it probably is) a hoax, they might have found someone who happened to fit some random description floated by the victim. If they published his name, his life would be over.

    1. If they published his name, his life would be over.

      Well, he would have the consolation of living on the private island he bought with the damages he’d collect.

  60. A moment of silence, please, for the males confronted by a false accusation by a female with the immense power of multiple systems and institutions behind them with the gents unable to prove innocence. Yes, in today’s politically correct society I fear that in too many instances a male is required to prove innocence.

    Sadly, the accusation alone, even if it never reaches a trial, can harm or destroy a life thanks to the media latching onto those stories.

  61. Rolling Stone is a magazine and is in the business of selling stories and opinions about music and youth culture but not reporting facts or news. It was a grave mistake for anyone to treat the story as anything but “erotic fiction” written to sell magazines. The issue will now become a collectors item.

  62. From the Jezebel comments section. This fiasco will give exactly no one pause:

    peasandriceAnna Merlan

    Today 1:55pm

    “What stands out to me in the Washington Post article are the quotes from other UVA students who are survivors of rape. Whether or not Jackie’s story is true/partially true/untrue, rape still occurs on college campuses and gets mishandled by administration, and that’s a huge problem. I really hope schools still take the point of the RS article very seriously.’

    It’s “the point,” you see.

  63. From freethoughtblogs:

    “resident_alien says

    December 5, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    What Improbable Joe said.
    Sorry to Godwin, but when Holocaust survivors after WW2 were testifying against their former tormentors
    and would-be murderers, many of them got the odd detail and minutea wrong.
    Trauma (and your brain’s attempts to deal with it) will do that to a person.

    NateHevens. He who hates straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men (not really) says

    December 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. I feel really bad for Jackie right now. It’s good thing that’s not her real name and she was kept anonymous, because she’s already being dragged through the mud.

    Fuck you, Rolling Stone. Fuck you, MRAs. Fuck you, society.”

    1. Did she just get the “odd detail” wrong? It sounds like hardly anything she claimed was verified.

  64. I always though Rolling Stone was the FOXNews of the Left. It makes me appreciate this magazine all the more.

    1. Except FOX does some news in between the opinion and fiction.

  65. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  66. I just got paid $ 7500 working off my computer this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $ 8 k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,

    COPY THIS URL IN YOUR BROWSER..

    ??????? http://WWW.PAYFLAME.COM

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.