Rolling Stone's UVA Rape Story Continues to Fall Apart



Additional reporting over the weekend revealed even more discrepancies in Rolling Stone's rapidly disintegrating story about an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia frat house.

In the original 9,000-word piece, author Sabrina Rubin Erdely describes the friends Jackie talks to the night she is allegedly raped in a way that makes them come across as almost cartoonishly callous. Erdely's story says that Jackie was wounded, with blood on her dress after a multi-hour assault on a bed of broken glass.

But in Erdely's telling of the story, the three friends Jackie speaks with—two men and a woman—end up debating whether it's a good idea to take her to the hospital, because a trip to the emergency room would harm her social reputation. "Her reputation will be shot for the next four years," says "Cindy," (not her real name), another one of the friends. "She's gonna be the girl who cried 'rape,' and we'll never be allowed into any frat party again."

But when the Post spoke to two of the friends, they said that that's not what happened. One, the man identified in the Rolling Stone story as "Andy," said that Jackie did call him and two additional friends one night. According to "Andy," Jackie said she was very upset and "really shaken up." Here's what he recalls happening:

"Andy" said Jackie said she had been at a fraternity party and had been forced to perform oral sex on a group of men, but he does not remember her identifying a specific house. He said he did not notice any injuries or blood but said the group offered to get her help. She, instead, wanted to return to her dorm, and he and the friends spent the night with her to comfort her at her request.

Cindy's recollection, as reported by the Post, is similar:

"Cindy" said that Jackie appeared distraught that night but was not hurt physically and was not bleeding. The student said Jackie made no claims of a gang rape and did not identify the fraternity where she said she had partied. "Cindy" said Jackie told one of the friends there that a group of men had forced her to perform oral sex.

The student said there was never any discussion among Jackie and the group involving how their reputations or social status might be affected by seeking help.

Notably, even though both "Andy" and "Cindy" are quoted in the story, both say Rolling Stone never interviewed either of them. Cindy says that Rolling Stone never even contacted her. 

They aren't the only friends of Jackie to suggest problems with the Rolling Stone story. The Post also reports that Emily Renda, who works for the university on responding to sexual violence, and who introduced Jackie to Erdely, now says that the number of attackers present in Jackie's story has changed over time. 

Rolling Stone has updated its apology note detailing potential discrepancies. There are quite a few issues. (You can see changes between the old note and the new one here.)

At this point you have to ask: Did Rolling Stone do anything to corroborate or verify the details of Jackie's sensational story of organized gang rape at a university fraternity, which provided the horrific opening anecdote to Erdely's story? Increasingly it appears as if the answer is no. A New York Times report on the story contains this line: "In an interview on Friday, Mr. Dana said that Rolling Stone had not sought to corroborate her account after she asked the magazine not to speak to her attackers."

NEXT: Support Reason and Help Reach the Next Generation of Libertarians

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. Here, let me type out a representation of my “Shocked Face”:


    Fuck these people, all of them. On a broken glass table top.

  2. Sounds like it still might have been rape.

    Or a woman who, belatedly, felt remorse at sucking a lot of dicks and felt she maybe should have said no after the first.

    1. The latter, I presume.

      1. meh, my money would be sometime after the second but before the fifth.

        1. That’s a good guess. It went from “I’m adventurous!” to being a cum dumpster for the fat awkward guy who never gets laid.

          1. Do you know how hard it is to find a cum dumpster? *Sobs uncontrollably*

            1. I blame society.

            2. Damn, that should be Biden’s caption.

            3. I lol’d – then felt guilty.

          2. She coulda turned it into an Annabella Chong type of phenomenon instead of a sad story.

    2. Or maybe she’s Veronica from Clerks.

    3. Everything is a lie here. It is not possible to determine if it ‘still might have been rape’.

      None of it might have happened.

      Once you have been lied to twice by someone, then the prudent thing is to believe nothing. (One time could be a mistake. Twice…nope.)

  3. At this point, has anyone verified that the reporter actually exists? Or this Rolling Stone magazine?


      1. At this point, what difference does it make?


      2. I haven’t seen any mention of this anywhere. An ancient RS ad campaign about Perception vs Reality that now screams irony:


    2. What I wonder about: Erdely has been writing sensational stories of rape for a while now. Has anyone fact-checked those?

      1. There’s the ‘Billy’ story of a group of priests passing around an alter boy.

        I’m sure that one has no problems.

        1. The Billy story is known to have problems. I wonder about her “The Rape of Petty Officer Blumer” story as well.

    3. Rolling Stones is a musical outfit, not a magazine, folks!

      1. Yep and get the Ouija board out and ask Frank his opinion on RS’s worth as a music publication.

  4. When the woman in question didn’t go to the cops, everyone should’ve known this story was bullshit.

  5. She sounds like the resident nut job. Her friends who know her well just rolled their eyes when she starts spouting stories / fantasies of gang-rape while her clothes aren’t even disheveled.

    1. ^^ this

  6. Well, well. We finally have some corroboration (albeit hearsay) of the assertion that “something” happened. And, if she was forced to have oral sex with a group of guys, that just raises the usual questions, which are still unanswered:

    Who [forced her]?
    Where [did it happen]?
    How [was she forced]?
    When [did she report to the authorities]?
    Why [did she not report earlier, bring charges, etc.]?

    We now have a completely different story (forced oral sex v ritual gang rape), which is facially more plausible and has a smidgen of corroborating evidence, but still completely unconfirmed.

    1. I’d like to know what idiot would try to rape a woman in the mouth, let alone a group of such idiots.

      “Oh yeah! I’ma fuck her mouth! Then maybe get my dick bitten off!”

      1. ^^ THIS is my first thought every time I hear the phrase “forced to perform oral sex.” It is a golden opportunity to pull a very painful, and possibly permanently damaging, maneuver to escape. I can understand not doing it if you have a fun at your head but that wasn’t the case here.

        Am I the only one?

        1. Maybe she just took her dentures out before…

          1. That opens up a whole slew of questions that I actually don’t want to know the answer to.

            1. It’s called “gumming”.

              1. Yeah, but then there’s the type of college student that would orally rape ms. granny mouth..

                I mean, that alone just opens the floodgates. I don’t want to know. For my sanity, I cannot know!

                1. “Opens the floodgates”, eh?

          1. If you ask a victim “why didn’t you…” then you are taking the side of the rapist/abuser.

            1. Can’t have those logical questions. They might make the “victim” look retarded.

            2. either way it was a hilariously stupid interview.

            3. As I am a victim myself, I would never want to suggest that any victim could have prevented a rape.


              1. IOW “I don’t even want to think about how I failed to take responsibility for my own safety”?

                Depending on the facts and circs of her rape, of course.

          2. Even better…

            Yes he is black but he still has male privilege (something so many black men fail to understand) and class privilege. So please don’t compare him to a run-of-the-mill black man

            1. Privilege seems to correlate more and more with anybody that disagrees with author’s opinion.

              1. I like how that person’s opinion of the “run-of-the-mill black man” is that they are low class degenerates. Nothing awful about that.

                1. I like how that person’s opinion of the “run-of-the-mill black man” is that they are low class degenerates. Nothing awful about that.

                  Like I said in a.m. links, the more liberal my friends are, the less likely they are to know any actual black people. Since this person probably hasn’t had very many social interactions with people of another race, their only experience of black people is the ghetto trash they see on TeeVee.

            2. he still has male privilege (something so many black men fail to understand)

              SEXIST! *and* RACIST!

        2. I can understand not doing it if you have a fun at your head .

          Indeed. Or a gun.

          1. I do believe they did have funs pointed at her head.

          2. *head desk*

            fuck…. thanks.

        3. “Take out your fucking retainer
          and put it in your purse”

          1. I laughed at that.

            I’m probably a bad person for laughing at the, aren’t I?

        4. I can kind of understand it. If she’s in a space with a difficult exit and she is surrounded by people intent on committing violence, I can see how someone might decide compliance is the safest option. Kind of like handing over your wallet to a mugger.

          But I don’t see how suggesting that biting a dick might have been warranted is victim blaming. Even if someone sticks their dick in your mouth and you bite it, you were still raped. Just not for very long.

        5. I suppose the fear of a brutal act in return for biting down hard might dissuade one from biting, especially if there is more than one person involved.

          Still, the whole thing sounds like a prison rather than the stereotypical sick frat house bullshit.

          1. the stereotypical sick frat house bullshit

            Which exists mostly in the fever dreams of the envious and/or ideologically hostile, anyway.

            1. Which exists mostly in the fever dreams of the envious and/or ideologically hostile

              Nah, I saw it on Dare Dorm, and that stuff is totally real.

          2. But, it would create physical evidence that she had…contact…with one of them.

          3. Just need to remember the line from Shawshank Redemption about what happens when you kill someone who is biting your dick.

        6. “have a fun at your head”

          A new euphemism for oral sex?

      2. I imagine she might have tried it and gotten punched in the face.
        If the guy is a lot bigger, stronger than you you might fear the repercussions of attempting to bite his dick. Especially if it’s a gang of several guys.

      3. I would guess that it was more “intensely pressured to perform oral sex” than actually forced. Which is bad too, but a far cry from a ritual gang rape.

        Just a guess. I’m not going to pretend I know anything.

    2. Finally, we have all of the facts, except for the who, what, where, why, when, how. Case closed!

    3. …facially more plausible…

      *tuba fart*

    4. facially more plausible


      Cause I’m immature like that…

    5. facially more plausible

      Seriously ?

    6. facially more plausible

      I see what you did thar.

  7. I’m starting to think the reporter just watched a Lifetime movie and decided to write an “interview” with the protagonist. But even Lifetime movies aren’t this dumb.

    1. We never got a glimpse of Markie Post topless.

      1. HRC approves this message.

  8. Notably, even though both “Andy” and “Cindy” are quoted in the story, both say Rolling Stone never interviewed either of them. Cindy says that Rolling Stone never even contacted her.

    Uh Oh! Now we’re in Diana Griego Erwin territory now!


  9. Ms Erdely’s other work is being subjected to increased scrutiny as well.

    1. Good.

      1. An investigative journalist of her caliber is sure to welcome this scrutiny…stay tuned…

        1. “Breaking News: Bullied Rolling Stone Reporter Found Unresponsive”

          1. It’s kind of interesting, among her fellow colleagues the knives are truly out.

            1. She revealed their bullshit to the world. All of their lives just got harder as a result. It’s kinda like when a magician reveals how the tricks are done.

              1. More like “her” BS. I’m sure there are ethical journalists around that do the, you know, checking and corroborating part.

                1. I’m sure there are ethical journalists around that do the, you know, checking and corroborating part.

                  Balko is the only one I know of.

          2. “Breaking News: Bullied Rolling Stone Reporter Found Unresponsive”

            As in, someone chased her down as she was entering her apartment with a six-week supply of cookie dough, asked her why she lied her ass off, and she ran for her door without responding.

  10. Fake but accurate.

  11. Its all truthy.

  12. Also there is this letter to the UVA School paper:

    In December 2012, Jackie broke down. All of a sudden she was going home and none of us knew why. It was right before finals, and I couldn’t believe she was leaving. She was distraught, and only said she needed to go home. Her teachers had given her allowance to take her finals over break. At that point, we knew something big had happened. I didn’t know until this year with the publication of Rolling Stone’s article how bad that time was for her.

    Sometime that year I remember her letting it slip to me that she had had a terrible experience at a party. I remember her telling me that multiple men had assaulted her at this party. She didn’t say anything more. It seemed that was all she’d allow herself to say. I wish I had done something sooner. I wish I had known how to help. But I applaud Jackie for telling her story, now two years later. It was a story that needed to be told.

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

      1. Pretty much, it couldn’t be that she was struggling in school and invented a reason for her struggles.

      2. I’m perfectly willing to believe that something happened.

        I might even be willing to believe that she was orally raped by a group of frat bothers as she appears to have told her friends initially.

        In fact combining that with the story she told Erdly is very believable.

        Frat Bro is her “boyfriend”, invites her to a party. At the party she agrees to give him a blow job. In the middle of it another Frat Bro walks in and her “boyfriend” tells her that because they are Bro’s he has to share. She starts blowing new Bro and some more walk in.

        She was probably never directly threatened but probably also never directly said no.

        Now she’s disgusted with herself and calls her friends for support. Things really come to a head (hehe) when Boyfriends breaks up with her the next day. Now she’s really depressed but she doesn’t want to admit to anyone that she blew that many guys and boyfriend broke up with her.

        A year later she talks to a rape group and finds all this loving unquestioning support telling her that it isn’t her fault those horrible men are to blame and she gets addicted to the attention. So with every retelling of the story it gets inflated and embellished even more.

        Now she’s trapped however, if the truth of what happened to her ever gets out she loses her support network so she has to stick to the story no matter what

        1. I’m like 50/50 on this Rasilio, that is definitely believable scenario, unfortunately for her she is no longer credible regardless.

        2. There seems to be a pattern of believing that this must have started voluntarily by the woman. Personally, I kind of doubt that. There just aren’t that many girls who will spontaneously blow a bunch of strange guys or pull a train.

          I’m totally willing to believe the guys forced her to do something. Maybe they threatened to turn her into the cops for underage drinking or she lost a bet in strip poker.

          I just don’t think it was premeditated.

          1. Oh I don’t think she started the rape, just that she has something to hide about how it all got started, likely by agreeing to engage in some sexual activity with “drew” and things progressed from there

            1. Eh. Doesn’t strike me as likely.

              If you walked in on a buddy of yours getting fellatio from his date, what would your reaction be?
              A) Oh sorry dude, let me give you some privacy
              B) Right on! Gimme some of that! (butts in)

          2. Since underage drinking is a civil infraction, it’s the legal equivalent of a parking ticket. Doubting the parking ticket scenario.

          3. There just aren’t that many girls who will spontaneously blow a bunch of strange guys or pull a train.

            At the same time, I’m not sure how many guys are actually super eager to run a train or be part of a group fellatio session. I’ve done the devil’s threesome once and that was weird enough. I think a lot of guys would actually pass on the 7-on-1 thing, although I dunno, this younger generation may have previously rare sexual proclivities owing to having been raised on readily available free internet pr0n

            1. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 girls I know that did this at least once. One girl banged all her ex’s friends in one night to get back at him. The other did it as some gift to her then boyfriend.

              1. One girl banged all her ex’s friends in one night to get back at him.

                That’s validation of a wise choice to dump her ass.

                The other did it as some gift to her then boyfriend.

                So many issues on both sides of that story.

                1. Cuckholding fetishes are fairly common. It falls into the humiliation subset of masochism.

                  It can also be a form of vicarious homosexuality.

            2. Sticking my crank in a hole filled with a mix of other guy’s semen ain’t on the top of my list of things to do.

              No thanks.

              1. @scruffy what are you gay?

        3. ” she was orally raped “


          Unless you mean a group of men went down on her, i’d like you to think a bit further on how that isn’t generally the preferred M.O. unless your ‘rape-ee’ is toothless and/or has a gun to her head.

        4. Except he wasn’t her boyfriend, and wasn’t in the fraternity, and she couldn’t even identify the house where it happened until someone else pointed it out to her

          1. Yeah that one definitely suggests she wasn’t 100% sober.
            It’s possible considering she was new in town that she could have gotten lost, but much less likely if sober.

    2. [cough] late adolescent-onset schizophrenia [cough]

      1. She is the right age, but it’s more common in men.

        1. Who said that?!?

    3. It was right before finals,

      Hmmm . . .

      But I applaud Jackie for telling her story, now two years later. It was a story that needed to be told.

      Umm, the story she told to Rolling Stone seems to be a completely different story than she told you in 2012. Why a fictitious account of ritual gang rape on broken glass needed to be told, I’m really not sure.

  13. Oral rape? Now that’s the story with teeth.

  14. I just saw some douchebag male student from UVA with sad puppy dog eyes and a trembling voice tell us that getting caught in a lie should not affect credibility.

    Bezmenov again – “No matter how much information they have they cannot draw sensible conclusions.”

    1. Really? Come to think of it, I believe that guy hacked my bank account. I’d like to sue him for all his money.

  15. This is why I think it’s bad policy to provide anonymity to crime victims, even if the crime is sexual in nature. If she was a victim, there is no shame. providing anonymity infers that there is a reason to be ashamed.

    1. They gave anonymity to Crystal Gail Magnum but not to the Lacrosse players. The hell with that – keep them all anonymous or report all their names.

      1. This I wholeheartedly agree with. If I am the accused & my name is published, I want the accuser’s name published too.

      2. Hell Mike Nifong didn’t even interview Magnum till almost right before the whole case unravelled…shades of Erdely and too good to check.

        1. Nifong made the mistake of using unethical tactics to go after innocent rich defendants – I shudder to think of all the poor people he pursued before that case, who couldn’t afford a proper defense.

          1. “”For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” – Luke 23:31

          2. Feel free to shudder someone he helped put in prison in the early 1990’s I think was ordered released by a judge after reviewing the case calling Nifong’s behavior one of the worst cases of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever encountered, lying to a judge, witholding exculpatory evidence etc. There is now a call to review every case he’s been involved with.

      3. It’s “Mangum”. Gotta love it.

  16. Yep. If you’re raped or sexually assaulted, go to the police, immediately. If they giving you the runaround dial the editors office of any major newspaper and tell them “I’ve been raped and they wont do anything about it”. Then stand back and watch them reevaluate the situation.

    What not to do is go and talk about your experience at the next victims of sexual assault meeting.

    1. I can understand why some people don’t report their rapes and just want to put it behind them. And if there is no clear physical evidence of assault, it will often come down to he said/she said in court, which I can only imagine would really suck for a legitimate victim.

      1. It might, but if you go DIRECTLY to the hospital and get a rape kit done and file a police report it makes your case a hell of a lot more believable than when you report your rape a week or more later when there is no possibility of any physical evidence being gathered.

        1. Yeah, sure. If you are going to report/press charges, you have to do so immediately.

          But even with the rape kit, if there is no evidence of violence, it’s still pretty easy to raise reasonable doubt about whether it was consensual or not.

          It’s a shitty situation. And there isn’t really much to be done about it if you value the legal protections and rights for defendants.

  17. I would still call forced group oral sex gang rape. But at this point everything she said, including the night of, is suspect.

    1. Depends on what is meant by “forced”. If she was in fear of her life or bodily injury, then yes.

    2. At this point the only hard fact is that “Jackie” is a serial liar.

  18. I’m gonna make an early call here. She went to a frat party voluntarily. She liked this guy, blew him at a party where other people were in the room, and it got out of hand. She, in the heat of the moment, and possibly under some social pressure, blew some other dudes too. Immediately afterward, she regretted it, and the reputation that was sure to follow.

    Not rape.

    1. That is certainly a reasonable call.

      1. If anything untoward happened, I think that’s the most plausible scenario.

        Especially if you throw in way too much booze for everybody.

        For purposes of her well-being (counseling, emotional support, etc.), sure, take it at face value.

        For any other purpose, though (setting policy, prosecuting the accused), nope, her credibility is shot. Without good corroboration (which would need more than sometime later she vaguely mentioned to some people) its basically a nothing.

        1. For purposes of her well-being (counseling, emotional support, etc.), sure, take it at face value.

          Totally practical, but the activists would never go for that.

    2. Dangerous territory Playa. A safer bet is that the entire episode is a fabrication.

      This is a person caught in a lie who is now trying to tell a different story to rescue her credibility. My bet is that this is not the last version we will hear.

      1. Possibly. I’m still working on the “why”.

        At this point, it could be that she’s just a liar, or it could be that she’s ashamed of something.

        1. Young, impressionable woman possibly with some psychological instability, suffering from angst, has been immersed in victim mentality all her life and told that she lives in a rape culture and that no matter what she says with regards to her victim status she will be believed, i.e. she will be the center of attention and showered with empathy.

          I am not saying definitively that that is what is going on here, but it seems more likely than not.

          Why indeed.

        2. Hmmmm…right near exams. She got to take them over the break. On her honor. If her story turned out to be a lie, she’d be risking expulsion under UVA’s honor code.

        3. There are any number of possibilities, ranging from something actually happened, to psychological problems, to just looking for an excuse to get out of a bad first semester of college.

          1. It turns out that she has a really overbearing father (she was identified in a blog this morning) who demands perfection, so this is entirely possible.

            In an effort to keep HnR classy, I’m not going to link to the blog, but it’s out there.

            1. It turns out that she has a really overbearing father

              Ah, slut with daddy issues.

              In an effort to keep HnR classy


      1. Well, that depends a lot on whether she was actually drugged or if she just got wasted on her own initiative.
        If you are someone who drinks a lot, blacks out and makes stupid decisions, then it’s your own damn problem when you do so.

        1. The fact that she didn’t immediately go in for testing makes me think she’s the sort that drinks a lot, etc.

          If you never have more than a glass of wine, then this kind of blackout episode is going to have you going straight to the ER.

          I note that roofies show up in urine tests for 2 – 3 days. So I question the timing on her call to the cops, etc.

          1. That’s a good point. Heavy drinkers tend to sleep off things that normal people go to the hospital for.
            Woke up with a massive headache and black eye at 7:00PM with no memory of what happened? The drinker shakes that off as the cost of doing business. Normal person goes to ER. Someone raised in the victim culture? Time for a support group followed by pressing charges or suing someone.

  19. “It’s not about gang rape, it’s about ethics in campus rape investigations.”

    Jezebel commenters double down.

    1. So, since this particular story turns out to be bullshit, they provided oodles of verifiable cases where campus rape investigations that were botched?

      1. It was a frat party. They have to be guilty of something, right?

        1. They are. Just not what they are being accused of.

    2. Not much investigating a rape account that immediately proves dubious at best seems ethical.

  20. “She’s gonna be the girl who cried ‘rape,’ and we’ll never be allowed into any frat party again.”

    “You selfish bitch! You’re going to run it for all the girls who LIKE being raped! What’s wrong with you?”

    1. I know.

      Sheesh, if there was ever a boo-fuckity-hoo statement, “I’ll never be allowed into any frat part again” is it.

      1. Why would they want to go to a frat party, if horrible things like this happen there?

        1. Bingo. The logical inconsistencies in this story are staggering.

  21. “In an interview on Friday, Mr. Dana said that Rolling Stone had not sought to corroborate her account after she asked the magazine not to speak to her attackers.”

    But they formed a lynch mob anyway. Talk about your depraved indifference. If there were such things as “journalism licenses” there are some people who would be losing theirs over this.

    1. The only thing saving all of them (Jackie, Rolling Stone, probably UVA) from a truly ruinous lawsuit is that her first story was so vague and incredible, and so easily and comprehensively disproved . . .

      That even the people she implied were involved (the lifeguard, the guy in her class) are comprehensively cleared now and have no libel/slander claim.

      1. Not so sure there, she actually did name the guy she claimed she dated to the WP and when they contacted him he confirmed he did in fact know who Jackie was but denied he’d ever dated her. Think he has now retained legal counsel.

  22. It’s possible she lied to the friends that night and claimed it was “only” oral sex because she didn’t want to tell them she was just gang-raped.

    I still say that the biggest flaw in the story is the idea that it was premeditated and part of some sort of initiation. If it happened it was a spontaneous thing that got out of hand amoung a bunch of drunk guys.

    I can completely beleive something like drunk guy bumps into her, falls on top of her, and somehow this evolves into a gang rape.

    1. I can completely beleive something like drunk guy bumps into her, falls on top of her, and somehow this evolves into a gang rape.

      I can’t. If that could happen, there would be a campus epidemic of gang rapes because lots of parties in college feature a dozen drunk guys, one girl-friend and one or two of her bored friends.

      1. Not saying it happens OFTEN. But I can imagine, if things happened in just the right way, that it’s *possible*.

    2. Then your left with a lie about the blood on the clothes and the conversation that followed. Someone is lying here.

    3. Hazel….puh-leeze. There is nothing to believe in here. We have been lied to repeatedly. These friends might not exist. Jackie might not exist. How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop believing, period?

      People here are now analyzing whether or not she was orally raped. I doubt that happened. And, my doubt is more reasonable than anyone’s belief it was, or wasn’t oral rape.

  23. There was a girl I knew in college who lived in the middle part of a house that had been split into 3 apartments. I was good friends with the girls who lived in the back, two guys lived in the front. Along about Christmas break, the girl in the middle and the guy in the front hung out for a couple nights culminating in a rape accusation. The police investigated, interviewed everyone involved, did a rape kit, and concluded that she had made a false accusation. The girls in the back were 100% certain that there was nothing to it. Were they othering a sister or just deciding based on their knowledge of the people involved?

    1. “But false accusations of rape are incredibly rare!!!”

  24. “Grab its motherfucking leg”

  25. Her name was published this morning.

  26. Another of Jackie’s claims is that later, not on the night in question, one of the men threw a bottle at her which broke against her face and left her with a bruise, which seems like an unlikely minor result of such a thing.

    1. That is obviously someone who has never been hit with a beer bottle. Beer bottles that smash against your face leave horrible cuts. But most bottles don’t break on contact with your head. A bottle thrown hard enough to have an accurate trajectory will knock you the fuck out, split your skin (even if it doesn’t break) and leave you most likely concussed. Just imagine getting hit with something harder and heavier than a baseball.

      1. Exactly. She’d have a broken bone or something.

      2. One time at a party this guy attempted to break a bud light bottle over his head, he failed and then his brother picked it up and finished the task. While I laughed along with everybody else it still resulted stitches and hospitalization. If you break a beer bottle over someones head it will most likely result in unconsciousness followed by a trip to the er.

        1. You don’t use a 12 oz bottle. Empty 40 oz bottles are really easy to break if you use your forehead. No comment on how many times I did it in college.

          1. I used to bite off beer caps as a party trick.

            1. Exactly. It’s like walking on hot coals. If you know the trick, it’s not dangerous at all, but it still shocks people.

              1. Like sticking a car key in an electrical outlet.

                If you do it correct, no big deal. If you do it wrong, well, dont try it.

          2. I’ve had like 5 or 6 40 bottles thrown at me over the years haven’t been hit once.

      3. A beer bottle to the head put my dumbass cousin in the hospital and nearly killed him with a brain hemorrhage.

        1. I take back the dumbass part, just misguided in his choices of where to party.

          1. I had a cousin light a quarter stick of dynamite in his hand. I have no problem calling him a dumbass.

    2. A movie prop bottle?

      Unless you hit a bottle on something stone-hard they are fucking difficult to break. Hitting a person in the head hard enough to break an average beer bottle would cause severe damage and possibly death.

      I am calling bullshit. Next year this girl will be telling us the whole thing was just a cover story for her alien abduction/rape.

  27. Another aspect of this whole topic: There have been some verified gang-rapes on campuses in recent years, but they don’t seem to get national publicity, and none of the anti-rape groups make a stink about them, because the perpetrators aren’t white.

    1. Only black men gang-rape?

      1. No, but the narrow focus of anti-rape activists is telling. They act as if gang-rape by white frat boys is a huge problem, when it isn’t, while ignoring a rape problem that’s demonstrably larger.

      2. It’s of a piece with the “White cops are murdering black men” line peddled by activists. The number of black men killed by cops is a drop in the bucket compared to the number murdered by other black men, but all those victims don’t fit the narrative, so they are ignored.

  28. Why would they want to go to a frat party, if horrible things like this happen there?

    You may find this hard to believe, but I was asking myself that very question as I abandoned that preposterous (nay, ridiculous!) article.

    1. In an article full of howlers, that exchange stood out. I wonder how her friends felt about being described as psychopaths.

      Of course, do those friends even exist?

  29. ” Did Rolling Stone do anything to corroborate or verify the details of Jackie’s sensational story of organized gang rape at a university fraternity, which provided the horrific opening anecdote to Erdely’s story? Increasingly it appears as if the answer is no”

    And more to the point =

    It appears that Erdley studiously avoided any sources that might actually either confirm or complicate ‘Jackie’s story.

    See the ducking and weaving in her Slate interview =

    – when asked “Drew” = ‘Who is he?’…. she launches into hemming about how this Fraternity is so ’emblematic’ because… like, wealthy parents! and Wall St…nice real estate…
    – she ducks again when asked what the ‘response’ was

    its clear that she’s incredibly uncomfortable about anything regarding the ‘investigation’

    The real ringer is when asked ‘what made you believe the story is true‘, and she stops herself from responding, “I found her story…”… and instead stops and says, “…I found HER to be very credible”

    She says, ‘i’m not a lawyer’, but that’s a VERY lawyerly caveat to a direct question.

    1. It’s annoyed me that so much of the discussion has been about not contacting the accused, and whether that was OK or not. Hell, she never contacted anyone else who was at the party. If she had, she’d have known there wasn’t a party there that night.

      1. Good point.

        Anyone talking about how unbelievably shoddy the ‘reporting’ was should emphasize that – even considering her entirely unethical ‘promise’ to not contact the accused – Erdely failed to do even the most basic secondary-source research or background reporting to provide some kind of bare-minimum corroboration of the ‘surrounding facts’.

        She claimed in the linked interview above (first link) that she’d contacted the Frat regarding ‘Drew’ … but if that were true, she would have learned that he wasn’t actually a member. “when i spoke to the Phi Psi chapter” she says, she simply says they were ‘unaware of any investigation’.

        What the hell did she even contact them *about* if she had no ‘names of accused, date of claimed party’, etc. It seems there was almost nothing for Rolling Stone to ‘confirm’ given she never actually asked anyone pertinent questions following from “what Jackie Said”

        It seems Rolling Stone ‘confirmed’ that “jackie said some stuff”

        1. Considering she didn’t even know Drew’s name, I don’t think she even made much of an effort.

          I can imagine the call went something like this:
          Erdely: “Say, do you happen to know who might have orchestrated a gang-rape at your house two years ago?”

          PKP: “Sorry, no fucking clue.”

          Erdely: “Oh well, thanks anyway” (checks “attempted to contact accused” box on form)

    2. If she actually were a lawyer, she would likely be guilty of suborning perjury.

  30. Did Rolling Stone do anything to corroborate or verify the details of Jackie’s sensational story[…]? Increasingly it appears as if the answer is no.

    The author of the piece did provide the answer to that question early on, so there shouldn’t be a surprise there.

    What is disturbing is that a journalistic piece as serious as this one – a gang-rape accusation – was published without even a cursory peek at the scene of the crime, which would’ve yielded the first hints of discrepancy.

    I don’t buy the scenario of a terribly credible victim whose story could not be taken with skepticism out of pure human decency. It was just too perfect; it had the perfect victim, the perfect setting, the perfect alleged perpetrators (frat boys, of all people). It had red flags all over it and yet the investigator took it at face value.

    1. This is further evidence that journalists, just like most little red Marxians, are into narratives and not truth. They’re eyebrow-deep into Political Correctness. The author would not dare question the victim’s story because that would mean ipso facto an implicit accusation against the victim, just like questioning Obama’s policies is a clear indication of deep-seated racism. Searching for the actual truth is pushed aside in order to seek for a higher truth. There is no difference between that philosophical stance and religious fundamentalism. It is insidious as it is destructive, because reality is turned into torture from which one should be shielded.

      1. But it wasn’t even a “perfect” story. Many parts made no sense. E.g. if you’re planning a gang-rape, would you do it in a room with a glass-topped coffee table? Basic logic should have clued people in that something was wrong.

        1. Re: PapayaSF,

          But it wasn’t even a “perfect” story.

          Oh, the alleged victim’s story had “B.S.” all over it. What I am saying is that the main aspects of it made it too attractive for Politically-Correct nad gullible pseudo-journos: the setting, the perps, the place, etc.

          1. that would be “and”, not “nad”.

        2. E.g. if you’re planning a gang-rape, would you do it in a room with a glass-topped coffee table?

          Especially if it is, as alleged, a standard part of the frat initiation. They would have had the procedure worked out a little better than that by now, I’d imagine.

      2. That’s what I’m seeing from the True Believers. They insist that the story is true, because it must be true. They don’t know that it’s true, they feel that it’s true and for them feeling trumps thinking.

  31. Fun fact: both Sabrina Erdely and Stephen Glass are University of Pennsylvania, class of 1994.

  32. The story is false but accurate – as per certified experts on that category Dan Rather and Al Sharpton.

  33. Short a gun-barrel to the head, am I the only one that becomes immediately suspicious when the term “forced oral sex” is used?

    1. No, that is a common misperception. You would also not be alone while begging to suck another to prevent certain tortures that make water-boarding look like massages that are,of course, top secret.

  34. Calling rape appalling and morally offensive is accurate. The story about this alleged crime provoked an immediate, furious, visceral response from most moral humans.

    The trouble in America is the immediate, furious,visceral pursuit of punishment or justice for rape crimes now requires an appalling story like alleging gang-rape to incite the type response EVERY SINGLE RAPE should receive. Americans have apparently forgotten the justice allegedly shared by all U.S. States in the pledge of allegiance.

    Pledging to desire liberty is like pledging to desire oxygen. Pledging to desire “liberty and justice for ALL” is a wholly different claim. Liberty without justice is complete anarchy. Liberty to sell cigarette “loosies” and forbidding personal-space RAPEs are not supported anymore in New York.

    Rape is evil. Lies about rape are equally evil if not marginally more evil than rape.

  35. There are two villains in this story: Rolling Stone/Sabrina Ederly and Jackie. Everyone else is a victim of the conspiracy between those two.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.