Rape

Judge Forces UVA's Jackie to Testify in Lawsuit Over False Gang Rape Story

Rolling Stone didn't report the truth, but will we ever hear it from Jackie?

|

UVA
BDS / Wikimedia Commons

The lies of "Jackie"—the University of Virginia student at the center of Rolling Stone's erroneous rape story—have finally caught up with her: Jackie will be compelled to testify as part of UVA Dean Nicole Eramo's lawsuit against the magazine, a judge has ruled. 

Eramo, who was portrayed as indifferent and unhelpful toward victims of sexual assault in the Rolling Stone story, is suing the magazine for defamation. She has asked for $7.85 million in damages. [Related: Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?] 

Jackie's testimony could prove key to Eramo's case. Jackie told Rolling Stone that she was gang-raped by nine men—including her date, a lifeguard named Haven Monahan—during a party at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. But numerous investigations into the allegation have found it to be baseless. There was no party at Phi Psi on the night in question, Jackie's friends dispute aspects of her account, and most damningly, Haven Monahan does not exist. 

Many media experts, including the Columbia University School of Journalism, believe that Rolling Stone's reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, would have easily uncovered Jackie's lies if she had bothered to follow basic journalistic protocol. But neither the author, nor the magazine's editors, pressed Jackie for key details that would have exposed the story as false. 

Jackie, of course, bears just as much responsibility for her lies as Rolling Stone does. She is not, however, named in the lawsuit. 

Her deposition, then, is in some sense a rare opportunity for the law to hold her at least partially accountable. It would be interesting to see whether she confesses, at long last, to exaggerating her story, or fabricating it entirely. 

It would be interesting, except that her deposition will take place behind closed doors and the transcripts will be sealed, according to CNN. Unless these records are released, we may never know what Jackie revealed once sworn under oath to tell the truth. 

In any case, it's gratifying that the judge rejected claims made by Jackie's lawyers that she should be exempt from testifying because the process would "re-traumatize" her. We would all like to hear the truth, but Eramo, at least, is entitled to it. 

Columbia's report on the Rolling Stone debacle was published exactly one year ago today. Read my analysis of it here. 

NEXT: The Incredible Cluelessness of Donald Trump

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 lies of “Jackie”

    You can cut and paste my last bitchfest about continuing to pretend she is a victim here.

    You’re a stubborn one, Mr. Soave.

    1. Uh, are you saying that Robby is casting her as a victim?

      1. Whenever he uses her “alias” and doesn’t use her full name, he is treating her as someone entitled to anonymity. That can only be based on her status as a victim.

        So, yes, using “Jackie” (in quotes) without her full name is casting her as a victim.

        1. Her alias is how she is most widely known. It’s also just her first name.

          1. Her anonymity is completely blown. So why pretend it isn’t, and why pretend you are using an alias? There’s no reason to do it unless you want to keep treating her as a victim. Which she isn’t. So I wish Robbie would stop doing so.

            1. Coakley, Robby. It’s Jackie Coakley. COAKELY COAKLEY COAKLEY

              1. Bullshit! Her real name is Hillary Monica Clinton-Lewinsky!

            2. Everybody knows Jackie as the crazy RS story lady. If you start talking about Jackie Coakley, then that interrupts the narrative of the story.

              1. They could call her Jackie “Jackie” Coakley.

                1. Jack?e? Say it ain’t so.

                  1. +227

            3. Her name is Robert Paulson?

              1. The Rolling Stone story was far less organized than Project Mayhem.

                1. You do NOT TALK about project mayhem.

              2. I was in boot camp with Robert Paulson.

              3. No, this is Patrick.

        2. And has her full name been identified anywhere that isn’t run by Anonymous trolls or Red Pill misogynists?

          1. By that you mean released through an official channel run by power-drunk men?

          2. THEY HAVE HER WEDDING PICTURES, HUGH, HER WEDDING PICTURES!!!

          3. That is to say, is there a reliable source that Robby can quote that lists her actual name in connection with the Rolling Stone story?

            1. is there a reliable source that Robby can quote that lists her actual name in connection with the Rolling Stone story?

              Pretty sure there’s a subpoena with her name on it. Those are public records. Would that count?

              1. Sure it would. Link to it.

                1. Actually, I read that the court is going along with this farce and redacting her full name.

          4. Yes it has. You can easily google her name. Jackie Coakley was happy to slander a bunch of frat boys as rapists. While I’m not a big fan of white hatted brosephs, I am a big fan of allowing defendants to face their accusers. And in this case the accuser was Jackie Coakley.

            1. Sorry, my googler is broken. Please link to a reliable news organization, official document, or recorded testimony identifying Jackie Coakley as “Jackie” from the Rolling Stone UVA story.

              1. Sorry about your googler. When its fixed, try googling her full name. Its been published by all sorts of people. The legacy media hasn’t but, their defenses for not doing so are pretty weak, IMO.

                1. Hugh thinks anyone who publishes her name (sans quotes) is unreliable. see msnbc, which (in response to complaints) retracted

                  Lots of people think Fox news objective

                  some people think the Washington Post objective

                  Some (still) think Rolling Stone a reliable publication

                  Some think CBS & Dan Rather reliable; some think NBC & Brian Williams reliable

                  few agree

                  What did Hamlet say? there’s nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so?

                1. I have a really good recipe for Crow Pie Hugh.

                  1. Also. I bet you are one of those people Hugh, who think that sketch artist depictions of court room scenes are not accurate.

          5. Who cares? There’s no reason not to use her full name. By this point, they should be running her picture as well, for that matter. She is the central character in a national story – since when do we not use their names and run their pictures? She’s an adult, she’s not a victim, and she is accused/suspected of doing something pretty nasty. Can you think of anyone else in that situation is given the benefit of faux anonymity?

            Its a pet peeve, I know. I just think its indicative of broader issue with some of the recent reporting, mostly.

              1. That’s a good point. It may well not be Robbie’s decision.

              2. As you recall, Reason had to shell out a significant amount of coin defend themselves against an utterly frivolous libel suit a handful of years ago that never went farther than the complaint stage.

                This. Can’t really blame them for not wanting to get sued, even if it would be frivolous. They’re published by a non-profit, after all, they can’t afford to blow all their money on lawyers everytime some snowflake gets all butthurt and sues them (and I’m including a certain prosecutor from NY amongst those butthurt snowflakes).

              3. Spot on Tarzan.

            1. Unless there are reliable sources out there or Robby gets her on the record saying that she is the one in the RS story, there is a reason not to use her name. She’s not a public figure, and alleging that she did something that could be illegal without at least some evidence could expose Reason to a libel suit. They would beat it, but it would be expensive and bad publicity.

            2. Why are you making me side with Nikki, Dean?

              seriously, the (quote-unquote) “Jackie” moniker is simply the best-known way to identify the person. i don’t think there’s anything more to it.

              WaPo addressed the issue in this piece earlier this year, explaining why they themselves *still* don’t name her (they agreed not to in exchange for access to her), and why other orgs don’t either.

              1. the (quote-unquote) “Jackie” moniker is simply the best-known way to identify the person. i don’t think there’s anything more to it.

                No, no, no. It’s further evidence that this magazine is run by a bunch COZMO FAGGITS AND PROGGIES pretending to be “real libertarians” for a paycheck. You just have to be super smart to see it.

                So the fact that you apparently can’t see it means 1) you’re not as super smart as those who can and 2) you’re also one of them FAGZ!!11!!11!!!!!

                1. this magazine is run by a bunch COZMO FAGGITS AND PROGGIES pretending to be “real libertarians” for a paycheck.

                  Analysis: TRUE

            3. Who cares?

              If you can’t answer Hugh’s question, then I care.

              1. Why do you care about protecting the anonymity of someone who has done as much damage as Jackie Coakley?

                1. I can see the libel argument, but the standard that “She’s not a public figure, and alleging that she did something that could be illegal without at least some evidence” would mean that all sorts of people would enjoy scare-quoted aliases. And, the idea that there isn’t at least some evidence that she did something wrong is laughable.

                  I just smell a double standard, is all, and I don’t like those.

            4. By this point, they should be running her picture as well, for that matter.

              http://www.returnofkings.com/7…..the-decade

        3. I’m really torn on whether to mention Jackie Coakley’s name or not, given that she obviously craves attention enough to lie about a rape.

          -jcr

    2. This is where you need to go for the straight story.

      1. I had no idea ED was still active. I’m impressed in a shocked sort of way.

        1. I tend to forget about it for a year or so at a time and then rediscover it, get sucked in for an hour or so and then feel kinda dirty.

        2. It’s a useful resource

      2. Would. You know, if she weren’t batshit crazy and I was really drunk.

    3. Stop retraumatizing me!

    4. Alright, I give up. Its a pet peeve. Enough is enough. If nobody thinks there’s any good reason to publish the full name of somebody at the center of a national story, I get it.

    5. Perhaps the youthful, earnestly virtuous Robby thinks that Ms. Coakley has no moral agency – she is as a child. Although he does say, “Jackie, of course, bears just as much responsibility for her lies as Rolling Stone does.” But, but, then, why…..? Hmmm. Well, maybe now he’s just trolling.

  2. I for one am horrified that this callous judge is re-traumatizing this innocent young woman by making her relive a rape that never happened.

    1. #BelieveHer

    2. I thought the judge was referring to the the trauma of being called out as a lying bitch on a public stage.

      1. +1 *mic drop*

  3. Many media experts, including the Columbia University School of Journalism

    Which, it is known, you did not attend (although your hair recently received an honorary Masters).

    1. I love it though that he keeps twisting that particular knife in a little deeper every chance he gets.

  4. Is that her name on the legal documents? UVA’s Jackie?

    1. Needz moar scare quotes.

  5. So is it enough to prove that the alleged rapist did not exist, or is some other factual substantiation needed?

    Seems like once Mr. Monahan is proven fictitious, the rape itself would be much harder to certify.

    1. Real or imaginary, Haven Monahan should still be compelled to testify. That guy has a lot to answer for.

      1. Interesting question – since she posed as Haven Monahan, and he were subpoenaed, would she have to testify?

        1. And would she have to give his testimony in a deep voice?

          1. She can just text it with accompanying dick pictures.

          2. I can just see them wheeling in a tank of Sulphur Hexaflouride for her to huff on before answering each question to make her voice lower. It’d be good for some lulz at least.

        2. Listen, I don’t know why you’re giving Jackie a hard time.

          Everything it said is true. Stupid bitch didn’t know where to put its legs, or when to keep its mouth shut.

          You should all feel ashamed of yourselves, and feel really sorry for Jackie. Maybe call her up, text her, flirt around. Maybe a date. Let her cry on your shoulder, etc. See where things go. You look really cute, BTW.

          This is Haven Monahan.

          This is not Jackie.

          1. I was just thinking that Haven Monahan might become a popular internet character.

            1. Or porn star.

  6. Well she may not have been forced to do the bidding of a bunch of power-drunk men before, but she will now.

    1. Grab its motherfucking testimony!

  7. Judge Forces UVA’s Jackie to Testify in Lawsuit Over False Gang Rape Story
    Rolling Stone didn’t report the truth, but will we ever hear it from Jackie?

    No, because I strongly suspect that “Jackie” is as crazy as a bag of cats.

    1. Well, I feel like that’s an insulting statement to bags of cats everywhere.

      1. There’s nothing crazy about freaking out because you’re stuffed in a bag.

        1. Bagged it.

          1. Suck a bag of dicks, Jackie.

        2. +1 Swimming lesson

      2. Riveting.

  8. In any case, it’s gratifying that the judge rejected claims made by Jackie’s lawyers that she should be exempt from testifying because the process would “re-traumatize” her.

    Which to me suggests that both “Jackie” and her legal team are sticking hard to the story that she was gang-raped.

  9. I don’t know, but I wonder if her lawyers want her to take the Fifth.

    “Code of Virginia

    ? 18.2-209. False publications.

    “Any person who knowingly and willfully states, delivers or transmits by any means whatever to any publisher, or employee of a publisher, of any newspaper, *magazine,* [emphasis added] or other publication or to any owner, or employee of an owner, of any radio station, television station, news service or cable service, any false and untrue statement, knowing the same to be false or untrue, concerning any person or corporation, with intent that the same shall be published, broadcast or otherwise disseminated, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”

    Who knows, maybe she’ll decide to talk. And maybe she won’t.

    Of course, as the post says, the testimony probably will be sealed unless there’s a trial.

    1. As a practical matter, who knows if the prosecutor is going to file perjury charges against a “victim” – the SJWs could go ape.

    2. As a routine matter, immumity is usually only given out to lower level thugs in order to catch their boss. In this case, the only person that might possibly be guilty of anything is Jackie Coakley, but she never even filed a false police complaint. So no 5th taking in there, it’s civil charges all the way down.

    3. Huh. Didn’t know this code section existed. I expect she is able to plead the 5th then, as admitting to lying opens her to prosecution even if only a misdemeanor. Interesting.

      1. I tried to catch you in the last thread, but looks like you might’ve skipped out before I left my comment (or are ignoring me, which is understandable too). You asked a week or so ago where I’ll be staying in Rio. So: I’ll be staying in Mar? (Favela de Mar?, as it used to be known before the 2014 WC pacification), which is perfect, because it’s not even a ten minute drive from the airport!

        1. Oh cool. We must’ve driven by that going to/from the airport. I remember the driver pointing out Complexo Do Alemao and it looks like Mare’ is really close to that.
          You’re going to have such a great time!

    4. Based on this, I imagine Jackie could legitimately plead the 5th. Ever hear of anyone being granted immunity for testimony in a civil trial?

  10. I think it’s telling that “Jackie” is attempting to avoid testifying. Maybe only men think this way, but if someone had committed a heinous crime against me I’d do whatever it took to get the perp held accountable. The idea of letting the perp walk away because I didn’t have the guts to testify puzzles me.

    1. That’s because these fraternity rapists are like the Mafia, or the Yakuza, their tes- I mean tentacles are everywhere.

    2. This is a civil case, no perp. And Rolling Stone is the defendant, the plaintiff is the former Dean they libeled. No perp, no alleged perp.

      1. I could still see her taking the Fifth. You can’t be compelled to incriminate yourself in a civil trial, and she does have a potential criminal complaint hanging out there for false publication.

        Of course, the DA could immunize her against that in about 5 minutes.

        1. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that the only person who could be on the hook for any criminal thing would be the author of the story. I don’t think lying to a journalists is illegal. It would make her a terrible person, but it’s whatshername and Rolling Stone that slandered these people in public.

          1. I tended to ignore the story and just pick up bits here and there, but were the police ever involved or did Jackie pursue this strictly through the media and UVa?

            1. The latter. She refused to report the alleged incident to the police.

            2. A cop was present at a meeting between Jackie and Dean Eramo before the story was published but she said she didn’t want to pursue charges and refused to say anything to him. Later, after the story was published, Charlottesville police investigated. Jackie still refused to talk, unsurprisingly, and interviews of many of the people involved in this revealed no evidence of anything. The current environment being what it is, the Charlottesville police chief walked on eggshells in saying that the investigation was only “suspended”, not closed, and refused to say that she fabricated the story, saying only that they could find no evidence to support her story.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03……html?_r=0

      2. I understand that, but here we have Jackie claiming that she was not only raped, but also that the Dean essentially prevented her from getting justice. And now said Dean is suing her. If the rape had really happened, I’d expect that Jackie would want to make that clear in all legal proceedings, including this civil case. From Jackie’s POV the Dean is a perp and she shouldn’t want the Dean to win this legal proceeding.

        Assuming, that is, that the rape occurred. Which it didn’t.

        1. The dean isn’t suing her, only Rolling Stone.

        2. And now said Dean is suing her.

          Actually the Dean is suing Rolling Stone, not Jackie.

  11. It would be interesting, except that her deposition will take place behind closed doors and the transcripts will be sealed, according to CNN. Unless these records are released, we may never know what Jackie revealed once sworn under oath to tell the truth.

    Damn, I would like to know what she says. Morbid curiosity and all that.

    In other news, I see Kizone Kaprow has discovered the promoted comments.

    1. So, the loon has a new hobby.

      1. Same as the old hobby.

    2. Why are those still a thing?

      1. BECAUSE YOU MONSTERS USE ADBLOCK IS WHY

        1. If they had better ads, I wouldn’t use adblock.

          1. I kinda miss the T-shirt girls.

            1. Ooooh, right. What was that called again? I need to …. refresh my memory

              1. Snorg Tees.

  12. Nelson Muntz unavailable for comment.

  13. She’ll remember every moment of the three hours of deposition, during which, she’ll say, seven lawyers took turns deposing her, while two more ? her lawyer and another lawyer ? gave instruction and encouragement to their client.

    1. “Grab its motherfucking statement!”

      1. It was after 3 p.m. She painfully rose from the chair and ran shoeless from the conference room. She emerged to discover the social justice warriors still surreally defending her, but if anyone noticed the barefoot, disheveled girl hurrying down the hallway, brow beaten, reputation spattered with lies, they said nothing.

  14. If Hogan and Andrews got 9 figures because people saw their naughty bits, they should just give Eramo the school’s entire endowment.

    1. Rolling Stone doesn’t have that kind of cash. Maybe she’ll accept an exclusive interview with a self-righteous marginally popular musician instead.

  15. Grab its motherfucking leg

    1. Just because it wasn’t said this one time doesn’t mean it doesn’t get said in countless fraternity houses on countless campuses everyday.

      1. Just because this particular Muslim isn’t a terrorist doesn’t mean countless other Muslims aren’t.

        Just because this particular Mexican isn’t a rapist doesn’t mean countless other Mexicans aren’t.

        1. I agree with the tone of your response Delius. Fist seems to be playing the “We don’t know it didn’t happen” canard/fallacy of burden shifting.

          Fist, if you are going for a joke, let’s see it. Otherwise, that’s statement is like, WAY, like, problematic already.

          1. I can’t tell at this point who is out-sarcasming who.

            1. +11!1! Poe’s Law strikes again

  16. There is enough information in the public record for me to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the whole story was fabricated by someone who desperately wanted attention, and who eventually found that the lie had grown beyond their control (save, of course, for being completely honest and taking the criticism that would come with that…but it’s easier to just keep lying).

  17. She might have expensive tastes, since if you rearrange the letters in “Nicole Eramo,” you get “Race One Limo.”

    1. Also, “Ear Mice Loon”

      1. The letters in “Rolling Stone” can be rearranged to spell “Selling on rot.”

        Or, ironically, “linger lots on,” which is the opposite of what they want to do with this case.

        1. or “leg loins torn.”

        2. **************************************
          *03 October 2001 – Moral of the Story*

          **************************************
          It just kind of popped in my head this morning while I was making an attempt to not
          fall asleep in the shower… I remembered back to my days of my first post-college
          job. I was working as a systems engineer at a Lockheed Martin facility in Orlando,
          Florida.

          Since I was still living in Daytona Beach at the time, I had a massive commute of 150
          miles round trip to work and back each day. Aside from my usual 40 hour per week work
          load, I was also doing management training. That meant that I was also taking masters
          degree classes at the University of Central Florida after work. So, back then, my
          days were about 12 hours long at a minimum. I even slept at my desk from time to
          time.

          I spent a lot of time working on homework and management project papers in the
          evenings at Lockheed Martin. Around 8:00 or 8:30 at night, I’d be the only person
          around amongst the vast sea of cubicles that dominated the development area I worked
          in. I’d take ten minute breaks and stroll up and down the rows of cubicles, reading
          the comics and looking at the pictures that people had posted around their cubes.

          1. One evening, I was taking one of those breaks when I wandered past a sign with
            moveable letters that had apparently been part of a tour at one point. Since Lockheed
            had so many military contracts, it was very common to have colonels and even one or
            two star generals touring through the work areas to see how the Army’s weapon
            development budget was being spent. This sign’s message was pretty simple:

            LOCKHEED MARTIN
            INFORMATION SYSTEMS

            Now, you and I both know that a burnt-out engineer isn’t going to leave a sign with
            moveable letters alone when no one is around to stop him. I started shuffling around
            the letters and after about 20 minutes, I came up with the following:

            LMT STOCK SHARE IS
            NOT MY IDEA OF WINNER

            I even used all the letters.

            There’re a few important points here. First off, “LMT” is the NASDAQ ticker symbol
            for Lockheed Martin. At the time I fiddled with the sign, the company’s stock was at
            an all time low. This was great for me, since my retirement fund was composed mostly
            of stock. So, I was getting a ton of stock for the amount of money I was investing.
            The old timers that had been putting stock in their retirement plans for the past 15
            years, however, were getting kinda nervous. Talk about the dropping stock value,
            possible corporate take-overs, and even layoffs were common watercooler banter.

            Anyway, after messing with the sign, I worked for perhaps another hour and then
            started the long drive home.

            1. When I got into work the next day, I found out that the sign had been discovered. My
              supervising manager didn’t even know the sign had been changed, but my manager’s
              manager heard about it and thought it was one of the funniest things he’d even seen.
              Most employees looked at the sign, snickered, and then went on with their work. It
              wasn’t a real show-stopper at work, but my handiwork was silently appreciated by quite
              a few co-workers.

              Upper management, however, didn’t think it was funny at all. They smelled dissention
              in the ranks… possibly someone from Raytheon or Boeing that snuck in somehow for the
              sole purpose of lowering morale. For some reason, upper management tends to come up
              with odd conspiracy ideas like that. Anyway, they decided to take immediate action to
              quell the impending uprising. They sent out a memo. Not just any memo, though…
              the memo stated that there would be a company wide pizza party to raise morale. I was
              told by several other employees, peons and managers alike, that the memo was a direct
              result of the sign getting changed around.

              1. Now, if your stock is tanking, you probably shouldn’t spend $20,000 of your overhead
                budget on pizza because some yahoo fiddled with a sign. But what do I know? I had
                only been doing management for a year or two by that point, and the folks comprising
                upper management had been managers since the days when flogging employees was still
                considered acceptable business practice.

                Moral of the Story:

                “The squeaky wheel gets the greasy pizza.”

                1. For those who don’t see the blockquotes, I, tarran, am not the teller of the above story. It didn’t happen to me. It is a tale related by some developer named Andrew Henderson.

                  1. “I, tarran, wrote these lines, but the tale is older than I. Many ages ago, perhaps in the reign of Bill the Horny…”

              1. Meanwhile, normal people can use this site.

                1. Thanks for the anagram site, Rococo Gnu Suit!

                  1. +1 Nice Zit, X

                  2. The new gnu knew.

    2. I raise you one limo.

  18. In any case, it’s gratifying that the judge rejected claims made by Jackie’s lawyers that she should be exempt from testifying because the process would “re-traumatize” her.

    Do judges ever do this? Can I refuse a subpoena based on feelings?

    1. Do judges ever do this? Can I refuse a subpoena based on feelings?

      It’s safely specious.

    2. Tangentially, Family law is all about Feels over Reals my good man.

      Like I always say, Family Law is a bloody knife fight to the death, and Judges get the “best interests of the child” JOKE of a standard with which to make completely subjective calls over custody.

      With “victim oriented” jurisprudence on the rise, and the Center for Applied Feminism showing up in every law school around the country, expect more independent judicial fiats, and less standards-based, predicative, and objective orders. So to get back to your point; Yes, judges issue subpoenas based on feelings ALL THE TIME. That is supposedly what the Appellate Courts are there to correct. Hope you can afford the legal fees until your Appellate Review, 5 years from now.

      The times, they are a changin’.

  19. This is really easy. “Jackie’s” team is going to shift gears.

    1. She was sexually assaulted at some time in the past.
    2. She has suffered a break with reality as a consequence.
    3. She fabricated Haven and the rape in her delusional state.

    Hence, she is not only not responsible for her actions, she has been victimized multiple times.

    1. The original rapist
    2. Her less than observant friends
    3. Then entire male-centric collegiate system.
    3. Rolling Stone
    4. Wapo and the rest of the press.
    5. Eradmo for bringing the suit
    6. Robby.
    7. You.

    This poor innocent girl is the victim of horrible crimes, we need fundamental change in this country to insure that no one else has to endure the same. Tear down this horrifying system.

    Or,… maybe she’s a fucking sociopathic lying bitch who lacks any conscience.

  20. Judge: Are you okay?
    Jackie: Yes
    Judge: If this is too traumatic let us know.
    Jackie: What?

    Lawyers motioning fucking doggy style.

    Jackie (squints): Oh. Ohhh. Yes.The gangbang. Yes. Traumatic.
    Lawyer (to colleague): What an idiot.
    Colleague: Would?
    Lawyer: Totally.

    1. Maybe the judge could calm the witness by offering his lap, a common law tradition dating back 100 years.

      1. If a judge’s lap isn’t a safe space, I don’t want to know what is.

    2. Any man who would have sex with Jackie after this situation would have to be a complete moron. It’s on the order of a woman dating a man who just got out of jail for spousal abuse.

      1. We don’t actually have a reason to believe she hurts people who have sex with her, of course. Quite the opposite. No one is safe!

        1. ????

          Even before the Rolling Stone issue, Jackie was already spreading wild claims about a crazy gang rape that never happened. She’s clearly completely unhinged. And did you read the ridiculous fake texts she was sending as Haven Monahan?

          A person like that would be totally untrustworthy in any kind of relationship, even a casual one.

          1. The fact that this whole thing happened because she invented a fake person to try and make a guy jealous tells me that, even if we ignore how insane things eventually got, she’s completely unstable. This is stalker material.

          2. Uh, I think that’s what I said when I said “no one is safe.” Not fucking her is not any kind of insurance.

            1. Hell, even not existing isn’t any kind of insurance.

            2. Wait until Lesbian Domestic Violence starts to become acceptable to lie about.

              Right now, it is not even acceptable to talk about, and these hot headed lesbots are beating the SHIT out of each other. (42% incidence last time I checked.)

              BAM BAM, thank you m’am.

      2. Isn’t she married now?

        1. I’d like a better source on that than Chuck C. Johnson, but that’s what he’s reported.

          1. No one claims he’s wrong. Too many people are vested in discrediting Chuck C. Johnson for it not to be true.

      3. She’s actually married now. I’m just gonna leave that knowledge out there for all single ladies out there.

        The batshit crazy woman who’s lies are at the center of a multimilion dollar lawsuit is married. So why aren’t you married, beyond having a modicum of self respect?

        1. Probably that “not so fresh feeling”.

      4. True, but it’s not as if the average man would recognize her in a bar, club, or anywhere else outside of UVA.

        1. You would think “Don’t stick your dick in crazy” would kick in at some point.

          1. She’s definitely on the wrong side of the crazy/hot line.

          2. Booze, pure and simple, booze. After enough booze that knothole in the fencepost starts to look pretty good some guys. Jackie is one step short of that knothole.

      5. Mattress Girl made a porno depicting her rape. I can’t imagine the contract I’d need signed to be the actor in that.

        1. Contract? How quaint.

          “I didn’t consent to signing the contract.”

  21. Re-traumatize” was a bit of a reach.

    1. Bit? Holy shit, she was the one causing the trauma to innocent people through thoughtlessly selfish acts. (At a minimum) Jackie is the aggressor here, she is in no way a victim.

  22. holy shit somebody married her.

    1. I almost don’t believe it.

      1. And the guy isn’t even a fat ugly midget.

      2. You’d have thought he would at least wait until the potential of civil and criminal liability had passed. Typically, the marriage comes when they enter the reality-show-contestant years.

        1. How could this help him? Now, I mean. Unless he’s in for the book deals.

        2. “If I married you, your rich parents will allow me 1/2 share of your entire estate? Why?”
          “Because they really want me to get married before 2017 when certain things become public record.”
          “I feel like I should be worried.”
          “Don’t be. You’ll be rich, laid every day, and on Halloween, we can do anal.”
          “I still don’t know.”
          “Fine. I will also send you an approved list of female sexual partners I would be okay with, minimum of 3 per trimester, to synchronize with my menses. Deal? Please?”

    2. What’s pajama boy been up to lately?

      1. Washing shit stains.

  23. To the people in this thread saying Reason shouldn’t use her full name because we’re not 100% positive it actually is Jackie Coakley:

    I agree, but why can’t Reason do some, you know, journalism, figure out who it actually is, and then use her full name? Other journalists have found her.

    She’s accused of some pretty serious shit and the idea that she’s a victim at this point is absurd.

    1. So, Irish is a misogynist as well as a racist!

      1. Hats Oprah’s guts.

    2. It’s a bit ridiculous since Reason was one of the first mags to raise a bunch of red flags about the RS story. They were the first to point out that that did’t happen. Props to Reason on this story. This would be a non story if it weren’t for Reason.

      1. Including and especially Robby, who everyone is bitching about for some reason.

        1. Two words – “hair jealousy”.

          1. Which is an anagram for “Asia Hole Jury.” Take that as you will.

            1. This masturbation thing is nuts.

    3. She’s accused of some pretty serious shit

      I think that’s inaccurate. Rolling Stone is accused of some serious shit and will pay many millions if they lose their case.

      Jackie isn’t accused of anything except telling crazy stories to people who should never have believed her. she never went to the cops, so her crazyness has never risen to any criminal behavior.

      The people who crossed a line were Erdley/Rolling Stone. and of course all the other media who ran with (and still run with) “somebody said” hysterical-stories that have little documented facts behind them.

      1. she never went to the cops

        ^This^

      2. As someone pointed out above, under VA law she could be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

  24. Rolling Stone didn’t report the truth, but will we ever hear it from Jackie?

    Considering Rolling Stone got the bullshit from her, I’m gonna guess “no.”

  25. Any chance she names her firstborn Haven?

  26. and most damningly, Haven Monahan does not exist.

    He could be an incubus. Ever think of *that*?

    1. Not a very effective incubus if he didn’t knock her up. Though I suppose she could have had an abortion. But what happens to the doctor who tries to abort demon spawn?

        1. That is a totally legit setup for a horror movie, Zeb.

      1. It’s just a clump of demon cells.

        1. Evict the trespasser. Get a job, fetus!

  27. Now the judge is going to fake rape Jackie. Which is literally the same thing a rape-rape.

  28. Let me guess, The Rolling Stone magazine is responsible for the death of rock music.

  29. Come on guys, Jackie is still a victim either way – because rape exists. And that non-existent guy who didn’t rape her is still complicit as are all of you guys. And me too. Check your privilege.

  30. So Jackie made up crap that damaged several lives and organizations, and SHE is the victim???? She could have ruined people for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES! To Hades! Show her absolutely NO QUARTER.

  31. Max . true that Gregory `s st0rry is impossible… on wednesday I bought Aston Martin DB5 since I been bringin in $9774 this last five weeks and more than ten/k this past-month . it’s by-far the best-job Ive ever had . I began this 4 months ago and practically straight away was bringin home minimum $81, per hour
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.earni8.com

  32. Max . true that Gregory `s st0rry is impossible… on wednesday I bought Aston Martin DB5 since I been bringin in $9774 this last five weeks and more than ten/k this past-month . it’s by-far the best-job Ive ever had . I began this 4 months ago and practically straight away was bringin home minimum $81, per hour
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.earni8.com

  33. ??Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.path40.com

  34. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  35. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  36. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  37. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  38. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

    ??????www.paypost50.com

  39. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  40. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  41. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.