What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Fact or Fiction? Rolling Stone's UVA Gang Rape Story (2 Viewers)

TenTimes said:
Apple Jack said:
Her not being fired suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye.
I can't help but feel the author (and maybe even the editor) wanted to spotlight an epidemic, even if under false pretenses. As false as this story is, we're talking about a situation that can and has taken place.

Not supporting the author and I don't like the tactic at all.. just racking my brain for some reason to justify this because as you say.. I also get the sense that there is more to this than meets the eye. It makes more sense to me than the author/editor being dumb enough to publish a story without fact checking first :shrug:
This is always the issue... if it's an "epidemic" surely there are plenty of truthful stories to report on, right?

Why do these types of stories turn out to be b.s. so often? You have the Lena Dunham story that turned out to be fabricated, the Duke Lacrosse case. When you start talking about the Ferguson shooting, if it's such an epidemic isn't there a case of a black kid getting killed by a cop who didn't just knock off a liquor store and attack a police officer?

I'm sure there are, I'm just not sure why the media circus always tends to focus on stories like the one's mentioned above.

 
Turning attention to this "Jackie":

1) Her real identity is known only to Erdely?

2) Is the thinking that "Jackie" invented everything out of whole cloth? Or is it just a big unknown? I read that "Jackie" never cooperated with police.

 
I missed all the details on the back story here.. They every figure out the motivation for the accusers story?

 
Turning attention to this "Jackie":

1) Her real identity is known only to Erdely?

2) Is the thinking that "Jackie" invented everything out of whole cloth? Or is it just a big unknown? I read that "Jackie" never cooperated with police.
1) Her identity was actually, I found out today, supposedly -- and they could be wrong, reckless, and irresponsible in doing so -- revealed by Encyclopedia Dramatica and a few radical conservative reporters.

2) The thinking for a long time was that something a) happened to Jackie and she had suffered so much stress that her story didn't match, or that (and this is the likely scenario at this point) b) she's a pathological liar who set up catfish accounts and the like to fool Rolling Stone.

It's ugly all around, but the real culprits, IMO, are Rolling Stone and Erdely. I find Rolling Stones' response to the CJR report (and if you don't think the heads of CJR are dyed in the wool liberals who believe in the general narrative of campus sexual violence, I've got a bridge for you) stunning, but nothing should be surprising at this point.

 
TenTimes said:
Apple Jack said:
Her not being fired suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye.
I can't help but feel the author (and maybe even the editor) wanted to spotlight an epidemic, even if under false pretenses. As false as this story is, we're talking about a situation that can and has taken place.

Not supporting the author and I don't like the tactic at all.. just racking my brain for some reason to justify this because as you say.. I also get the sense that there is more to this than meets the eye. It makes more sense to me than the author/editor being dumb enough to publish a story without fact checking first :shrug:
This is always the issue... if it's an "epidemic" surely there are plenty of truthful stories to report on, right?

Why do these types of stories turn out to be b.s. so often? You have the Lena Dunham story that turned out to be fabricated, the Duke Lacrosse case. When you start talking about the Ferguson shooting, if it's such an epidemic isn't there a case of a black kid getting killed by a cop who didn't just knock off a liquor store and attack a police officer?

I'm sure there are, I'm just not sure why the media circus always tends to focus on stories like the one's mentioned above.
Statistically, the campus rape epidemic doesn't exist.

That obviously doesn't mean schools shouldn't work to decrease sexual assaults on campus. It's just that sexual assaults on campus have not suddenly sky rocketed or occur at a rate much different than off campus.

 
Sounds like there may be some coming from Deans Groves and Eramo as well.
4. In a letter, Groves objected to Rolling Stone's portrayal of his actions during a University of Virginia Board of Visitors meeting last September. A video of the meeting is available on a UVA website. Groves wrote that Erdely "did not disclose the significant details that I had offered into the scope" of a Department of Education compliance review of UVA. Groves's full letter is here.

In the email sent through her lawyer, Eramo wrote, Rolling Stone "made numerous false statements and misleading implications about the manner in which I conducted my job as the Chair of University of Virginia's Sexual Misconduct Board, including allegations about specific student cases. Although the law prohibits me from commenting on those specific cases in order to protect the privacy of the students who I counsel, I can say that the account of my actions in Rolling Stone is false and misleading. The article trivializes the complexities of providing trauma-informed support to survivors and the real difficulties inherent in balancing respect for the wishes of survivors while also providing for the safety of our communities. As a general matter, I do not — and have never — allowed the possibility of a media story to influence the way I have counseled students or the decisions I have made in my position. And contrary to the quote attributed to me in Rolling Stone, I have never called the University of Virginia "the rape school," nor have I ever suggested — either professionally or privately — that parents would not "want to send their daughter" to UVA. As a UVA alumna, and as someone who has lived in the Charlottesville community for over 20 years, I have a deep and profound love for this University and the students who study here."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405#ixzz3WYwkdO5p

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
 
To me it sounded like Jackie was just a nut who made the whole thing up because the friend she had a crush on didn't like her back. First it was to make him jealous, and when that didn't work, to get his pity, and when that story blew up, well, that's where we are now.

 
To me it sounded like Jackie was just a nut who made the whole thing up because the friend she had a crush on didn't like her back. First it was to make him jealous, and when that didn't work, to get his pity, and when that story blew up, well, that's where we are now.
Jackie being a nut job in and of itself isn't a big deal. Erdely & Rolling Stone using Jackie as their only source for a story Erdely had already half written before even meeting Jackie is the real cluster ####. There was absolutely no journalism practiced by Erdely & Rolling Stone. Erdely has a preconception and an outline for a story and then actively sought out someone that could provide details for the outline she already had written.

 
To me it sounded like Jackie was just a nut who made the whole thing up because the friend she had a crush on didn't like her back. First it was to make him jealous, and when that didn't work, to get his pity, and when that story blew up, well, that's where we are now.
Jackie being a nut job in and of itself isn't a big deal. Erdely & Rolling Stone using Jackie as their only source for a story Erdely had already half written before even meeting Jackie is the real cluster ####. There was absolutely no journalism practiced by Erdely & Rolling Stone. Erdely has a preconception and an outline for a story and then actively sought out someone that could provide details for the outline she already had written.
It is a big deal, since RS is clearly trying to lay blame at her feet, and real people are involved and are suing. I suspect her motive and state of mind will definitely be part of Rolling Stone's defense.

Rolling Stone will argue that publishing a story someone tells you under these circumstances is legal. Anything they can do to cast Jackie as manipulative will be fair game. I'm not saying I defend it, and I've been as critical as anyone in this thread about RS's "journalism" on this story, just saying I think this is their play.

 
The parallels between this and the Duke lacrosse case are a bit eerie. In this case, a reporter rather than a rogue prosecutor sticking with the story and believing the narrative despite all evidence to the contrary.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
pantagrapher said:
To me it sounded like Jackie was just a nut who made the whole thing up because the friend she had a crush on didn't like her back. First it was to make him jealous, and when that didn't work, to get his pity, and when that story blew up, well, that's where we are now.
Jackie being a nut job in and of itself isn't a big deal. Erdely & Rolling Stone using Jackie as their only source for a story Erdely had already half written before even meeting Jackie is the real cluster ####. There was absolutely no journalism practiced by Erdely & Rolling Stone. Erdely has a preconception and an outline for a story and then actively sought out someone that could provide details for the outline she already had written.
I think this is where I am. I can't get away from the weird omnipresent POV that Erdely wrote in, so that the reader thinks that she was writing unassailable facts when she was really just writing "Jackie's" POV (which turned out to be innacurate).

 
Is there any way in which RS doesn't end up paying a huge amount in this lawsuit?
Yes. Print libel and lawsuits give the plaintiff high hurdles to jump over, especially for associations. There's a reason that the lawsuit mentions the specific word "reckless." See my post about the analysis from the legal blog called the Volokh Conspiracy from earlier in the thread. He lays out the issues pretty clearly in the link provided.

 
Is there any way in which RS doesn't end up paying a huge amount in this lawsuit?
Yes. Print libel and lawsuits give the plaintiff high hurdles to jump over, especially for associations. There's a reason that the lawsuit mentions the specific word "reckless." See my post about the analysis from the legal blog called the Volokh Conspiracy from earlier in the thread. He lays out the issues pretty clearly in the link provided.
I think it's possible. Like I said, they argue Ederly was manipulated by Jackie and that editors were justified in taking editorial shortcuts due to the subject matter and for fear of "traumatizing" Jackie. And I bet they're compiling a list of cases where reporters were conned by sources so they can say: "You see? This is just a hazard of the profession." No malicious intent. We were also victims of Jackie's fraud. Yadda yadda yadda.

 
Is there any way in which RS doesn't end up paying a huge amount in this lawsuit?
Yes. Print libel and lawsuits give the plaintiff high hurdles to jump over, especially for associations. There's a reason that the lawsuit mentions the specific word "reckless." See my post about the analysis from the legal blog called the Volokh Conspiracy from earlier in the thread. He lays out the issues pretty clearly in the link provided.
I think it's possible. Like I said, they argue Ederly was manipulated by Jackie and that editors were justified in taking editorial shortcuts due to the subject matter and for fear of "traumatizing" Jackie. And I bet they're compiling a list of cases where reporters were conned by sources so they can say: "You see? This is just a hazard of the profession." No malicious intent. We were also victims of Jackie's fraud. Yadda yadda yadda.
Yeah. I agree with you, as does Volokh. Maybe saying "yes" to a double negative was confusing.

 
Is there any way in which RS doesn't end up paying a huge amount in this lawsuit?
Yes. Print libel and lawsuits give the plaintiff high hurdles to jump over, especially for associations. There's a reason that the lawsuit mentions the specific word "reckless." See my post about the analysis from the legal blog called the Volokh Conspiracy from earlier in the thread. He lays out the issues pretty clearly in the link provided.
I think it's possible. Like I said, they argue Ederly was manipulated by Jackie and that editors were justified in taking editorial shortcuts due to the subject matter and for fear of "traumatizing" Jackie. And I bet they're compiling a list of cases where reporters were conned by sources so they can say: "You see? This is just a hazard of the profession." No malicious intent. We were also victims of Jackie's fraud. Yadda yadda yadda.
Yeah. I agree with you, as does Volokh. Maybe saying "yes" to a double negative was confusing.
Oh I got you. I was originally responding to matt but didn't edit my post much.

 
Link to spinoff thread: Rolling Stone Apologizes

UVA Fraternity won't pursue Honor Code Charges Against Jackie

Quotes:

A University of Virginia fraternity will not pursue an honor code violation against a student who told Rolling Stone for a story that has since been retracted that several brothers gang-raped her during a party, a spokesman said.

Virginia has the oldest student-run honor code in the country, which prohibits lying, cheating and stealing. Those who are found guilty of violations by a panel of students are faced with a single penalty: expulsion.

...

Phi Kappa Psi has said it is exploring legal action against Rolling Stone, but not against Jackie.

"From the fraternity's perspective, this is about reckless reporting, careless editing, poor fact-checking and a negligent legal review," fraternity spokesman Brian Ellis wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

Following the story's publication, Charlottesville police investigated the claims at the university's request. Police said that there was no evidence an assault occurred at Phi Kappa Psi, that there was a party the night of the alleged assault or that the person Jackie said was her date was a member of the fraternity.

Police have said no charges are pending against Jackie, who never filed a police report and refused to answer investigators' questions. Following the article's publication, the magazine acknowledged mistakes were made and that too much trust was placed in Jackie. The story was eventually retracted.

...

Any student or faculty member could bring an honor code complaint against Jackie, and the school's honor committee regularly works to get students to bring forward more complaints. So far, no one has brought such a complaint publicly against Jackie.

...

At U.Va., the definition of lying entails "the misrepresentation of one or more facts in order to gain a benefit or harm another person, where the actor knows or should know that the misrepresentation will be relied upon by another person."

I guess the fraternity figured there wasn't much to be gained from pursuing Honor Code violation charges against Jackie or they were strong armed by the complicit administration in this case. They will most certainly receive a nice monetary settlement from Rolling Stone. Unfortunately, when false rape accusers go unpunished it only increases the likelihood that it will happen again.

These updates are not intended to fuel negative arguments here, just to bring awareness to a real problem that men face in these times. Most of the members here are probably too old to have to worry about this kind of stuff but this is the world that our sons are growing up in.

 
These new rules are designed to prevent events that never happened from never happening again.
One fake story doesn't mean #### never happened. I have heard many a frat guy at UVA brag about date-rape.
how we doing here?
People brag about date rape? Good god....and we have people on this forum who have listened to the bragging and not gotten stabby? Yuck.
It's been over 15 years since I was in college but back then we didn't think much of a guy bragging about his conquest after a frat party where everyone knew they both had too much to drink. Many of us have been there, we didn't know better (though perhaps we should have).

 
Ryan Duffin was a freshman at the University of Virginia when he met a student named Jackie.

Both teenagers were new to campus in September 2012, and the pair quickly became friends through a shared appreciation of alternative rock bands such as Coheed and Cambria and the Silversun Pickups. Early on, Duffin sensed that Jackie was interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with him. Duffin valued her friendship but politely rebuffed Jackie’s advances for more.

Just days after he met her, Duffin said, he was goaded into a text message conversation with a U-Va. junior named “Haven Monahan,” whom Jackie said she knew from a chemistry class.

What followed was what lawyers representing U-Va. associate dean Nicole Eramo described in new court documents as an elaborate scheme to win him over — a practice known as “catfishing” — that morphed into a sensational claim of gang rape at a U-Va. fraternity and a Rolling Stone story that rocked the U-Va. campus and shocked the nation.

A Charlottesville Police investigation later determined that no one named Haven Monahan had ever attended U-Va., and extensive efforts to find the person were not successful. Photographs that were texted to Duffin that were purported to be of Monahan were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a student at a university in another state, confirmed to The Post that the photographs were of him.

Police ultimately determined that no gang rape occurred, and Rolling Stone retracted its story.

“All available evidence demonstrates that ‘Haven Monahan’ was a fake suitor created by Jackie in a strange bid to earn the affections of a student named Ryan Duffin that Jackie was romantically interested in,” Eramo’s lawyers wrote in court papers filed this week.

In an interview Friday with The Washington Post, Duffin said that he also believes Haven Monahan was a fictional character Jackie created.

“I was wondering how I didn’t see through it way earlier,” Duffin said.

Jackie and her lawyers have not responded to requests for comment. The Washington Post generally does not identify people who are purported victims of sex crimes.

Jackie had told Duffin that a date with Haven Monahan on Sept. 28, 2012, had gone terribly wrong, claiming that the upperclassman had forced her to perform oral sex on five other men. That fall night, Duffin was among a group of friends who rushed to be by Jackie’s side as she cried; Duffin described her as being hysterical and appearing traumatized. Duffin said Jackie appeared not to be injured — a red dress that she had worn on the date was not disheveled or torn — and she declined to go to police or the hospital that night to report the assault.

Jackie became the central figure of a sensational 9,000-word story published two years later in Rolling Stone, describing a brutal gang rape in a campus fraternity house that allegedly occurred that same night.

But the account in Rolling Stone differed significantly from the facts she relayed to Duffin in 2012. She told Rolling Stone that the attack involved nine fraternity brothers participating in a hazing ritual. And the name Jackie later gave of her alleged attacker also did not match the Haven Monahan identity she gave to Duffin in 2012.

After these discrepancies and other inconsistencies arose in reporting by The Washington Post, Rolling Stone retracted the story in April. At least three defamation suits have been filed related to the story since, including Eramo’s.

Court documents indicate that a crush Jackie had on Duffin freshman year was the spark for all that has happened since, that the attention-seeking events on Sept. 28, 2012 spiraled into a sensational tale that evolved, made its way into a national magazine’s pages, and then took on a life of its own.

Duffin said that his friendship with Jackie began to take a turn quickly as she pursued a deeper relationship with him. Though she had only known Duffin for a few weeks, Jackie spent $350 on a birthday trip to Washington D.C. and tickets for the two of them to see the Silversun Pickups at the 9:30 Club.

Once he began exchanging text messages with “Haven Monahan,” Duffin said he was struck by how the supposed U-Va. junior was infatuated with their mutual friend.

“He immediately started talking about Jackie,” Duffin told The Post in 2014.

But then Duffin noticed that Haven Monahan began talking about a freshman who Jackie had a crush on.

“Get this she said she likes some other 1st year guy who dosnt like her and turned her down but she wont date me cause she likes him,” Haven Monahan wrote in a text to Duffin. “She cant turn my down fro some nerd 1st yr. she said this kid is smart and funny and worth it.”

Duffin’s conversations with Haven Monahan continued, and according to transcripts submitted in Eramo’s case, the text messages extensively detailed Jackie’s unrequited feelings for Duffin.

At one point, Haven Monahan confronted Duffin about his lack of interest in dating Jackie, urging Duffin to have more sympathy for her, claiming that she had a terminal illness. Surprised by the revelation, Duffin texted Jackie, who confirmed the diagnosis.

“Ryan, it means I’m dying,” she texted.

Duffin replied: “I had no idea. Do you want to talk?”

In late September 2012, Jackie announced that she had a date at the Boar’s Head Inn with Haven Monahan. In an interview with The Post in 2014, Jackie said that the red dress she wore on the date — which Rolling Stone reported was later covered in her blood after the gang rape — had actually been purchased especially for the trip with Duffin to see the band in D.C.

At 10:23 p.m. on the night of the alleged rape, Jackie texted Duffin: “Just wondering. What are you doing now?”

Duffin said he was busy, but when Jackie alluded to something being amiss, he texted: “I want to know what’s going on.”

“Nothing is going on I promise I feel really stupid cause I ran to you and I always run to you,” Jackie replied. He and two other friends then went to meet Jackie near the dorms and found her hysterically upset, making the claims about being forced to perform oral sex.

The next morning, Sept. 29, Jackie texted Ryan about the alleged assault, according to the transcript:

“Ryan you know you are my favorite person of all time and I trust you more than anything in the world. I just need time to clear my head and I will go and report it. I need to do it when I’m ready though. And right now I’m not. Right now I just need someone to hug me and give me chocolate or something and in a few hours or a few days I’ll be ready”

According to archived text messages between Duffin and Jackie, the episode involving Haven Monahan appeared to pass quickly. Jackie told Duffin two days after the alleged attack that Haven Monahan had met her in person to apologize.

“I told him I forgave him for what happened friday night and then he thanked me for not reporting him which made me feel weird but the bottom line is I’m bad at being angry at other people so all I can do is forgive them,” Jackie wrote to Duffin. “And in spite of everything, I still think people are really good at heart and just make bad choices but that doesn’t make them bad people, right?”

But Duffin quickly grew suspicious of Haven Monahan. In a text message to Jackie, Duffin wrote: “I refuse to believe that somebody like this could actually exist.”

Jackie replied: “Haha oh believe it. He’s a frat boy. There are about 3000 more like him. It’s guy like haven monahan who give other guys a bad reputation.”

That October, Duffin finally confronted Jackie about Haven Monahan’s true identity. But Jackie stood her ground and accused Duffin of calling her a liar.

“You know what Ryan, I’ve always trusted you and put you first and believed you over everyone,” Jackie texted to Duffin. “Why would I lie about something like that?”

Jackie continued: “All I want is for you to be happy. I appreciate you and adore you more than you’ll probably ever know and I’d do pretty much anything on the off-chance it’d make your life a little bit better.”

But Duffin said their relationship soured and he did not talk with her again until after the Rolling Stone article was published. Once the Rolling Stone account was revealed to be erroneous in late 2014, Duffin exchanged a last series of messages with Jackie.

Duffin wrote: “So if I can just ask a question, then … Why did you tell us before the date ever happened that his name was Haven? Haven Monahan? A name that belongs to no UVA student ever? Why has the name changed since then?”

Jackie wrote back: “His last name was Monahan and he called himself Haven. His first name was John or jake or something. And he was there that night but he was a bystander. He wasn’t involved. Not really.”

In an interview Friday, Duffin lamented that the unfortunate episode that was an integral part of his freshman year at U-Va. became the central focus of police investigations, newspaper accounts and now lawsuits in state and federal court.

“Had any of us been contacted it never would have blown up like this,” Duffin said of the Rolling Stone account. noting that he and two others who met with Jackie the night of the attack were not interviewed prior to the story running. “It’s weird to think that an entire portion of my life was consumed by these events that looking back looks so dumb. Given the way everything’s turned out, I don’t think that’s the way I want to describe it, but I had a lot of naivete three years ago. It’s just weird all around.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Had any of us been contacted it never would have blown up like this,” Duffin said of the Rolling Stone account. noting that he and two others who met with Jackie the night of the attack were not interviewed prior to the story running.
Shouldn't be surprised but I find it amazing that an article like this could make it into Rolling Stone without even the most basic background research.

 
That site is a mess. :oldunsure:
The guy who made the site is a right wing ###hole but no mainstream site would publish anything about her even after it was proven she is a fraud.
I just checked the WaPo article from today:

The court documents redact Jackie’s last name, and The Post generally does not identify people who are purported victims of sex crimes.
- It's about time to move on from this.

 
 


Attorneys for ‘Jackie’ in Rolling Stone lawsuit protest under-oath deposition, say it could ‘re-traumatize’ her


Lawyers representing a former University of Virginia student who claimed she was the victim of a gang rape in a discredited Rolling Stone story have asked a judge to cancel her scheduled deposition in a lawsuit against the magazine, arguing that she would be “re-traumatized” if she is compelled to recount her ordeal in proceedings under oath.

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/30/lawyers-for-jackie-in-rolling-stone-lawsuit-protest-under-oath-deposition-say-it-could-re-traumatize-her/?postshare=5721459340842305&tid=ss_tw

- Lying liar who lied and destroyed lives claims she will be retraumatized by recounting something that never happened.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top