That's the address of a Washington Post article from May 18, 2016, by T. Rees Shapiro, the male graduate of a private high school in Virginia and also Virginia Tech who led the Washington Post's attacks on the Rolling Stone article, and who is described by the Washington Post as an "education reporter," not a crime reporter.
The article is called "Lawyers in Rolling Stone lawsuit file new evidence that 'Jackie' created false persona."
Jackie's friends knew that Jackie had tried to get Ryan to like her by "catfishing" him with an identity that she had created. They all thought it was cute, and Ryan had accepted her invitation to a concert for his birthday that she paid for. She paid for the bus tickets. She paid for the concert tickets. She paid for the dress that she never got to wear to the concert because she wore it the night that she was raped, after which Ryan and her other friends decided they didn't want to be friends with her anymore because the University of Virginia is a school where rape is tolerated and rape victims are victim-blamed.
Ryan also told the Columbia Journalism Review that he hadn't had contact with Jackie during a span of time when he actually had; that was proven by the transcripts of their texts to each other that were disclosed to the media and the public.
"Catfishing" is something that seems to be a part of the Internet generation's wooing tactics. It's not a mature thing to do, but it's not that much unlike all the attempted manipulations of me by movie stars who keep trying to prove their love for me in movies that I usually don't even pay to see when they're in the theater, except that those movie stars harass me, ridicule me, threaten me with voyeurism and involuntary pornography, and even sometimes threaten to kill me because I reject them and Jackie never did anything like that to anyone.
Jackie didn't have a reason to fake a rape story; Ryan had already agreed to go to the concert with her. What I have said before is that it seems like what might have happened is that she went on a real date with Drew, who is a real person, and she had previously told her friends that the date was with Haven Monahan. When she was raped, she didn't want to have to tell her friends that Haven Monahan wasn't real, because she didn't want them not to believe that she was raped.
Haven Monahan was not a malicious lie; Jackie being raped was a malicious reality.
Who has interpreted the "data from Yahoo" that Dean Eramo's lawyers are saying mean all sorts of things? Is it an analyst whom Dean Eramo's lawyers hired? If so, has that person had to testify and also be questioned by Jackie's lawyers?
The Washington Post article says:
"Data also shows that Jackie has not fully complied with a court order to hand over everything in her possession for evidence that could be used in the trial for the lawsuit, Eramo's lawyer wrote."
Is that how "Eramo's lawyer" wrote that assertion, or is it Mr. Shapiro's form of presentation? Is seems vague. Is that assertion a conflation of whatever it was that Dean Eramo's lawyers were able to get from Yahoo and their interpretation or presentation of it with Dean Eramo's lawyers ongoing attacks on Jackie?
The next sentence in the Washington Post article is "They have deposed her, under court order, regarding the Rolling Stone story, but parties to the lawsuit have been barred from discussing that deposition."
The deposition happened on April 7, 2016. Also, Dean Eramo's lawyers tried to have stricken from that deposition everything that Jackie said that Dean Eramo's lawyers couldn't use in service of the lawsuit.
Is that the deposition that Mr. Shapiro is referring to, or is he saying that there's another deposition relating to the "data" from Yahoo, or is he nonsensically trying to mislead people by implying that the deposition to which Jackie was already subjected in the first week of April of 2016 was about the "data" that's "new" at the time that the Post published his article on May 18, 2016?
This is a quote from the Post article, quoting one of Dean Eramo's lawyers:
"'Jackie was the primary source for Rolling Stone's false and defamatory article that included her story about being the victim of a violent sexual assault,' Libby Locke, one of Eramo's attorneys, told The Post earlier this year. 'But there is no evidence whatsoever that the story that Jackie told her friends, or the very different story that she told Rolling Stone, actually transpired. Instead, it appears that Jackie fabricated her perpetrator and the details of the alleged assault.'"
Jackie was far from being the "primary source" for the Rolling Stone article. A lot of people were interviewed for the Rolling Stone article; this is a quote from the Rolling Stone article, with an identifying name for the mother of a female student taken out:
"In 2002 and 2004, two female students...were unhappy with their sexual misconduct hearings, which each felt didn't hold their alleged perpetrators accountable--and each was admonished by UVA administrators to never speak publicly about the proceedings or else they could face expulsion for violating the honor code. For issuing that directive, in 2008 UVA was found in violation of the Clery Act.
'UVA is more egregious than most,' says John Foubert, a UVA dean from 1998 to 2002, and founder of the national male sex-assault peer education group One in Four. 'I've worked for five or six colleges, and the stuff I saw happen there definitely stands out.' For example, Foubert recalls, in one rare case in which the university applied a harsh penalty, an undergrad was suspended after stalking five students. Heated discussion ensued over whether the boy should be allowed back after his suspension. Though the counseling center wanted him to stay gone, Foubert says, the then-dean of students argued in favor of his return, saying 'We can pick our lawsuit from a potential sixth victim, or from him, for denying him access to an education.'"
It would seem that the then-dean of students was saying that he or she feared a lawsuit from one male stalker more than from up to six female victims. How many female victims are equal to one male perpetrator, according to the University of Virginia and the courts of Virginia?
The University of Virginia prohibited Dean Eramo from being interviewed by Rolling Stone before the article was published, so if Dean Eramo has a problem with the way that she was portrayed in the article, she should be confronting the University of Virginia about it.
It seems to me that Drew's financial records and the records that the University of Virginia refused to disclose, both of which were called records that "may have been relevant" by the Charlottesville police department, which then did some sort of investigation of the fraternity of which Drew was a member in 2006, probably are relevant to the case. It seems to me that what the Charlottesville police department discovered was that Drew's financial records corroborate Jackie's story that she had dinner with Drew on the night in 2012 that she was later raped. I also think that the University of Virginia should be subpoenaed for records pertaining to whether or not Drew was suspended from the University of Virginia in 2006 because he's a rapist.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, June 13, 2016 @ 5:56 p.m.
