July 6, 2016
That's the address which the Washington Post has provided for the text of Ms. Erdely's declaration of support for Rolling Stone's and all defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Those are pictures of part of Ms. Erdely's declaration.
The Rolling Stone article said that Drew was a junior in 2012. If he was a junior for the 2012-2013 school year and a senior for the 2013-2014 school year, then he could have been a graduate student in December 2014.
The Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement said that the police had interviewed someone who had worked at the aquatic center, who was a member in 2006 of a fraternity that was not Phi Kappa Psi, and whose work schedule and financial records "may have been relevant" to Jackie's narrative about being taken to dinner on the night of September 28, 2012, before she was raped.
The police statement also said that the person whom they interviewed was spoken to by police in the presence of his legal counsel.
The police statement also said that the University of Virginia had records that "may have been relevant" to the investigation, which the school did not disclose to the police.
If, after the Rolling Stone article was first published and the misogynist media and Phi Kappa Psi were beginning their attacks, there were confusion and fear among Jackie, her friends, and Ms. Erdely, it's not surprising. If Drew had told Jackie that he was in Phi Kappa Psi, that would be confusing for anyone; it's not as if someone who wants to rape you or to watch people rape you isn't going to lie to you and a lot of other people.
Did Drew rape someone while he was a student at the University of Virginia in or before 2006? Was he suspended or did he voluntarily leave the school until he was matriculated again in or before 2012? Did the University of Virginia not only never try to get him prosecuted for the felony of a rape in or before 2006, but did the school also facilitate the rape of Jackie in 2012 by accepting him as a student again even though the school knew him to be a sexual predator, and then also accept him as a graduate student despite Jackie's report of rape?
That's the address of the March 23, 2015 Washington Post article that says it provides the text of the Charlottesville Police Department's statement.
That's a picture of part of the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement.
Those are also pictures of the March 23, 2015 police statement.
The statement says that the police identified someone who worked at the aquatic center "at the same time as" Jackie, who does not seem to have been working at the aquatic center when the police identified and interviewed him. How did the police identify him if he wasn't working at the aquatic center when the police did the investigation, and if he also was never a member of Phi Kappa Psi? Was it from information that the police got from people who knew him and Jackie from the aquatic center?
The Charlottesville Police Department knew that "Drew" is a pseudonym from the Rolling Stone article. The statement treats "Drew" as a pseudonym right up until it says that the police checked the roster of the fraternity of which the person whom the police interviewed in the presence of his legal counsel was, according to the police, a member in 2006.
Did the police check that fraternity's roster for the real name of the person whom they had interviewed? Was he a member of that fraternity in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 and did the police lie to the public not only by ommitting that he was a member in those years but also by writing in the statement that "Drew," which name the police knew to be a pseudonym, wasn't on that fraternity's roster?
Jackie said that she was raped at the Phi Kappa Psi house. Three Phi Kappa Psi members have already described Jackie's description of where she was raped as being consistent with their fraternity.
The police statement says that the other fraternity had a "cook out for prospective members (on September 28, 2012), and a themed event on September 29, 2012. Both of these functions were listed on the social calendar."
Did "Drew" and Phi Kappa Psi plan to rape Jackie on a weekend when DREW'S fraternity had parties planned for both nights, so Phi Kappa Psi could later say that it had no party on the night of September 28, 2012? Was September 28, 2012 one of the only weekend nights of the Fall 2012 semester when Phi Kappa Psi didn't have something officially scheduled?
Jackie was a good student when she got to the University of Virginia. If Drew had asked her to dinner for a night that wasn't on the weekend, would she have hesitated, because she had homework to do? Did he and Phi Kappa Psi plan the weekend of September 28-29th for a gang rape? Saturday for the rape; Sunday for whatever happened after the rape, so that they wouldn't miss class if they had to spend a few hours laughing at police officers, calling their parents, calling their fraternity advisors or having meetings about what to say to the media.
It's already clear that fraternities routinely try not to register the parties at which they plan to hurt people. It could be that the way to read the Fall 2012 social calendar for Phi Kappa Psi 2012 is by all the parties that it had that were scheduled, because those were the nights when Phi Kappa Psi knew that it couldn't later deny that it had had parties.
It could be that the social calendars for all fraternities should be read that way; if you want to know which nights are those designated for hazing and sexual assault, they are every night of the week for which the fraternities have no formally scheduled events.
It is also obvious from the entire Charlottesville Police Department's statement how much Jackie got bullied by police officers, until she finally stopped talking to them, for which they called her uncooperative.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, July 6, 2016 @ 6:48 p.m.
