Since Phi Kappa Psi says that there was no party at the Phi Kappa Psi house on September 28, 2012, that would suggest that the Phi Kappa Psi members did something else that night, and they probably did whatever that was somewhere else. Does everyone have an alibi that anyone has verified, or has the world accepted that one time stamped picture showing one person is good enough?
What about this person?
Those are pictures of part of the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement.
Do the financial records of the "male subject" indicate what time he had dinner? Every purchase made with a card has the time of purchase electronically recorded somewhere, doesn't it?
Does he have a verified alibi for where he was later that night?
If the police didn't think that his work schedule and financial records were actually relevant to the Rolling Stone article, then why did the police continue to investigate his fraternity, which was not Phi Kappa Psi?
Jackie told Ms. Erdely that Jackie had identified the fraternity where she was raped during an appointment with then-Dean Eramo, that Ms. Eramo had shown Jackie pictures to help Jackie identify the place. Jackie also told Ms. Erdely that Ms. Eramo had done a beginning investigation about whether there was a party at Phi Kappa Psi on September 28, 2012 and that Ms. Eramo had said that there was a party. That's part of Ms. Erdely's June 30, 2016 court filing.
Ms. Erdely gave her notes from her conversations with Jackie to the court with her June 30, 2016 filing.
If Jackie had plagiarized Ms. Seccuro's book, why would she need pictures of fraternities shown to her by Ms. Eramo to identify Phi Kappa Psi?
What I asked in writing at this blog weeks ago was if Ms. Erdely's notes from her conversations with Jackie looked like something that Ms. Erdely had faked after the Rolling Stone article was discredited. I don't have those notes, but the judge later specifically wrote in his September 22, 2016 ruling that the fraternity had produced evidence that there was no party, and it doesn't seem to me that's true.
For an authority to acknowledge that there was a party at Phi Kappa Psi on September 28, 2012 would be for Ms. Eramo's and Phi Kappa Psi's lawsuits to collapse and would also create the obvious imperative to start another criminal investigation. So far, no authority has wanted to take the starring, public role in this controversy, get sued, or get fired.
If someone wants to say that Jackie lied to Ms. Eramo that Ms. Erdely had verified that there was a party at Phi Kappa Psi on September 28, 2012, my question is this: why would Jackie tell that lie? How would she know that a tactic of fraternities to avoid prosecution is to lie about their parties? Why isn't it probable that Ms. Eramo knew that the first thing to investigate was whether there was a party, Ms. Eramo who has worked at the University of Virginia for years and knows what fraternities do?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 20, 2016 @ 2:09 p.m.
