Those are pictures of part of an ABC News article that was published last night.
When I watched the video at the beginning of the ABC article, it was prefaced by an ad for VOYA Financial. Is VOYA Financial one of the many organizations that is hacking my phone and otherwise criminally invading my privacy?
The video has segments from the 20/20 broadcast. This is a picture from that video of what Ms. Robach wore when she interviewed Ms. Eramo:
The end of the video has a discussion between Ms. Robach and David Muir. Mr. Muir was promoted by ABC in 2013. He used to work at WCVB in Boston, whose coded news stories promoting sexual crime and persecuting me I had publicly documented several times since living in homeless shelters in Boston from 2011.
At the end of the video, there's a discussion between Ms. Robach and Mr. Muir, in which the assertion that many people have used to say that the Rolling Stone article has hurt rape victims by reinforcing the idea that a lot of people who say they were raped are lying is made again.
These are a couple of pictures of that part of the video:
Ms. Robach tells Mr. Muir that the incidence of false rape reporting is very rare. If she believes it's true that most people who say that they were raped are telling the truth, then how would she explain that people who say they were raped are almost always accused of lying?
This is the address for that article:
What Ms. Eramo avoided saying in her interview with WUVA is that the University of Virginia does not try to get felony charges against rapists and that the University of Virginia re-admits people whom the school knows have committed rape.
At the University of Virginia, if you are a first-year student who is raped by another undergraduate student, the only way for you never to have to see the person who raped you again is for you to transfer to another school.
This is the address for the first page of results for a Google search of the term "eramo says apologies are not enough":
This is a picture of part of the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement:
There's no proof at all that there wasn't a party at the Phi Kappa Psi house on September 28, 2012. Although the Charlottesville Police Department has to know that it is routine for fraternities not to register or publicize parties at which they plan to rape people, even scheduled events don't have records.
These are pictures of the first page of results for a Google search from today of the term "fraternities suspended unregistered parties":
This is the address for that page:
These are also pictures of part of the Charlottesville Police Department's statement:
How was that "male subject...identified" to the police? Who told the police something about him that made the police question him "in the presence of legal counsel," which the police probably told him that he could have before they questioned him? How did that formal questioning by the police get scheduled and take place? The police are deliberate about the contrast between their description of Jackie as "uncooperative" with the police investigation and everyone else whom they investigated as being "cooperative." Nowhere does the statement say "We bullied Jackie into silence every time that we talked to her and we coddled and lied for everyone else," but it should.
Why was Drew an undergraduate and a fraternity member at the University of Virginia in 2006 and then a junior at the University of Virginia in 2012?
Was he suspended for rape and then re-admitted to the school?
This is another picture of part of the police statement:
Both the Charlottesville Police Department and the President of the University of Virginia have implied to the public that the records which "may have been relevant" to the police investigation were about Jackie. Why does anyone believe that the records which "may have been relevant" and that the police didn't try to subpoena from the school were about Jackie and not about Drew and other male students accused of rape?
This is the address for the Washington Post's reprint of the March 23, 2015 police statement:
This is a picture of part of the Rolling Stone article:
Who are "Armpit" and "Blanket"?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 20, 2016 @ 10:59 a.m.
