These are pictures of part of a Washington Post article that was published last night:
So the University of Virginia has not abandoned Ms. Eramo, and the 20/20 broadcast was a manipulation of public sentiment. Whether or not Ms. Eramo wins her lawsuit against Rolling Stone, she won't be fired. She's embarrassed, but her life is not ruined the way that Jackie's is and her ability to work is not jeopardized the way that Ms. Erdely's is.
This is also a picture of part of the article:
Jackie did not refuse to identify Drew to Ms. Erdely; Ms. Erdely's June 30, 2016 court filing says that Jackie gave her a name. The name of the person that Jackie gave her was consistent with what Jackie had told Ms. Erdely about Drew being a junior in the Fall semester of 2012, which meant that he would have graduated in the Spring semester of 2014. Has anyone investigated if the name that Jackie gave Ms. Erdely was of someone whose fraternity is the same fraternity affiliated with the "individual" that the Charlottesville police department's March 23, 2015 statement said the Charlottesville police had identified and interviewed in the presence of his lawyer?
If Drew had lied to Jackie that he was in Phi Kappa Psi, that doesn't mean that Jackie's a vicious liar who likes hurting people, it means that he's a vicious liar who likes hurting people, which criminals tend to be.
If he was a graduate student at the University of Virginia in the Fall semester of 2014, that would also explain why he was at the campus and searchable from the school's directory as a current student at all.
If Drew was known to the University of Virginia as a rapist in 2006 and in 2012, and he was also accepted to graduate school at the University of Virginia in 2014, what does that say about how the University of Virginia deals with rape? Is he the son of a wealthy alumnus or another wealthy and powerful person? What's next for him? The Presidency?
Ms. Erdely's June 30, 2016 filing also describes another student whose name was known to some of Jackie's friends and who was in Phi Kappa Psi. Has anyone investigated that person?
Is he one of the Phi Kappa Psi members whose lawsuit against Rolling Stone was dismissed?
The Rolling Stone article is about a gang rape, not a rape by one person, so there will be more than one name for the perpetrators.
Nobody from the media ever asks me if anything that the media deliberately does to ruin my reputation is true. Not that I want to talk to any of the people who treat me that way, but I guess they think that believing and propagating every rumor that anyone starts about me, ridiculing me together, plagiarizing and distorting what I say and write, hacking my phone and otherwise criminally invading my privacy, and telling the world to criminally victimize me are all actions that prove that I'm a bad person who deserves what's happening to me, no matter how many times I write and talk about anything or how consistent I am.
What about all the lies that Jackie's former friends have told? Why does nobody talk about the discrepancies between what they have told reporters to salvage their reputations and what the transcripts of Ryan's texts with Jackie and with "Haven Monahan" prove?
Ryan even lied to the Columbia Journalism Review about when the last time was that he had spoken to Jackie.
This is another picture of part of the Washington Post article:
The Charlottesvillle police are lying about all sorts of things having to do with their investigation.
The Washington Post does not seem to want to admit that the Post is responsible for the inaccurate discrediting of the Rolling Stone article and for leading the media's intimidation of Jackie, Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone.
These are pictures of contiguous parts of Ms. Erdely's June 30, 2016 court filing, which describe the effects that the intimidation from the biased reporting by the Washington Post and the monetary power of Phi Kappa Psi had on her and everyone who had contributed to the Rolling Stone article:
Ms. Erdely's June 30, 2016 court filing also describes the way that Ms. Eramo told Jackie and people who worked for Ms. Eramo not to give identifying information to Ms. Erdely. If the author of last night's Washington Post article had read the entire document, she would know that, and maybe she wouldn't be blaming Jackie for being afraid to give Ms. Erdely names.
This is the address for it, provided months ago by the Washington Post:
This is the address for the Washington Post article that was published last night, which is called "Rolling Stone attorney contests charge that article devastated U-Va. dean's career":
The article was written by Moriah Balingit, another "Education Reporter," whose title is also that of T. Rees Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro did most of the Post's previous reporting about the Rolling Stone article. He also later manipulated another alleged victim of sexual assault at the University of Virginia into giving the Post her permission to print her full name for an article which she didn't know would be slanted to permanently humiliate her online while her alleged perpetrator remained anonymous.
Mr. Shapiro also was interviewed for the 20/20 broadcast, in which he answered dishonestly when he was asked if he had approached the Rolling Stone article intending to discredit it.
No media article or broadcast published about the Rolling Stone article since the Washington Post began to attack Rolling Stone has been unprejudiced or has not had a preconceived conclusion. The Washington Post is a much more prestigious newspaper than Rolling Stone, and so its biased and inaccurate reporting by people who know nothing about sexual assault or its investigation is taken more seriously than Ms. Erdely's reporting, even though Ms. Erdely has investigated and reported about sexual assault for years and so is familiar with the lies that institutions tell to discredit the victims and protect the perpetrators and the institutions' reputations. Since Ms. Erdely is also familiar with the way that victims of sexual assault are attacked by the media, she knew that the Washington Post's attacks would ruin her professional reputation.
If the Washington Post had published the Rolling Stone article, and Rolling Stone had then attacked the Washington Post, Rolling Stone would have gotten laughed at and forgotten. Rolling Stone could never have led the media to condemn a Washington Post article.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 20, 2016 @ 9:58 a.m.
